Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Before he became defined as Nick Charles in the Thin Man Series, William Powell played another urbane detective named Philo Vance. The supporting cast is strong in this early talkie, and Powell's star quality is evident. Mary Astor, who eight years later would be defined by her portrayal of Brigid O'Shaughnessy, does a good job here as the featured woman who finds herself in the middle of it all.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I should admit first I am a huge fan of The Dandy Warhols, and that is the reason I came watching this film.

The uniqueness of this film, compared to other modern rockumentaries, is that it's not just about one page of a band's history (like "I Am Trying To Break Your Heart", about Wilco), but rather covers long period of the band's history. In this movie, director/producer Ondi Timoner closely followed friends/rivals The Brian Jonestown Massacre (BJM) and The Dandy Warhols (DW) for more than 8 years (1995 - 2003) and shoot tremendous 1500 hours of raw video, cut than to 1:45 hours (the future DVD release will contain much more material than the original film). The result is astonishing - there are no fillers - the film is 100% pure and genuine archive footage, which gives you feeling as film progresses that you live with the bands, through all these years.

Both bands in the start of their careers promised to "make a revolution" in the music making, and not to sell their souls to the devil of "record industry". However, their paths quickly diverged - The Dandy Warhols signed a contract with Capitol Records and became relatively popular (especially in Europe) after only one album, while The Brian Jonestown Massacre (with its self-destruction-bound leader Anton Newcombe) dissolved into oblivion (at least how it is portrayed in the film). And the movie follows the descent of The Brian Jonestown Massacre, contrasted by the ascent of The Dandy Warhols.

First, I was delighted by the movie and its approach of telling the story of Anton Newcombe (for example, Courtney Taylor - the leader of The Dandy Warhols - narrates), but after some thinking I realized that something is wrong with this film.

First, it treats Anton Newcombe as a disappeared person. The project started in 1995 as a documentary about several promising emerging groups, in which Anton Newcombe and Ondi Timoner were equal partners (that was the reason why all these years Ondi Timoner had unmediated access to the both bands). It was Anton Newcombe who brought The Dandy Warhols into the project. In the end he was ignored completely, as if he was kicked out of the project. Everybody talk about BJM, but he does not take part in the discussion. I guess he wasn't even informed when the group started the final editing process. There are always both sides of the story, and here we have only one... Of course, as one would expect, Anton does not approve the final result and sees this movie as a betrayal of his former friends.

Second, the film is very Dandy Warhols-biased. Sure, the winner takes it all, but the fact that Courtney Taylor (leader of DW) narrates (even though it seems a good choice - it provides a feeling of seemingly closer involvement) and that bands' late history is represented nonproportionally (BJM is covered till 1997, and DW - till 2003), does not add objectivity to the film.

Third, the movie is (somewhat) shallow. What does it want to teach us? As one critic said: "... movie examines old questions: where does genius fit into a commodified world? Can it thrive and get its due, or does it need to self-destruct to preserve its integrity?" No, IT DOES NOT EXAMINE these questions! It just depicts a story of a brilliant, but unsuccessful musician, narrated by a less brilliant, but successful one, who indulges in self-assurance and eternal coolness of an ego greater than mountain.

Anyway, the movie was fun - it's raw, it's fresh, it's stylish, it's ... just god damn interesting, at least for the DW or BJM fans. For the rest of the crowd - I don't know...
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:The tweedy professor-types thought they had it all figured out. Today's peoples who inhabit Polynesia descended from migratory Asians, intrepidly moving from the Far East, island to island, eastward into Tahiti and all the other exotic tropic isles of the South Pacific over thousands of years. But the established thinking just didn't sit well with young Norwegian ethnographer Thor Heyerdahl. If that explanation were true, how come some folks born and bred in those islands have traditions, artwork, and physical features resembling not those from Asia, but South America? How can the vegetation of Ecuador, Peru and Chile look so much like what you'd find on the island several thousand miles away? Is it just a coincidence that the Islanders point out to sea in the direction of South America and say that is where their ancestors came from, led by Tiki, their equivalent of Adam? Meanwhile, how is it Norwegians speak of Scandanavian forerunners who were chased from the South American continent they had colonized, and, together with some of the native peoples they befriended, set off over the sea -- heading WEST? It's all too much to be a coincidence to Heyerdahl. With an amazing amount of moxie, a handful of crewmen, and the local know-how for traditional raft-building, an expedition begins. It's as much a trip into the human imagination as it is a pseudo-scientific demonstration that such a journey is possible with only the very basics of tools and seamanship. The Oscar-winning documentary may be dated in its tone and Anglo-ethnocentric approach, but it soars with a spirit of adventure besting even the space program that launched a decade later, as men are willing to risk it all to test a theory they think is true. Wonderful. Do yourself a favor and read the book first. It is an amazing page-turner and the perfect setup for the newsreel-style movie.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:As I saw the movie I was really shocked to see what the 60's was about. I know I may be wrong about some things, but it seemed like the 60's really had an effect on people of the time. Some people said they would want to go back to the 60's. From what I saw I would say yes for the excitement and no for the outcome. But that's my opinion.
+++++++++
A:
positive