Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:Now I'll be the first to admit it when I say something that may be blasphemous or unfair, so I would like to apologize in advance for my ranting about how much I disliked this movie.

That about sums it up too. I disliked this movie. To be more specific, I disliked the concept of this movie. The cinematography was good. The mood was nice. And the acting was satisfactory.

However, the story is fatuous, unacurate and misleading. It is also offensive.

I am a quarter Cree Indian, and for some reason I feel insulted, on a personal level, by the nature of Whitaker's character. First of all, he's a black guy. And this isn't a racist remark, I swear. The thought of a White, Hispanic or even Native American swinging a katana on a rooftop offends everything that the katana represents. The katana represents the soul of a Samurai, imbibed with the souls of his ancestors who guide and protect the Samurai. For Ghost Dog to use his guns instead of the Katana is also an insult to the blade and the souls inside, and where the heck did he get a Katana anyway? It must be one of those replicas, which insults the Samurai caste even more.

Also, Ghost Dog showed no honor. Near the end of the movie, he shoots a bodyguard in the back through a window and then assassinates a man by shooting him in the face through a faucet drain. Not only is this a cowards way to kill an enemy, it's more like a ninjas way; silent assassins; a group that samurais deny exists, but hates none-the-less.

Then he tries to kill his boss, when he finds out his boss is a baddie. You know what a true Samurai does when he learns his master is proven bad or dishonorable? He kills himself, to prove that he would rather die then lower himself to the level of his doggish master.

Everything about the character was a giant contradiction to the real code that all Samurai adhere to: Bushido.

So, we have great cinematography, good ambiance and so-so acting encompassing a satiricle plot and premise, (which unfortunately is the most important aspect of it) , making it an unsatisfactory overall film, and an insult to everything a honorable bushi(samurai) holds dear.

2.5/10 Bleah
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:This is a sublime piece of film-making. It flows at just the right pace throughout. The accompanying music fits perfectly and is very pleasant to the ear. The humorous parts are hilarious and made even more so by the largely depressingly tragic nature of the film.

However, despite much comment about the inherent tragedy of the storyline it was anything but depressing for me to watch. I thoroughly enjoyed it in a way that I haven't experienced for a long time. That is to say, it is superb and yet without all the common trappings of modern films such as; sex, violence and unnecessary special effects.

'Dan In Real Life' lacks nothing for being without the regular vices. It has a fully matured plot that just doesn't require, and indeed would be ruined by, any further embellishment. At the same time, the theme is entirely adult. It's a piece of art in and of itself that encapsulates you entirely and you want for nothing more than it already offers.

There are some scenes that feel a bit 'Waltons' but these actually make perfect sense in the long run as they contrast the more dysfunctional moments. The rosier makes way for the tragic which then gives over to the idyllic which turns to the darker etc. This undulating landscape of emotional cinematography creates a perfect balance and keeps the viewer in a state of lithium-like stability. The peaks and troughs are gentle but more than adequate in the pleasure they instill.

I highly recommend watching this film regardless of what genre you normally enjoy. Put aside any prejudices because this is a must see!
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:I just came from seeing this movie and decided to see what others thought of it. I'm left wondering if these people who give glowing reviews saw the same film! This is potentially a very good story, but it fails to hit the mark. The script is very weak - the plot has so many holes that it would make a great dip net for the fishing scenes. The characters were not well developed and the storyline jumps around so much that I found myself asking the question "How did we get here?" at least a half dozen times during the movie.

There was a lack of any chemistry between the cast members. This is probably related to Lindsay Lohan's antics during the filming. It was pretty clear that everyone showed up and did their job, but didn't commit to their roles.

This is not a movie worth seeing...go for a walk, play a board game, take a nice warm bath and save your money for something that's worth it!
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:I saw this film a couple of weeks ago, and it's been stuck in my head ever since. It stars two spellbinding characters in what is unfortunately a mediocre documentary. To get the true story of the Beales, I had to wade through all of the DVD's bonus material and commentaries and search the web.

Although the Maysles and their fans (not to mention Edith and Edie themselves) bristle at the suggestion that this film is exploitative, this is exploitation in the truest sense of the word. Very little effort is every made to explain the Beales or how they came to the condition they were in - the Maysles approach seems to be to just turn the camera on and wait for Edith and Edie to say something outrageous. The sound, even on the Criterion re-release is poor and difficult to follow. Although I appreciate this film was made somewhat early in the history of documentary film, it's ironic to compare it to Geraldo Rivera's (!) far superior series on the sexual abuse of mentally retarded patients at Willowbrook State School in Staten Island from 1972, four years before Grey Gardens was shot.

To paraphrase a review in the New Yorker, there were many things Edith and Edie needed in their lives, and a documentary wasn't one of them.

As for Edith and Edie, the thing I kept thinking while watching the film was "where the hell is their family"? They were living in dangerous, unhealthy, unsafe conditions. How is it that Jackie O, married to one of the richest men on Earth (or the wealthy Bouvier family themselves) couldn't afford to get Edith and Edie a decent home? Or at the very least hire a part-time housekeeper or caregiver to come in and keep an eye on them both? It's shameful and a lasting disgrace to the entire Bouvier family.

Although this review may sound negative I would strongly recommend Grey Gardens to anyone who enjoys documentaries. Perhaps someday someone will come along and do a documentary about this documentary - bringing in the rich backstory (and afterstory) of the Beales and the whole subsection of Hamptons society in the 1970's.
+++++++++
A:
positive