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

Review:I'm a big fan of Morgan Freeman. 'The Shawshank Redemption' ranks at the top of my all-time favorite movies. But I have to admit that I have often wondered about his choice of roles. So many of his titles were big budget cliches with no heart. '10 Items Or Less' for me marks the return of Freeman to a role that truly showcases his considerable acting talents.

Freeman plays an unnamed, formerly big time Hollywood actor who hasn't worked in several years. He has been offered a part in an unspecified indi picture for which he is doing some research at a grocery store in a poor neighborhood in LA. After being stranded there by his flaky driver, Freeman is offered a ride home by checkout girl Scarlet (Paz Vega), whom he has semi-befriended. Before she can take him home, however, Scarlet has a big job interview she needs to get to, and Freeman agrees to tag along in exchange for the ride.

The movie follows Scarlet and Freeman to several locations, but the movie is really just a character piece about the interactions between the two. Freeman is the quintessential disconnected Hollywood type who hasn't heard of Target, and doesn't know his own telephone number or even what day of the week it is. He spouts wisdom from the Dalai Lama filtered thru his 'the whole world is but a stage' mentality, and repeatedly calls Scarlet's job interview an 'audition'. And yet he has a way with people, a way of affecting them that extends beyond his fame. He is a fan of humanity. He studies them, asks incessant questions about them, and delights in their quirks where others would simply be annoyed. In Scarlet, he sees the stubborn, proud loner that he was; he sees the man he used to be.

Scarlet, for her part, displays a fierce pride and sharp tongue that serve to hide her own insecurities about herself. Vega plays the role with a connection to Freeman that skates the line between an almost daughterly love and physical attraction, although she plays it beautifully and it's not at all as creepy as it sounds. But even as she feels her connection to Freeman grow, Scarlet has a keen eye for the reality of their different worlds and cuts thru Freeman's Hollywood bull*hit with a sharp pragmatism that refuses to accept anything but the truth.

The movie is smart, funny, and well written, with dialogue that is simple but effective. I read one IMDb review that said the lines were 'stilted', which I think is a misinterpretation of realistic human speech. There are no big soliloquies here, no deep soul searching moments. And so the trick is, I think, to show how people in ordinary, everyday life can forge connections with one another. And I think Freeman and Vega pull it off beautifully, painting a picture of a bond between two people that glitters like sun on the ocean, ethereal and elusive. Long after it's gone it lives on in your memories, tantalizing you with what might have been. OK, that was a bit flowery, but I really did like the performances and the movie. I would definitely recommend it.
+++++++++
A: positive

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

Review:David Lynch's crude and crudely drawn take on South Park presents us with a nightmare of disturbing cliches about suburban middle class families. The father is a hideous monster with three teeth and a disproportionately large circular mouth-hole from which are uttered the most horrendous guttural noises, the son and mother are permanently horrified, incoherent creatures for whom terror is a way of life. A number of equally absurd characters are introduced throughout the series.

Lynch is not famous for his comedies (i.e. On the Air, aspects of Wild at Heart), and I am not particularly fond of comedies in general. However, there were a couple of scenes in Dumbland which made me laugh out loud. There are some clever bits of animated cinematography - where Lynch conveys wide ranges of reaction in his characters through a syntactical arrangement of shots as opposed to facial expressions (which never really vary in Dumbland).

I believe Lynch was really trying to give his audience a straight-forward, if disturbing, animated comedy here. Interestingly, he chose to follow in the footsteps of the recent wave of ultra-low-brow humor (i.e. most Will Farrell films) while adding elements of vicious social critique and classic cartoon violence and gross-out humor. While the blend doesn't really work very well here, it is nothing if not Lynchian.

Worth seeing by Lynch fans.
+++++++++
A: negative

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

Review:JUST CAUSE showcases Sean Connery as a Harvard law prof, Kate Capshaw (does she still get work?) as his wife (slight age difference) and Lawrence Fishburne as a racist southern cop (!) and Ed Harris in a totally over the top rendition of a fundamentalist southern serial killer.

Weird casting, but the movie plays serious mindf** with the audience. (don't read if you ever intend to seriously watch this film or to ever watch this film seriously due to the spoilers) First of all, I felt myself rolling my eyes repeatedly at the Liberal stereotypes: the cops are all sadistic and frame this black guy with no evidence. The coroner, witnesses and even the lawyer of the accused collaborate against him (he is accused of the rape and murder of a young girl) because he is black.

Connery is a Harvard law prof who gives impassioned speeches about the injustices against blacks and against the barbarous death penalty. He is approached by the convicted man's grandmother to defend him and re-open the trial.

Connery is stonewalled (yawn...) by the small town officials and the good IL' boys club but finds that the case against Blair, the alleged killer, now on death row, was all fabricated. The main evidence was his confession which was beaten out of him.

The beating was administered by a black cop (!) who even played Russian roulette to get the confession out of him. Connery finds out that another inmate on death row actually did the murder and after a few tete a tetes with a seriously overacting, Hannibal Lecter-like Ed Harris, he finds out where Harris hid the murder weapon.

He gets a re-trial and Blair is freed.

I think... film over....

Then suddenly! It turns out that Blair IS a psychotic psycho and that he used "white guilt" to enlist Connery. He concocted the story with Ed Harris in return for Blair carrying out a few murders for Harris.

now Blair is on the loose again, thanks to Connery's deluded PC principles! The final 30 min. are a weird action movie tacked onto a legal drama, Connery and Fishburne fighting the serial killer in an alligator skinning house on stilts (yes, you read that right) in the everglades.

That was one weird film.

So the whole system is corrupt and inefficient, the cops are all just bullies and Abu Graib type torturers, but the criminals are really psychotics and deserve to fry.

Truly depressing on every level! The system is completely rotten and the PC white guilt types who challenge it are seriously deluded too.

Two thumbs down. Connery obviously had to make a mortgage payment or something.
+++++++++
A:
negative