Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: I liked this a lot. In fact, if I see it again(and I plan to) I just may love it. I'll echo other reviewers in saying that this movie really does grow on you as you watch. It starts kind of slowly but the way in enfolds is very natural and has a mood to it. You just get into it.

I really liked the summery atmosphere to the movie and thought the movie was very touching as a whole. The characters have a strong element of realism and the movie very slowly and gently weaves a spell as you get involved in the various interactions between them all and want to know how it will ultimately turn out and what paths the characters will choose to take.

I am very surprised that there are less then a dozen comments on this-there are obscure TV movies that have more comments then Rich In Love.

One thing that I will say is I missed the ending which is driving me crazy and I HAVE to watch it again to see that. This is a movie that may not be for everybody but that I feel is strongly underrated(even some of my most film buff purist friends who have seen almost every movie there is haven't seen this) and it doesn't even seem to have much of a message board but I liked it a lot and to all those who like family dramas that are warm on scenery, atmosphere and an unhurried languid pace should probably take a look at this. Especially note worthy is that it takes place in South Carolina so for those (like me) who love the south, and movies that take place there, this is a gem. I'll add my vote to the woefully few comments and recommend this little known flick.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: This film is a Pia Zadora special! When viewing it, I was reminded of the classic cartoon showing a Hollywood starlet; in urgent need of another role but afraid of becoming typecast for 'B' movie or soft porn roles; who says at her casting session "Well of course I do not normally do roles requiring nudity, but if it is artistically necessary for the film...............". This recollection brought up a very naughty image of a similar cartoon showing Pia at such a session saying "Well of course I do not normally take any roles requiring actual acting, but if it will really give me sufficient exposure to enhance my status as a sex symbol..................". This is probably grossly unfair, the rather sordid tale is the fault of Harold Robbins book; considering the nature of the story Pia's exposures certainly do not receive undue attention, and perhaps Pia (who once won an acting award in Butterfly) is deliberately satirising her part rather than attempting to act in an almost unplayable role. Critics usually point first to the actors as the problem whenever a film proves disappointing, but this is grossly unfair; the scriptwriters and director are far more often the guilty parties. The real problem with "The Lonely Lady" is that the screenplay, like the original book, looks for sensation rather than substance, and nothing can help with this.

The screenplay for this film is abysmal, but whether the story could have been filmed more successfully with a better script, tauter directing and really competent acting must remain a matter of personal judgement. As it was released, my viewers rating for it would depend upon whether I am assessing my personal opinion, or assessing to what extent the film succeeds in providing what it aims at doing. My personal rating for it would be two out of ten; but to some extent this film probably provides exactly what its sponsors intended, and judged on this basis a quality rating of four out of ten would be reasonable. Being in a charitable mood, and wanting to make it clear that I am not blaming Pia for my disappointment, I will give an IMDb rating of four.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: I have a thing for old black and white movies of this kind, movies by Will Hay and Abbot & Costello especially as those are my favourites. I picked this movie up on DVD as it was using the same idea as Will Hay's "Oh Mr Porter" which is one of the finest comedies ever made. I just finished watching this movie less than ten minutes ago (the movie finished at 12:45am). I find that movies of this kind, to do with Ghost Trains, etc, are best viewed at night time with the lights out. That way you get into the storyline more and night time viewing works well with this movie.

The one-liners in the movie may seem a little dated to some viewers, I guess this depends on the viewer. They are not dated to me though. I am 28 and even though I am not old enough to have been around when this movie was first released (my dad was though). I still have a lot of appreciation for some of the old movies of this kind. Sitting in the room in front of the TV with some snacks and drinks and kicking back and relaxing at night while watching these movies, not many things can beat the feeling you get while doing this. It is an escape from reality for a while.

I noticed that one of the men in the movie (he has a black mustache) he appears about three quarters of the way through the movie after his car crashes and he is looking for a woman he was followed to the station. This man was in the Will Hay classic "The Ghost of St Michaels" as well. Just thought I'd point that out in case no one noticed :).

The set pieces in the movie are very atmospheric. Outside the abandoned station looks good and as if there is not a soul for miles in any direction, and the inside of the station is very cosy looking away from the rain storm that is outside. I felt like I would have loved to have been there in the movie with the cast. The atmosphere in this movie is something that is missing from a lot of movies now. It keeps you hooked from the moment the movie starts till it finishes.

We need more of this type of movie in todays market. But sadly it could be over looked in favour of movies with nudity and swearing and crude humour. This sort of movie making era (The Ghost Train, Oh Mr Porter, etc) to me is the golden age of cinema!.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer:
While this movie's style isn't as understated and realistic as a sound version probably would have been, this is still a very good film. In fact, it was seen as an excellent film in its day, as it was nominated for the first Best Picture Oscar (losing to WINGS). I still consider WINGS to be a superior film, but this one is excellent despite a little bit of overacting by the lead, Emil Jannings.

Jannings is a general from Czarist Russia who is living out his final days making a few bucks in the 1920s by being a Hollywood extra. His luck appears to have changed as he gets a casting call--to play an Imperial Russian general fighting against the Communists during the revolution. Naturally this isn't much of a stretch acting-wise, but it also gets the old man to thinking about the old days and the revolution.

Exactly what happens next I'll leave to you, but it's a pretty good film--particularly at the end. By the way, look for William Powell as the Russian director. Despite being made in 1928, with the makeup he doesn't look much younger than he did in many of his later films.