Problem: This review is like what?

Review:'They All Laughed' is a superb Peter Bogdanovich that is finally getting the recognition it deserves, and why? their are many reasons the fact that it's set in new york which truly sets the tone, the fantastic soundtrack, the appealing star turns from Ben Gazzara, and the late John Ritter who is superb. and of course no classic is complete without Audrey Hepburn. the film is a light and breezy romantic comedy that is very much in the vein of screwball comedy from the thirties, film is essentially about the Odyssey detective agency which is run by Gazzara who with his fellow detectives pot smoking and roller skating eccentric Blaine Novak(the films co-producer) and John Ritter, basically the Gazzara falls for a rich tycoon magnate's wife(Hepburn) and Ritter falls for beautiful Dorothy Stratten who sadly murdered infamously after production, 'They All Laughed is essential viewing for Bogdanovich fans.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:STAR RATING: ***** Unmissable **** Very Good *** Okay ** You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead * Avoid At All Costs

Stuck-up career bitch Kate (Franka Potente) heads to the London underground to catch a train to take her to meet George Clooney. However, after a hectic working day, she dozes off and awakens to find herself alone in a deserted platform. As she races off on a situation taking her from one daunting encounter to the next, however, she learns of something far more malign and evil waiting for her out there.

In a lot of ways, the British Film Industry is really becoming one on it's own, especially in the horror thriller department, with films such as Creep and the successful 28 Days Later (which this has strong echoes of in parts.) In terms of succeeding in what it set out to do, Creep does cleverly create (especially at the beginning) a scary sense of isolation and tense fear. At it's clever running time, it also (though inadvertently, I suspect) manages to pay homage to some of those pioneer high-concept horror films from the 70s that rely on shocks and fear through-out without really focusing too much on character development and such.

Of it's weaknesses, some scenes are a little predictable, but these don't really succeed in making it less scary or effective in any way. I'm not sure if the ending was meant to make it come off as some sort of morality play and it's not exactly perfect, but it's certainly very effective and serves it's basic function very well. ***
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Listening to the director's commentary confirmed what I had suspected whilst watching the film: this is a movie made by a guy who wants to play at making a movie. The plot is the kind of thing that deluded teenagers churn out when they're going through that "I could write a book/screenplay/award winning sitcom" phase. There's a germ of an interesting idea buried in there (probably because its a sequel to some-one else's movie), but it is totally buried under an underwritten, badly executed and laughably un-thought-out script.

The lines are dire, and the performances are un-engaging, though again, I'm inclined to blame the director. He does not appear to have consulted the actors at all about what is required, rather plonked the script in their hands, pointed the camera at them and told them to get on with it. Who knows, with a little coaching, these actors could have acquitted themselves better (say what you like about musicians in movies, Jon Bon Jovi was excellent in Row Your Boat and more than acceptable in The Leading Man).

As it stands, the cast have no chemistry whatsoever. A beautiful opportunity to use the classic sex and vampirism parallel is passed up when, in order to infect Bon Jovi's character with vampire blood from his ailing co-hunter, he is given a transfusion. She should have bitten him. Mind you, they should have looked vaguely interested in each other throughout the rest of the film too. The only real moment of sexual tension, between the two female leads, is by the directors own admittance accidental. He had originally intended to use this silent sequence as an excuse for more pointless plot exposition - so, I suppose the finished product could have conceivably been worse. But not a lot.

Frankly, as movies go, this is badly plotted, silly and forgettable. Even as trashy movies go it's not sexy enough or gory enough to be entertaining. It could have been a fun and bloody little romp, but the director has left with more of a comedy, for all the wrong reasons.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:The Russian movie, "4," follows the lives of three (not four) strangers who meet one night in a local bar. One is a musician, one a frozen meat seller and one a call girl.

"4," I gather, is intended to showcase the dreariness and hopelessness of life in post-Soviet Russia (the characters have to make up stories to make their lives appear more interesting than they really are), but the movie is so incoherent and boring that I seriously doubt very many people will be able to sit all the way through it. There seems to be a suggestion running through the film that the shadowy Russian government is up to some shady doings behind the scenes - operating secret cloning facilities, selling decades-old frozen meat etc. - but the movie is so formless and incomprehensible that I doubt anyone could figure out what anybody's really up to here.

Despite decent acting and a few incisively directed scenes, "4" is a two-hour long endurance contest that should be avoided at all costs.
+++++++++
A:
negative