Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Fashionably fragmented, yet infuriatingly half-realized character-study, an examination of the different personalities of two college roommates: a talented but undisciplined star basketball player, and a pot-smoking, womanizing rabble-rouser. We never learn why these young men are friends. They may share confusions about the world and their places in it, but they don't seem to have anything else in common. Making his directorial debut, Jack Nicholson--who also co-wrote the screenplay with Jeremy Larner, based upon Larner's book--doesn't introduce us to the characters with any clarity, nor he does shape the scenes to help us identify with anyone on the screen. There are some very decent performances here (particularly from newcomer William Tepper in the central role), but most of the picture is unformed (perhaps intentionally), sketchy or unsure. Bruce Dern plays the hard-driving basketball coach, Karen Black is the older, married lady Tepper is having an affair with, and Michael Margotta is Tepper's wayward friend (in an off-putting, over-the-top performance). Nicholson fails to set up the sequences with any particular flavor, preferring (I assume) to let the character interaction dominate the film's tone; his script is no help either, and as a result it is unclear whom we're supposed to sympathize with. Small, random moments do work (a supermarket fight between Tepper and Black, Dern visiting Tepper in his dorm-room, all of the scenes set on the court), however the entire third act of the picture is an excruciating mess. Hoping to juxtapose an all-important b-ball game with a sexual assault, Nicholson shows no style at his craft (nor does he earn points for chutzpah, as his staging of these events is squashy and ugly). When a director goes out of his way to humiliate his actors, one has to question his motives in doing so. Perhaps if "Drive, He Said" ultimately made some sort of powerful statement in the bargain, audiences could forgive the filmmaker for his lapses in judgment and taste. Unfortunately, the perplexing closer is as dumbfounding as much of the rest of the movie. *1/2 from ****
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I tend to love everything the great late Paul Naschy (R.I.P.) ever was in. While not all films starring Naschy are great, they all have a specific charm that can be found nowhere but in Naschy-flicks, and they are always entertaining. There is no rule without exception, however, as "El Mariscal Del Infierno" aka. "The Devil's Possessed" (1974) proves. While the film does have the specific Naschy-flick-charm, it sadly drags far too much and gets really, really dull in-between. Naschy stars as the evil Baron Gilles De Lancre, who oppresses the people and uses black magic and bloody rituals to stay in power. When Gaston de Malebranche (Guillermo Bredeston), who fought side by side with Gilles De Lancre against the British, learns about the Baron's evil behavior, he decides to turn against his former comrade in arms and help the people free themselves from the satanic Baron's tyranny...

Directed by Leon Klimovsky, who is best known for directing Naschy in "La Noche De Walpurgis" ("The Werewolf Vs. The Vampire Woman", 1971), the film was scripted by Naschy himself. Naschy often scripted his own films, and one must say that he mostly did a better, more original job than it is the case here. "El Mariscal Del Infierno" is mostly built up as a historical adventure rather than a Horror film, and it gets quite boring throughout the middle. It often resembles the Sword and Sandal films from the 50s, only that this film is set in medieval times. The Satanic part was probably only added because the great Paul Naschy's name is linked to the Horror genre. The film has its good parts: Paul Naschy giving weird speeches, Paul Naschy looking weird, Paul Naschy doing Satanic stuff, Paul Naschy torturing innocent victims, etc. But sadly, most of the film concentrates on the boring hero and the good guys, and these moments are boring. The female cast members are nice to look at, but, unlike most Naschy films, this one features no nudity and sleaze. There is some gore, but it mostly looks clumsy and isn't as fun too look at as it is the case with most other Naschy films. Overall, "El Mariscal Del Infierno" is only worth a look for my fellow Naschy-enthusiasts. There are dozens of films starring the Spanish Horror deity which should be seen before this one, such as "El Jorobado De La Morgue" ("The Hunchback of the Morgue", 1973), "La Orgia De Los Muertos" ("The Hanging Woman", 1973), "El Espanto Surge De La Tumba" ("Horror Rises From The Tomb", 1973), "Latidos De Panico" ("Panic Beats", 1983), "Rojo Sangre" (2004), or any of the 'Waldemar Daninsky' werewolf films. R.I.P. Paul Naschy. Legends never die!
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Was this movie stupid? Yup. Did this movie depth? Nope. Character development? Nope. Plot twists? Nope. This was simply a movie about a highly-fictionalized Springer show. It shows the lengths that some people will go to get their mugs on TV. Molly Hagan did a great job as Jaime Pressly's mom. Jaime is....well...GORGEOUS! This flick wasn't so much made to be a "breakthrough" movie, rather, it was intended to life in a trailer park (I live in a trailer park and ours is nothing like the one in this movie) where everyone sleeps with everyone else, all the girls get pregnant by different guys, and all the guys drive rusted-out '66 Ford pickups (exaggeration, of course, but that's the picture everyone sees when you mention "trailer park"). Some people over-analyze movies (case-in-point: Star Trek freaks). I watch movies purely for the entertainment value; not to point out that the girl is wearing a different shirt in a different scene (read the "Goofs" bit about Connie's shirt. Could it have been better? Sure. But it was funny as hell.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:When you get your hands on a British film you expect some sort of quality. And when it comes to acting, camera work, lighting etc; this film does the business. It's done by highly skilled craftsmen. That alone can bring you an enjoyable one and a half hours. But when you look under the layers of professionalism, you don't really find anything. Apart from making you feel good and advocate a drug liberal view, there's really nothing there. The script is mediocre, the plot is predictable and the ending must be one of the worst east of Hollywood. In all it's English cosiness, it's just a shameful and cynical attempt to make another "Full Monty". Why they made this film? I haven't got a clue, apart from making money of course.
+++++++++
A:
negative