Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Well this just maybe the worst movie ever at least the worst movie i have ever seen. They have tried out these 666 child of Satan the anti Christ kinda movies about 1000 times and none of them is good and this just maybe the worst of them. They think that it's going to be better movie as more they use that fake blood. This movie doesn't have any idea in it, actors and filming is just terrible. Cant even make out that 10 line minium of this movie. Really nothing to tell about but that it's just horrible. How they can make movies like that in their right mind just can't understand that. This cant be a Hollywood movie, is it? Just don't go watch this use your money more wisely.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:(contains slight spoilers)

It's interesting how Anthony Mann uses James Stewart here. Stewart is, of course, remembered by many as George Bailey from Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life", so it's easy to find parallels between the two films. In "It's a Wonderful Life", Bailey gets to see the world as it would have been if he had never been born. In "The Far Country", Stewart's Jeff Webster, by not getting involved to help anyone else (except himself), gets to see essentially the same thing: A world in which he (for all practical matters) doesn't exist.

By not getting involved (and by attempting not to care about anyone), Webster is forced to see those for whom he can't help but care get hurt, pushed around, and even killed while he stands by and does nothing. This reminds the viewer of George Bailey watching a world that has turned upside-down because he has also decided not to get involved by not ever having been born.

Both movies end with the same image - a close-up of a ringing bell. Stewart, by turning around his philosophy of non-involvement, has, it would seem, earned his "wings".
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:From the nepotism capitol of the world comes another junk flick in a fancy wrapper. "CQ" tells a lame, disjointed mess of a story which is little more than a bunch of silly caricatures, a babe, and straight man Davies running around trying to make a stupid sci-fi flick. I can't think of any reason anyone would want to spend time with this ridiculous attempt at film making. (D)
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:"Zabriskie Point" (1970): This was especially interesting to me on a personal level, since it takes place under identical circumstances, with identical peers, in my own life the Counter Culture movement of the late 60's/early 70's, on and off campus. We follow two unrelated young people in separate stories, who are slowly woven together. One is a young man in Los Angeles, tired of all the endless, pseudo-revolutionary jabber in the classrooms and lunchrooms of his campus, and, the other, a young woman driving to Phoenix to see her father & employer, and take on an "establishment" job. The film is FULL of our Italian director's (Michelangelo Antonioni) visual notations of America, and, the confused, psychedelicrazies of that era's self-righteous, "we know it all, we'll change everything for the better" youth. Just who IS the "revolutionary"? What does that REALLY mean? Do you dress like one and march around chanting? Do you "fly in under the radar" but give advance notice of your arrival? Do you keep your plans to yourself, and go about the business of change, with no need for group approval? "Zabriskie Point" is definitely a "period piece" - full of slang, uniforms, somewhat surreal film moments (after all, this is a film by the man who gave us the amazing "Blow Up" of 1966), and the era's artifacts, but it is more. It presents options for cultural revolution, and going by Antonioni (who DOES seem to be supportive of it), the youth are too self-involved to see what is needed for radical success. Because of this, it becomes a powerful, frightening film that applies to anyone, any time, any place.
+++++++++
A:
positive