Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I think if you are into the sixties kind of thing, as I am, you are obligated to waste about 80 minutes of your life watching this barely watchable trainwreck. The saving graces of this oddity include a surprisingly apt social commentary on sixties values along with a number of relatively well known actors caught in early (and embarrassing) footage. It's as if the producers of Laugh-In sat down and decided to write a full length film, covering all the high points (and more) of the issues between the flower children and the establishment, then put it in the hands of a couple of hippies and gave them about a $10,000 budget to complete it. Hardly a classic, but in its own way it does capture how truly strange that time was, the silliness, the over-idealism, and the uptightness of the establishment. Clearly not for everyone.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I watched this movie for its two hours and have absolutely no idea what it's about. Somebody got murdered or maybe they didn't and maybe somebody did it or maybe they didn't. This brought back memories of the good old days (bad old days?) when all CBC Canadian movies were stinkers. Lately stinkers have been the exception but this confused hodge podge of trendy feminism, mind reeling flash backs and mumbled dialogue makes up for lost time. I've never found Margaret Atwood's books easy to read. This movie continues that fine Canadian tradition. It isn't easy to watch. Maybe the trendy folks at the chi chi Toronto cocktail parties will pretend they liked it. Us folks in the boonies are a little less pretentious.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:My brother is an avid DVD collector. He took one look at the cover (two models on toilets) and had to add it to his collection. I stayed up with him to watch what turned out to be likely the most cringeable movie (I use that term loosely) I've felt obligated to sit through. I dared not make eye contact with my brother, quite certain he must have been cursing the receipt in his clenched fist. The biggest name in the whole movie is Michael Clark Duncan who appears in one scene, which the "filmmaker" decided to show every take of (about four total) throughout the movie. In fact, the whole movie pretty much follows this suit. The fact that the DVD contained deleted footage was a shock. (I went to bed without viewing it, however). To no surprise at all, I found this disc without its case behind the TV about a week later.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I saw this film about twenty years ago on the late show. I still vividly remember the film, especially the performance of Robert Taylor. I always thought Taylor was underrated as an actor as most critics saw him as solid, almost dull leading man type, and women simply loved to watch his films because of his looks. This film, however, proved what an interesting actor he could be. He did not get enough roles like this during his long career. This is his best performance. He is totally believable in a truly villainous role. From what I have read, he was a very hardworking and easy going guy in real life and never fought enough for these kind of roles. He basically would just do what MGM gave him. This film proves that he could have handled more diverse and difficult roles. The other thing I remember about this film is how annoying Lloyd Nolan's character was. Nolan was a great actor, but this character really aggravated me. The last scene of the film has stuck with me for all of these years. This film is definitely worth a look.
+++++++++
A:
positive