Problem: This review is like what?

Review:A small pleasure in life is walking down the old movies aisle at the rental store, and picking stuff just because I haven't seen it. A large pleasure is occasionally taking that movie home and finding a small treasure like this playing on my screen.

Long before Elia Kazan turned himself into a brand cranking out only notable movies (not good ones), he made this better than average drama. Watching it you begin to notice how many decent, good or nicely observed scenes have accumulated. Contrast that with his later films where the drama is writ large... preferably large, and unsubtle, and scandalous. Kazan was eventually more of a calculating promoter than a director. (um. No thanks)

His future excesses are hinted at here only in the plot. The plague is coming! But here's an atypical Richard Widmark playing a family man in 1951 and avoiding most of the excesses of that trope; here's an almost watchable Barabra bel Geddes, with her bathos turned way down (well, for her); they're a couple and they share some nicely-written scenes about big crises and smaller ones. Here's an expertly directed comic interrogation with a chatty ships-crew; here's a beautiful moment as a chase begins at an angular warehouse and a flock of birds shoots overhead punctuating the moment. These are the small-scale successes a movie can offer in which a viewer can actually recognize life; something Hollywood, in its greed, now studiously avoids. These are the moments that make me go to the movies and enjoy them. It's a personable, human-scaled film, not the grotesque, overscaled production that he and others (David Lean) will later popularize, whose legacy is still felt in crap as varied as Pirates of the Caribean and Moulin Rouge.

I just watched it twice and I'll be damned if I could tell you what Jack Palance is seeking in the final scenes, but it doesn't seem that important to me as a viewer. This reminds me of both No Way Out a Poitier noir with Widmark as the villain, and Naked City, which you should really get your hands on.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Bored with the normal, run-of-the-mill staple films to watch this Halloween that I've seen over and over again, I took a chance on "The Sentinel", hoping it could get my horror juices flowing again. Mind you, I had just come back from seeing the Dark Castle remake of "The House on Haunted Hill" - complete and utter crap. Thankfully, "The Sentinel" BLEW ME AWAY! In a riviting story about a model who moves into a creepy building in Brooklyn Hights, the film offered everything that I hope to find in a good movie - (1) Campy and fantasically juicy characters, exchanges and dialogue, including hilaraious turns by Christopher Walken, Jeff Goldblum and especially, Martin Balsam, as an absent minded professor - (2) Horrifying Terror! Not to give a frame away, but there are scenes in this film that chilled me to my pancreas - (3) Fantastic gore, terrific make-up and wacky (if very uneven) direction from Michael Winner, which flows rather nicely with this unreal treat. If you loved "Evil Dead 2", "Dead Alive" and "Deep Rising" - this will be your queen of favourites. Just to emphasize my love for this film - after I watched it for the first time, jaw-dropped, I rewound it and watched it again. It is now one of favourites of all time. Do yourself a favour and check it out!
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Whenever I make up a list of the absolute worst movies I've ever seen, this movie is always on it. It has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. It took an act of will to sit through the whole thing, and I would sooner spill my own blood than have to sit through it again.

What's wrong with it? Let me tell you the story of my trip to go see it in the theater.

I went to a midnight show, on a Saturday night. I the only ones in the theater were myself, and a bunch of loud, boisterous, rather unruly teenagers, sitting somewhere behind me. They were obviously out having a good time on a Saturday night, and had come to this "comedy" for some laughs. Before the movie starts, during the previews, they were laughing and joking and making loud comments having a grand old time. It was borderline annoying; had they continued their unbridled enthusiasm into the actual movie, I might've said something, but I was feeling tolerant and empathetic of their spirited fun, so I let it go. And they did settle down once the movie started.

Why am I telling you all this? Because you can judge this alleged "comedy" by the effect it had not just on myself, but on this rowdy bunch.

During the entire run of the film, not one person in the theater laughed. Not once. Not myself, not the boisterous kids. Absolute silence, aside from the soundtrack. And when the film was over and the lights came on, we all, all of us, slowly filed out of the theater in slow, somber, absolute silence. It could've been a funeral.

This was the effect that this "comedy" produced. Not laughter, not enjoyment, but absolute DEPRESSION. It was a depressing, depressing movie, and not the tiniest bit funny. Preachy, self-indulgent, depressing, but not funny.

I consider Mel Brooks' "Blazing Saddles" to be on the short list for Funniest Movie Ever. It still absolutely blows my mind that the same gentleman could be responsible for quite probably the Least Funny Movie Ever.

In short: if you're feeling too happy, give this movie a whirl; otherwise, don't say I didn't warn you.
+++++++++
A:
negative