Problem: This review is like what?

Review:What more could I say? The Americans totally hated it because the U.S. cut was so bad, although you could detect the underlying goodwill in it.

Talking about the U.S. theatrical release(along with the newly released Blu-ray Disc version), it's faster and tighter than HK cut, the background musics were all changed from the dark, grim HK musics to Hip-hop musics; and there were a lot of gruesome scenes cut out. Though, the dubbing was a notable job given that they tried to capture the original actor's voice and tone. But, the problem is Hak Hap(Black Mask) the movie was designed and meant to be dark, grim, super-disturbing and totally gruesome. Very unfortunately the U.S. release just skimmed the cream they wanted, which in return completely changed the movie's undertone(HK release was rated 18+) to be even more comical and amateurish.

Now let's talk about the original HK release. This movie is like a hidden gem, a prototype for the whole "matrix" tide and era. The fighting scenes are totally awesome even the camera works were a bit "old-school" among HK movies. However the style the movie created was a unique blend of Kungfu and pop culture. With all the leather, black costumes and decorations, this movie features a batman-like superhero in a black mask against a run-of-the-mill gang of multinational super-soldiers lead by a punk heavy metal rock star boss. Yes it sounds like imaginations of a retarded child, but it works. It's so impressive that the whole movie's gonna give you nightmares featuring foreigners fighting a bloodbath battle in leather coats. In year 2002 they made a sequel which had a PG-13 rating, but without Jet Li and Liu Qing Yun. And you know how bad that was because Li and Liu were the core characters in the movie and had strong personalities and an interesting friendship. And, did I happen to mention Francois Yip? Her roundhouse kick was totally cool, even cooler than the villain boss because she didn't use a stuntman for all the fighting. Did I mention she was also smoking hot? Anyway, there are a lot of things to like about the movie.

However, the movie also suffered from a lot of problems. First off, it's a mediocre script made at its best potential, which means this production team deserved a better screen-writer. There are a lot climaxes in the entire 100 minutes but they often felt like far-fetched and don't totally make senses to the audiences(US version was even worse because all the character developments were cut). Anyway, you can't ask too much out of a comic-inspired action movie. Also, this movie is entirely improper for children. I won't recommend it to you if you are less than 20 years old. It's saturated with disturbing contents including blood, gore, sado-maso costumes, extreme brutal violence and so on. Along with the style of the movie, it can be called a wet dream for heavy-metal rock music fans and action fans. (the U.S. cut was milder, but if you want to see it, see the HK release for what it is.) 7/10. Status: inspiring, hidden, undervalued, adult.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I saw Crispin Glover's "What Is It?" at the Ann Arbor film festival. Admittedly, the film was at least aptly named, because I got the distinct sense that even the writer/director could provide no answer. At the question and answer session after the screening, Mr. Glover said that the film was originally meant to be a short film to show the virtue of using actors with down-syndrome. However, this is in itself not enough of a reason to create a film. Actors are, in my opinion, building blocks for a larger vision - a larger vision that seemed muddled at best and absent at worst.

Crispin Glover also said that he wanted to address taboo subjects. Well, he does do that. But why? The film seems to have no stance, no reason for addressing anything. Does he feel these things shouldn't be taboo? The film doesn't even give me an indicator of that. Taboo for the sake of taboo is not interesting. It can't even afford to make the taboo disturbing or inciting on any level because he hasn't made the audience care in any way.

Ignoring problems with the concept for a moment, the thing that actually shocked me most was how poorly the film was put together. The editing, cinematography, and other technical aspects seemed frequently to be extremely amateur. Glover said 125-150 thousand dollars went into the movie, and I feel that the money should have been spent on different designers (Glover actually did some design himself - I know I saw at least sound design in the credits). The painted sets are okay (not great), but used poorly. Parts feel like a photographed stage play - which would be fine if that went to any sort of purpose, but in Glover's hands it just feels sloppy. Other parts are filmed like a sort of Home Movie, of inferior quality to a lot of the stuff I see first-time filmmakers do on iMovie.

Perhaps the biggest problem with "What Is It?" is I can't even understand how seriously the film is to be taken. There are some parts that feel like Glover is screaming at you to think seriously. At other points, he seems off on his own little joke. Perhaps he meant for this to be ironic, or meaningful in some way, but I just felt that Glover couldn't even get himself to give his film any sort of serious attention.

Glover said he originally wanted it to be a short film. If only it had been. At seventy-two minutes, the film runs out of imagery and ideas in the first twenty, and it is arguable if the ideas were formulated enough to claim that they were even there for that period of time.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Now here's a film straight out of my childhood, my family used to taped; but it kind of got tapped over and losted over the years. Now I was fortunate to watch the whole film on youtube.com; I had love this wonderful film when I watched it as kid, and after watching again (online), I still do today. My favorite song from the movie is "Candy Hearts and Paper Flowers" (I will always remember that sweet song forever).

I was surprised when I looked at the opening credits (on who animated who),that some of the animators date back to 1930s (WOW! that's like 47 years).
+++++++++
A:
positive