Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Apparently Ruggero Deodato figured out, early on, that his story wouldn't work if he approached it too seriously, so he decided to camp it up. The result is a film that can be viewed as either a ludicrous sword-and-sorcery epic or as a very entertaining comedy! And I think I'll go the second way. The brief gore moments are well-done, the Paul Brothers openly mock the material (they even bark at each other in one scene!), and there is also a charming, spirited, good-natured performance by Eva La Rue, as the girl who tags along with the "boys". Plus, where else can you see the insides of a dragon lighted like a discotheque?? (***)
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I saw this movie again as an assignment for my management class. Were to mainly comment on the different management styles and ideas on quality(of the product). I did rent this one back in the eighties and I remember it to be good(but not great)movie. I've always liked Michael Keaton's style and delivery. He was a perfect fit for the movie.

I am surprised to see some of the low ratings for this movie. I grant you yes it's no Oscar winner but it does have decent comedic value. It's more of a subtle comedy rather than a all-out comedy farce. I also find some of those that felt this was an inaccurate film on cultural and business differences. I beg to differ. I grant you again that there are a lot of generalities and dramatizations but then again this is Hollywood film not a documentary. From what I've read about differences between Automakers on both sides of the Pacific at that time many of the principle ideas were accurate for the time.

Some of the basic differences were that Japanese workers made to feel as part of the company as a whole. Teamwork was emphasized. They perhaps made the company above all else. Where American workers had more of a management verses labor type of relationship. The individual was more important than the company. I'll probably get some hate email over that comment I'm sure.

Another difference was how quality was viewed and whose responsibility it was to fix. In many Japanese plants defects or problems are examined and fixed at the time it is discovered. Rather as one character in the movie put it "it was the dealers(meaning car dealer) problem".

Many of these things are probably dated but I'm sure some are still around as many US car makers are still struggling to keep up with the Japanese. If one is more interested in the subject of American, European and Japanese automakers I can recommend a book that studies this subject in more detail and was done around the same time period. The book is called "The machine that changed the world" by James Womack, Daniel Jones and Daniel Roos. It's about a study of automakers during and before the time period that this movie covers. Parts are bit dry but I think you'll find that it backs up much the movie also.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:While not as famous as some of their other collaborations (such as THE BLACK CAT and THE BODY SNATCHER), this is a dandy little horror film even though the casting decisions were a bit odd. Boris Karloff plays Dr. Janos Rukh, a weird scientist who lives in the Carpathian mountains--near where the Dracula character's home town. Bela Lugosi plays Dr. Benet--whose nationality was never discussed though the name certainly sounds French. I really think it would have made sense to have the two switch roles, as the Carpathian role seems tailor made for Lugosi--especially with his accent. However, despite this unusual twist, the two still did excellent jobs. Karloff's was definitely the lead role, but Lugosi acquitted himself well as a relatively normal person--something he didn't play very often in films!! It seems that Dr. Rukh is a bit of a pariah, as other scientists (especially Benet) think his theories are bizarre and nonsensical. However, over the course of the film, Rukh turns out to be right and Benet is especially generous in his new praise for Rukh. But, unfortunately, the wonderful new element that Rukh discovered has the nasty side effect of turning him into a crazy killing machine (don't you hate it when that happens?). While this could have just been a simple nice scientist turned mad story, the plot was well constructed, the characters nicely developed and the mad Rukh was NOT a one-dimensional killer, but complex and interesting.

This film is bound to be enjoyed by anyone except for people who hate old horror films. You can really tell that Universal Pictures pulled out all the stops and made a bigger-budget film instead of the cheap quickies both Lugosi and Karloff unfortunately gravitated in later years. Good stuff.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:"The Man In The Attic" is a movie set in the 1910s. It is inspired by a true story. Unfortunately, it's a story that really didn't need to be told.

Looking at the box, the people responsible for packaging the movie tried their best to make this film appear steamy and erotic. They use terms such as "illicit passion", "forbidden affair", and "unlimited pleasures". They even show a picture of Neil Patrick Harris (little Doogie Howser, M.D.) holding a gun!

The story involves Krista, played by Anne Archer. She is unhappily married to a gentleman who owns his own business. Edward (Harris) is an employee of her husband's company. Krista and Edward end up falling in love with each other.

The supposedly "shocking" part of the movie is this: Krista's husband finds out about the affair and forbids them from ever seeing each other again. So what do they decide to do? Krista ends up having Edward live up in their attic. Wow! Krista ends up seeing someone else and Edward gets extremely jealous. So on and so on and so on.

"The Man In The Attic" doesn't cover any new territory. It's a Showtime original picture, which explains why the stars are a couple of B-list actors and both appear briefly in the buff.

+++++++++
A:
negative