Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I can't believe others took such a serious view of all this. God, it was a lot of fun rooting for Hop-a-long Cassidy. It was a great tribute to the Western serials of years ago. It wasn't meant to be a great cinema experience, except it was. So what if there wasn't a big special effects bonanza. It was a fun, tongue in cheek, look at old Western's. Man, relax and enjoy.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:"I went to the movies, to see 'Beat Street' / it wasn't bad, it was kinda' neat / 'Krush Groove' was a flick, that I didn't mind / but when it came to 'Rappin', I drew the line." Word to your mother.

Want me to stop?

That's just a small sample of the stupa-fly style of rhymin' on display in this waste of film and location permits. This movie is seriously wack (thats 80s-speak for just f*cking awful). As an emcee, Mario Van Peebles is one hell of an actor. And as an actor, Mario Van Peebles is one hell of a bodybuilder.

Any film calling itself "Rappin'" had better deliver at that genre's highest standard of the time. So why were 6 year olds rolling in the aisles, even back in the day when standards were so knee-high-to-"Webster"-low? Because this rap is weak. So weak that not even B.E.T. or Comedy Central will touch it with a 10-foot gold-rope chain.

Blondie's "Rapture" is def poetry next to this bit of Dr. Suess in the hood. So don't be a boobie, avoid this movie!

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

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This is a kind of genre thing, meaning you either like the 1950s musicals or you don't. If you do, you'll love this. Personally, I prefer the 1930s and most of the '40s musicals with the dancing talents of Astaire and Rogers, and Eleanor Powell, Bill Robinson, Ruby Keeler, James Cagney, Shirley Temple and so forth but the songs of the '50s, the slower dance numbers and the soapy melodramas of the decade all turn me off.

This film is a case-in-point. The first song was okay but the next three did nothing for me. By then, the story didn't have much appeal, either. The presence of Deborah Kerr is another minus. I don't think I've seen a movie she starred in that I liked, including this one, where the goody two-shoes English teacher she portrays spends half the movie threatening to leave Siam. (I which she had!).

However, divorcing myself from likes-and-dislikes, there is no denying this Rogers and Hammerstein production has a lot of appeal to many folks, particularly those who liked "The Sound Of Music" a decade later. There are similarities in the R&H musicals. Thus, if you liked the Julie Andrews flick, you should like this, too.

This is a Lavish production with, yes, a capital "L." This is the kind of big-production musicals you rarely saw after that generation. You also get the dubbed singers, unlike today, where the actress isn't able to really sing so Marnie Nixon comes to rescue of Kerr, as she did with Natalie Wood in "West Side Story" and Audrey Hepburn in "My Fair Lady."

Yul Brynner is "King Mongkut" and is the stereotypical traditionalist, the kind filmmakers always portray in a negative way. He isn't "progressive," as the left wingers like the say, but the education teacher (Kerr, as "Anna Leonowens") will set him straight. Secular-progressives of today always place teachers higher than people trying to cure cancer! However, Yul is good in this role and even employs some comedy along with his more-bark-than-bite character. Justifiably, he is the big star of this film. Brynner had magnetism. Even in "The Magnificent Seven," Yul was the one cowboy who mesmerized the audience.

In summary, it's a fine movie for its day and millions of people enjoyed it. I'll leave it at that.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:THE MAN IN THE WHITE SUIT, like I'M ALL RIGHT JACK, takes a dim view of both labor and capital. Alec Guinness is a scientific genius - but an eccentric one (he has never gotten his university degree due to an...err...accident in a college laboratory). He manages to push himself into various industrial labs in the textile industry. When the film begins he is in Michael Gough's company, and Gough (in a memorable moment) is trying to impress his would-be father-in-law (Cecil Parker) by showing him the ship-shape firm he runs. While having lunch with Parker and Parker's daughter (Joan Greenwood), Gough gets a message regarding some problems about the lab's unexpectedly large budget problems. He reads the huge expenditures (due to Guinness's experiments), and chokes on his coffee.

Guinness goes on to work at Parker's firm, and repeats the same tricks he did with Gough - but Parker discovers it too. Greenwood has discovered what Guinness is working on, and convinces Parker to continue the experiments (but now legally). The result: Guinness and his assistant has apparently figured out how to make an artificial fiber that can constantly change the electronic bonds within it's molecular structure so that (for all intents and purposes) the fiber will remain in tact for good. Any textile made from it will never fade, get dirty, or wear out - it will last forever.

Guinness has support from a female shop steward, but not her chief. He sees Guinness as selling out to the rich. But when he explains to them what he's done, they turn against him. If everyone has clothes that will last forever then they will not need new clothes! Soon Parkers' fellow textile tycoons (led by Gough, Ernest Theisinger - in a wonderful performance, and Howard Marion-Crawford) are equally panic stricken by what may end their businesses. They seek to suppress the invention. With only Greenwood in his corner (although Parker sort of sympathizes with him), Guinness tries to get the news of his discovery to the public.

In the end, Guinness is defeated by science as well as greed. But he ends the film seeing the error in his calculations, and we guess that one day he may still pull off his discovery after all.

It's a brilliant comedy. But is the argument for suppression valid? At one point the difficulties of making the textile are shown (you have to heat the threads to a high temperature to actually enable the ends of the material to be united. There is nothing that shows the cloth will stretch if the owner gets fat (or contract if the owner gets thin). Are we to believe that people only would want one set of clothing for ever? What happened to fashion changes and new styles? And the cloth is only made in the color white (making Guinness look like a white knight). We are told that color dye would have to be added earlier in the process. Wouldn't that have an effect on the chemical reactions that maintain the structure of the textile?

Alas this is not a science paper, but a film about the hypocrisies of labor and capital in modern industry. As such it is brilliant. But those questions I mention keep bothering me about the validity of suppressing Guinness' invention
+++++++++
A:
positive