Problem: This review is like what?

Review:If there was a 0 stars rating i would gladly hand it out to this absolutely horrid pile of waste. The fact that the actual summary is perfectly fine and that if it had been made different it could have been brilliant only makes it worse. The basic task of locking up a group of people in an experiment chamber is fine, but WHERES THE EXPERIMENT? All i see is a bunch of unintelligent surfers and blondes chatting about music and culture i don't know or want to know about... The challenges are pathetic and silly. The whole point of reality TV is to show REALITY. If you set a 'challenge' don't make them play with exaggerated props of food and stereotypical cultural elements in 'friday night games'. make them do an actual challenge. And as for 'earning' prize money, thats fine, if they actually earnt it! These people are nuts. If only they would make the show better, the actual idea would be glorious. But that ain't gonna happen!
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This may be the worst show I've ever seen. Aside from the tastelessness of having a sitcom about Hitler, it just isn't funny or entertaining in any way. It is very similar to a 1950's sitcom in its cornball humor and contrived situations, but while it can be well done like in I Love Lucy, it's just not funny here. I think the show was based around the novelty "look, it's Hitler as a bumbling sitcom figure" but it just fell flat in every regard. The guy playing Hitler is so hammy that its hard to sit through that alone. I wonder what could have possibly made the network think this was a good idea to air. I thought America had some tasteless show, but the Brits had us beat this time. America would never air a sitcom about Hitler, although we did have that show about Lincoln's slave, The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer. Chances are you'll probably never see this show, since it only aired one episode and will probably never be released on DVD.
+++++++++
A: negative

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:In an otherwise good review, loleralacartelort7890 says "The truth is that the Americans use a secret aluminum-anti-radiation-alloy. It is not that well-known. And the exact specifications are a secret. And why is it a secret: Well, why should they reveal it back then?? If they where in a space race with the Russians, then it would be VERY dumb to reveal that they had new technology that could shield crew against radiation." This is completely incorrect. There is (and was) no "secret" to radiation protection in Apollo. The design and construction of the Apollo Command Module has long been publicly available. It uses a lightweight "honeycomb" of aluminum and stainless steel. The entire outer surface (except the windows of course) is covered with a heat shield made of a phenolic resin, thicker on the bottom that faces forward during re-entry. These materials are actually *better* at stopping the kind of radiation we have in space (charged particles) than lead, which is better suited to stopping ionizing photons like X-rays and gamma rays.

Space radiation is a definite problem for *long term* space flight because of the risk of big solar flares. But it simply wasn't a serious threat to the Apollo astronauts. The Command Module gave them pretty good protection during their brief (1/2 hour or so) passage through the Van Allen belts. They all carried dosimeters so we know exactly how much radiation they each received: no more than 1.5 rem, and usually much less. Of the 24 men who flew to the Moon (12 of whom landed), 18 are still alive. Only two have died from cancer: Alan Shepard (leukemia) and Jack Swigert (bone cancer). The rest died from heart attacks, pancreatitis (Roosa), and a motorcycle accident (Conrad). These are actually pretty good statistics for a group of men now in their late 70s (Shepard would be 86).
+++++++++
A:
negative