Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:As someone who has both read the novel and seen the film, I have a different take on why the film was such a flop. First, any comparisons between novel and film are purely superficial. They are two different animals.

The novel is probably intended as a satire, but it arrives as a cross between tragedy and polemic instead. Any comedic elements such as those which later formed the stylistic basis of the film version are merely incidental to the author's uniformly cynical thrust. And lest the omnipresent white suit of the author fool you into thinking this is another Mark Twain, think again. A more apt literary precedent would be the spectre of Ambrose Bierce in a top hat and tails. Tom Wolfe is equal parts clown and hack, more celebrity than author, always looking for new grist for his self-absorbed mill.

It is therefore no wonder that the excellent production skills and direction lavished on the making of the film were doomed from the start. Unlike true satire, which translates very well into film, polemics are grounded not in universally accessible observations on some form or other of human behavior, but in a single-minded attack on specific people -- whether real or fictional straw men -- who have somehow earned the wrath of the writer. Any effort to create a successful filmed story or narrative from such a beginning must have a clean start, free of the writer's influence or interference.

Having said that, I too find fault with the casting. It is not merely that incompetents like Bruce Willis and Melanie Griffith fail to measure up, but that real talents like Tom Hanks, F. Murray Abraham, and Morgan Freeman are either totally wasted or given roles that are mere caricatures.

There is enough topical material here for a truly great film satire, but it fails to come even close.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:When I saw Birthday Girl I liked it so much I set out to see every Nicole Kidman film I could, only to find all of them a disappointment compared to it. I theorize that while the presence of a particular star usually guarantees a certain level of quality because of their artistic control, with Nicole Kidman the influence she exerts is detrimental to film enjoyment--IMHO. Thus for instance, Dogville, even depriving the viewer of anything visual to detract from the existential insight she is hammering home, or other films promoting gay and lesbianism as worthy of anyone else's attention, or other pet causes of Kidman's.

Here she is a natural woman and she does a really great job. I don't how or who was able to restrain her, but apparently it worked. The way the film depicts her openness despite her resistance gets to the heart of what makes a woman a woman. And consequently, what makes a man's most desperate hopes marginally attainable.

Of course, the fact the male lead transforms from a milquetoast clerk to macho man in the space of one film sounds like a male ego expansion fantasy, but his transformation is adequately believable. It isn't coyly contrived as it would be in a film engineered to bolster male ego. Instead it accurately records necessary growth arising from the films unique circumstances.

Also quite charming is the way the criminals are portrayed as perfectly human, apart from their criminal mission. Her gang has a coed rough and tumble fellowship which is foreign to American culture. And while they are his adversaries, they are never really his enemy. In effect, they teach him to be compete.

I really marveled at Kidman's ability to physically appear Russian. It had me wondering whether her ancestry was Russian, but none of the photos of her I examined showed any hint of it. Maybe it is just makeup but it was amazing.

I can only hope that they knock her over the head again soon so she can turn out another great film. Despite my gratuitous digs at Ms. kidman, the message is this is a superior film in every way and probably the role of a lifetime.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:I admit I had no idea what to expect before viewing this highly stylized piece. It could have been the cure for a zombie virus or the common cold for all I knew. It began with great visuals, little snippets to grab your attention and cause your imagination to run wild. As it continued I learned quickly through voice overs what was taking place. A nice little neo noir story that I felt was not a waist of a few minutes of my time. The little clues given to the audience through visuals at the beginning give them a sense of accomplishment as they piece together the plot. Along with a nice twist at the end its a cool package overall. The score, though not bad, gave the film almost a music video feel. It just felt a little dated, not adding anything to further the storyline. Some of the performances felt overly dramatic but fit perfectly with the feel of the overall piece. I walk away from this very satisfied. I was given a lot of information in a short period of time but through great editing and voice-over work it didn't feel rushed or pushed. Great job!
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:I won't mention any of the plot, because, although it would be highly predictable anyway, the one notable plot twist is given away everywhere, in the movie comments, in the plot summary here, and even in the synopsis on my Netflix envelope. I might have enjoyed it more if I hadn't known that. Maybe. This film has a deceptively good cast, most of whom did creditable acting with the rather limited material at hand, including Donald Sutherland, Lesley Ann Warren, and Tia Carrere and Rosemary Dunsmore in smaller parts. It was impossible to like William McNamara, but that was clearly by design. And there were a couple of quick nude scenes by the callipygian Lenore Zann. But none of this brings the slightest recommendation from me. Don't any of these fine actors actually read these scripts before signing on?
+++++++++
A:
negative