Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Once I watched The Tenant and interpreted it as a horror movie. It uses many of the tropes of the genre: the sinister apartment, suspicious neighbors, apparitions, mysteries, hallucinations. The life of the hero, Trelkovsky, seemed surrounded by evil, secret forces trying to drive him mad.

Last time I watched it I challenged this initial interpretation. If this movie is a horror movie, it's only horror in the sense that a Kafka novel is horror. In fact this movie can be understood on a literal level as a lonely man slowly becoming crazy without any external influence.

Polanski made in his career three movies dealing with madness: Repulsion, which I don't particularly like because the development of madness in the heroine never convinced me; Rosemary's Baby, in which the heroine is driven mad by evil forces; and The Tenant, which might be the best study of paranoia ever made in cinema.

Trelkovsky is a young man who rents an apartment in which a woman killed herself. He becomes obsessed with her and slowly starts becoming her: he wears her clothes, puts on makeup, talks like her. But is he being possessed by a spirit, or is he just letting his wild imagination get the best of him? It's this hesitation between what is real and imaginary, and which Polanski never resolves, that makes this such a fascinating movie. Many events in the movie can be attributed to the supernatural as easily as they can be to normal causes, and it's up to the viewer to decide what to believe in.

Although this is not my favorite Polanski movie, it is nevertheless a good example of his ability to create suspense and portray madness in very convincing terms. And technically speaking, it's a marvel too. Suffice to say he collaborates with film composer Philippe Sarde and legendary director of photography Sven Nykvist (Bergman's DP) in the making of this movie. A slow pacing and sometimes uninteresting segments may make this movie difficult to enjoy, but it's an experience nevertheless.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:"Women? They're all scrubbers...!"

No, not a good translation; not at all! This lags behind the previous year's "Dad's Army", entirely missing the special, small-screen magic of the seminal television sitcom original, and failing to play interestingly at all with the big screen... you could just about say that this film well represents a Britain entering decline, and more precisely even than that, a *British film industry* entering decline. And that is hardly a recommendation, is it? To be an exemplar of saddening folly...

All that remains after the subtlety of the TV original has been surgically stripped away, by Cliff Owen, Galton and Simpson are: endless, dilapidated musical cues, yawn, from the Ron Grainer theme... bolstered sentimentality (that shoddy, thick-eared ending... how much bolder does the second Steptoe film seem in comparison) an increased seediness - with director and writers seemingly detaching themselves completely - fully applicable to something like the 'misbegotten monstrosity' (yours truly on this site) from 1973, "The Mutations". There is a strangely botched, cut-adrift tone about the scene where Harold is beaten up in a rugby club, that I partly hate and recoil it (so far, as a friend intimated, from the mood of the TV series...), but this at least seems an original slant, and emblematic of tensions just rising to the boil in the Britain of 1972... There is, however, an implied prostitute, aye of a 'heart-of-gold' who turns loose woman-traitor 'pon poor auld 'Arold - and beyond-caricature writing of the 'class' element; not to mention, surprisingly misjudged performances from the usually redoubtable leads. Brambell and Corbett collude with the script, and indeed fail to cure it of an essential ham. What would Anthony Aloysius Hancock have made of it all...? I will merely concede that a few moments just about work - chiefly those where G & S play things a little more carefully and B & C touch tenderer nerves - and it is not on the whole an unwatchable affair.

But, and oh, how this pains me to say it: it is tiresome, boring, both wilfully detached from reality and what made the TV series great, and also fully in tune with the lazy, tawdry, misogynist 'fuck it, that'll do...' actuality of much of what was allowed to pass for mainstream film-making in the Britain of the time.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I'm beginning to see a pattern in the movies I give a 1 to. They are almost all movies that my wife made me watch. Maybe I should stop having faith in her taste in movies. Anyway, this is typical drivel aimed at pre-teen girls but done even more poorly than usual. Once again, the writer broke the cardinal rule of any movie. He/she made the main character unlikable. She starts off by being a complete b*tch to her friend at the beginning, and then finds out when she becomes 30, that she's basically a sh*tty person (having affairs, etc.). Why the F would we feel for this person? OK, let's say we can get past that. Jennifer Garner is about as far from attractive as you can get without having some sort of deformity. I don't know if it's her or the writer's fault, but her character goes well beyond my threshold for annoyance. Here's a tip for future filmmakers: 13 year olds are NOT entertaining, they're annoying. Far and away the most embarrassing moment in the movie came when they danced to "Thriller". Holy crap that was painful. It showed her practicing that dance at the beginning. That explains why she knows it, but an entire club full of people?!? Argh!!! The Macarena would be more believable! All of a sudden she's completely incompetent and has no clue how to do her job and no one notices? At least Tom Hanks' character on "Big" had a job that made sense to a child. These body-switching/child becoming adult overnight movies are really getting out of hand, and this is by far the worst one yet.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:What a GREAT movie! This is so reminiscent of the wonderful Disney classic family movies of the 60's and the 70's. I was so pleasantly surprised, after the past 20 years of absolute detritus Disney's live productions crews have churned out.

This movie is an absolute joy. The child stars were just that; professional, quality actors. I am most impressed with the quality of this movie.

Sigourney Weaver was a total sycophantic *insert hyperbole here* running a prison camp for wayward boys. Siobhan Fallon was wonderful as the star's mother.

I won't recant the story here as there is little point in doing that yet again, but the story is wonderful, the direction was extraordinary and the acting quality was superb! This work reminds you what it's like to be a child, without going all sugary or being too grim. The deleted scenes featured on the DVD version were truly best left deleted. They were too harsh for this movie and would have taken so much from it. While the abuse was hinted in the finished product, it was not outright shown beyond a certain extent. It was best that way.

This was an absolutely delightful movie to watch.

It gets a 9/10 from...

the Fiend :.
+++++++++
A:
positive