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

Review:This snarky, homophobic thing was dated in 1976. It seems particularly mean-spirited now, filled with gay stereotypes, and characters that are meant to be laughed at, rather than with. Redd Foxx does his standard schtick, Michael Warren at least tries to bring humanity to a one dimensional character, and Pearl--Pearl what were you thinking--? Pearl Bailey deserves far better.
+++++++++
A: negative

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

Review:Pialat films people in extreme emotional situations, usually with several violent scenes. In La Gueule ouverte, he's dealing with the devastating effects on a woman's husband and son as she dies of cancer. In A nos amours, the teenage girl's sexual experimentation leads to violent confrontations with her family. Here we have a rather spoiled young woman who abandons her husband to take up with a sexy ex-con. Her motivation is a little cloudy, since Loulou is incapable of reading or discussing anything more challenging than TV shows; on the other hand, he's got a fabulous body (I wonder why Depardieu never made a sports movie to show off that physique--he would have been great as a rugby player).

The casting is impressive. Isabelle Huppert isn't allowed to give a bland, inexpressive performance (she has given many); Depardieu plays Loulou with all the dynamism and charm you could want--see the scene in the bar, where he's stabbed in the gut, runs away and seeks treatment, then soon restarts with Nelly. Guy Marchand, with those coal-black eyes and distressed look, plays Nelly's husband beautifully; it's a fine repeat of the pairing in Coup de foudre.
+++++++++
A: positive

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

Review:Me and a group of friends rent horrible videos to laugh at them, trust me it has lead to some horribly spent money but also some great laughs. S.I.C.K. is one of the better horror-but-funny movie we've rented. The plot is over-done, the whole take your friends into the woods and never return thing is very old. The goriest part of the movie looks like your visiting the local butcher shop except a little dirtier and with blood on the play dough looking meat. And if anyone has ever been scared of this movie at any time they should stick to Cartoon Network for the rest of their life, it's pathetic. The good aspects of the movie are that the two girls in it are reasonably hot, one better then the other and you see them both naked during the movie. The other good aspect is that this movie is so bad at times that you will laugh till you cry. I don't like watching horrible acting or renting these horrible videos, I don't find that fun but seeing the amount of effort these people put into it and still come out so bad is hilarious and worth renting.Unless you are too mature to laugh at someone's downfalls I would recommend it.

If your renting/buying it to laugh at it I'd give it an 8.5.
+++++++++
A: negative

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

Review:To quote the film, "It's better not to know. Better still to forget. Best of all to be abandoned." Oh, the irony.

A ghost story with all the technical refinements of a Hollywood horror film, but horrifyingly bad dialogue after the first quarter of the film, and you feel like you're being preached to from the start.

It's as if the writers' cumulative character dialogue can be summed up by bad cop TV and a Jerry Springer show. Fitting, maybe, for a film like The Hitcher, not a Russia-set horror film. The result is that a potentially great setting and some potentially great gore scenes go to waste and become just silly, not scary or meaningful.
+++++++++
A:
negative