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

Review:The selection of Sylvester Stallone to perform the protagonist by Renny Harlin is commendable since Stallone is that sort of tough and craggy person who had earlier rendered the requisite audaciously versatile aura to the characters of Rocky Balbao and Rambo. But to compare Die Hard series with Cliffhanger is a far-fetched notion.

The excellently crafted opening scene introduces the audience to the thrill, suspense and intrigue which is going to engulf them in the ensuing bloody and perilous encounter with the outlaws. The heist and the high altitude transfer of hard cash in suit cases from one plane to the other is something not filmed before.

The biting cold of the snow capped Alps and the unfolding deceit and treachery among the antagonist forces makes one shiver with trepidation. The forces of awesome adventure and ruthless murder kicks the drama through to the end.

Good movies are not made every year and people don't get a feast for eyes to watch every now and then. Apart from the filthy language/parlance which endows brazen excitement during certain scenes, the movie can be regarded as one that is not going to fade its captivating appeal even watching it after so many years.
+++++++++
A: positive

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

Review:Acclaimed Japanese director Takashi Miike can't seem to get the wheels moving with this torpid thriller, an adaptation of Yasushi Akimoto's book concerning an evil old woman (and child abuser!) who is part of a new urban legend: if your cell-phone rings with a strange tone--and you see the message 'One Missed Call'--you will replay the message only to hear your own final words before your death. Most successful part of the film is the trenchant satire of Reality TV cameras intruding on the future victims, but the not-so-elaborate deaths (which include a hidden piece of red candy!) are disappointing and dispiriting. The frequent shots of ravaged dead bodies are actually displayed rather discreetly, and this overall politeness may be the reason why the film is ultimately so staid. Hollywood predictably jumped on the far-fetched plot in 2008, yet the U.S. version fared no better. NO STARS from ****
+++++++++
A: negative

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

Review:The plot is straightforward an old man living off a main road in woodland one day witnesses a man murdering a child in the woods. Soft For Digging follows the old man's attempts to try and convince the police that what he saw was not a figment of his imagination. However, there is a problem each time the old man guides the police to where the murder happen no corpse can be found. Soft For Digging has a diminutive dialogue which reflects the majority of the scenes of the film, an old man living by himself in a house. During the film I found that I was scared twice namely when the murdered child abruptly appears before the old man. The rest of the film I have to admit did not engage me; I found the tempo of the film a little too slow. The limited dialogue was not a problem. However, the development of the story and its conclusions, after watching the film, took too long. I feel more could have been made of the relationship, ghostly encounters, with the child and the old man. Alone in the woods at night unsure of your own mind can lead to some eerie situations, children are always scary as ghosts, see Dark Water.
+++++++++
A: negative

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

Review:I don't know how or why this film has a meager rating on IMDb. This film, accompanied by "I am Curious: Blue" is a masterwork.

The only thing that will let you down in this film is if you don't like the process of film, don't like psychology or if you were expecting hardcore pornographic ramming.

This isn't a film that you will want to watch to unwind; it's a film that you want to see like any other masterpiece, with time, attention and care.

******SUMMARIES, MAY CONTAIN A SPOILER OR TWO*******

The main thing about this film is that it blends the whole film, within a film thing, but it does it in such a way that sometimes you forget that the fictions aren't real.

The film is like many films in one:

1. A political documentary, about the social system in Sweden at the time. Which in a lot of ways are still relevant to today. Interviews done by a young woman named Lena.

2. A narrative about a filmmaker, Vilgot Sjoman, making a film... he deals with a relationship with his star in the film and how he should have never got involved with people he's supposed to work with.

3. The film that Vilgot is making. It's about a young woman named Lena(IE. #2), who is young and very politically active, she is making a documentary (IE. #1.). She is also a coming of age and into her sexuality, and the freedom of that.

The magnificence and sheer brilliance of "I am Curious: Yellow/Blue" is how these three elements are cut together. In one moment you are watching an interview about politics, and the next your watching what the interviewer is doing behind the scenes but does that so well that you sometimes forget that it is the narrative.

Another thing is the dynamic between "Yellow" and "Blue", which if you see one, you must see the other. "Blue" is not a sequel at all. I'll try to explain it best i can because to my knowledge, no other films have done it though it is a great technique.

Think of "Yellow" as a living thing, actual events in 14 scenes. A complete tale.

Think of "Blue" as all the things IN BETWEEN the 14 scenes in "Yellow" that you didn't see, that is a complete tale on it's own.

Essentially they are parallel films... the same story, told in two different ways.

It wasn't until i saw the first 30 minutes of "Blue" that i fully understood "Yellow"

I hope this was helpful for people who are being discouraged by various influences, because this film changed the way i looked at film.

thanks for your time.
+++++++++
A:
positive