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

Review:I hadn't seen this film in probably 35 years, so when I recently noticed that it was going to be on television (cable) again for the first time in a very long time (it is not available on video), I made sure I didn't miss it. And unlike so many other films that seem to lose their luster when finally viewed again, I found the visual images from the "Pride of the Marines" were as vivid and effective as I first remembered. What makes this movie so special, anyway?

Everything. Based on the true story of Al Schmid and his fellow Marine machine gun crew's ordeal at the Battle of the Tenaru River on Guadalcanal in November, 1942, the screenplay stays 95% true to the book upon which it was based, "Al Schmid, Marine" by Roger Butterfield, varying only enough to meet the time constrains of a motion picture. This is not a typical "war movie" where the action is central, and indeed the war scene is a brief 10 minutes or so in the middle of the film. But it is a memorable 10 minutes, filmed in the lowest light possible to depict a night battle, and is devoid of the mock heroics or falseness that usually plagues the genre. In a way probably ahead of its time, the natural drama of what happened there was more than sufficient to convey to the audience the stark, ugly, brutal nature of battle, and probably shocked audiences when it was seen right after the war. This film isn't about "glorifying" war; I can't imagine anyone seeing that battle scene and WANTING to enlist in the service. Not right away, anyway.

What this film really concerns is the aftermath of battle, and how damaged men can learn to re-claim their lives. There's an excellent hospital scene where a dozen men discuss this, and I feel that's another reason why the film was so so well received--it was exceptionally well-written. There's a "dream" sequence done in inverse (negative film) that seems almost experimental, and the acting is strong, too, led by John Garfield. Garfield was perfect for the role because his natural temperament and Schmid's were nearly the same, and Garfield met Schmid and even lived with him for a while to learn as much as he could about the man and his role. Actors don't do that much anymore, but added to the equation, it's just another reason why this movie succeeds in telling such a difficult, unattractive story.
+++++++++
A: positive

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

Review:I've seen a lot of movies and rarely would I ever rate a movie "1" but this movie was beyond terrible.

The acting was terrible, the plot was ridiculous, the effects were unrealistic and the characters were annoying. Usually when I watch scary movies I think it's DUMB when the characters hears a noise in house/forest/school/etc and then yells out "hello is anyone there?" - but at least they're believable when they do it.. This movie couldn't even get that right.

This is a movie that'll make other B-horror movies like Venom and The Fog look like academy award winning masterpieces.

I always have an open mind while watching movies and I can only say that this movie was a complete waste of time and I write this comment so that anyone else who's thinking of watching this movie will think again. IT'S AWFUL!
+++++++++
A: negative

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

Review:It has taken me a while to watch this version as unfortunately I don't seem to be able to rent it in the video store, only the other version but I fell in love with it. I was always borderline with the other Emma. Gwenneth and Toni Collette, as they are not British naturally have to put on the accent, and well to me it doesn't seem natural. It seems put on. Sorry but don't think Toni and Gwenneth did a brilliant job there. I could not warm to any of the characters, but this version is more heart warming and more the type of person I imagined Emma to be. It is definitely the version I will come back to from now on. I was disappointed that Mr Knightley was not better looking, but he is convincing. I also like Jane Fairfax better (played by Olivia Williams). I never warmed to her in the movie version, but she is better portrayed in this version. Come to think of it, (besides Mr Knightley) all characters are better played, and a lot less over the top. Unfortunately both came out around same time and the Paltrow version got more publicity. Pity...... I also love the new scene at the end. Well done to Kate Beckingsale! Therefore, if you are a Jane Austen fan, don't forget to watch this one.
+++++++++
A: positive

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

Review:As an Altman fan, I'd sought out this movie for years, thinking that with such a great cast, it would have to be at least marginally brilliant.

Big mistake.

This is one of Altman's big-cast mishmashes, thrown together haphazardly and improvisationally (or so it feels) with the hope that it would all come together in the editing room. It doesn't.

As Maltin points out, this turkey is notable only for the debut performance of Alfre Woodard, who outshines the vets all around her. But other than that, avoid at all costs. (Which is pretty easy to do -- it's never been released on video -- to my knowledge -- and its cable appearances have the frequency of Halley's Comet.)
+++++++++
A:
negative