Problem: This review is like what?

Review:For those who'd like to see this movie? I'd say: go! Without the narration it might be a very good movie/documentary. But the music, the narration and some of the implemented story lines make it very hard to watch for a sceptic person like me. Following several animals, their life in several seasons one gets the feeling that it is an animal soap we're watching. But the melodramatic point of view just doesn't cut it for me, moreover if a predator finally catches up on a prey (one exception left there) the camera zooms out or skips to another scene. I ask myself why that happens, if they were to show reality, why cut the scenes that a melodramatic fairytale remains? I think the moral is important for the mass of the crowd, cause after all: it would be a waste to destroy this beautiful planet.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:If you haven't figured out what is going to happen in this film in the first five minutes then give it a couple more minutes. Lilia is a widow. She has been left on the shelf for too long and she wants to burst out. She has a teenage daughter which only highlights that she is not getting any younger. While checking up on her daughter she discovers a world she never dared...the cabaret, where she can belly dance in skimpy sequined outfits while men throw money at her. The film is very misogamist. It's portrayal of men is dismal. Which is rather odd as Lilia stoops to jiggle around for them, not for money, but just for the hell of it. When she succeeds in arousing them it makes her feel like a woman again. She does not wish to connect with them but she is addicted to the attention. The other dancers all are mostly aging women who look like men in drag and realize their time in the spotlight is short-lived. Not short enough I say. She does find romance, however brief , with you guessed it....No surprises here we didn't see coming. Though the ending is good you realize that it could have ended no other way. Maybe this film just isn't targeting my demographic- 30 Male
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:IN COLD BLOOD has to be ranked as first-rate movie-making, even if the subject matter is about as grim as it gets in the world of make-believe, but film noir fans should definitely find this one a gripping piece of work, based as it is on a true-life crime spree.

It opens with Quincy Jones' music under the credits and starkly dramatic views of a highway bus heading toward Kansas City, effectively setting the mood of the film even before the credits end. The B&W photography of Conrad Hall does a superb job right from the start.

Also clear from the start: ROBERT BLAKE and SCOTT Wilson are natural born actors. They do a great job of portraying free spirited buddies looking for the next thrill. "Ever see a millionaire fry in the electric hair? Hell no. There are two kinds of rules in this world. One for the rich and one for the poor," says Wilson, taking a swig of alcohol behind the wheel.

Both are destined to cross the path of a farm family, showing no mercy and leaving no witnesses behind.

Blake, reminiscing about movies, and thinking of hunting for gold in Mexico, says: "Remember Bogart in 'Treasure of the Sierra Madre'?" (An ironic moment, because Blake himself was in the film as a little boy selling lottery tickets). "I got you pegged for a natural born killer," Wilson tells Blake.

JOHN FORSYTHE is one of the lead detectives on the case, discovering that all four family members were tied up, shot in the head and one had his throat cut. "Don't people around here lock doors?" asks PAUL STEWART. "They will tonight," is the terse reply.

After the murders, the killers discover that there was "no big fat safe in the wall", like their prison informant told them. So, in the end, it was truly a stupid, senseless crime. The question is: WHY did they do it? And this is something the second half of the film explores in depth. It takes an hour and a half into the movie before the detectives catch up with the killers and begin the interrogation.

It's these final scenes that carry the most conviction and the most interest as the boys are told they've made numerous mistakes and left a living witness. The actual events up to and including the murder are saved until the end. "It makes no sense," Blake tells Forsythe. "Mr. Cutter was a very nice gentleman. I thought so right up until the time I cut his throat." The screenplay by Richard Brooks is concise and to the point--and so is his direction.

Summing up: Brilliant depiction of two aimless young men on a crime spree that made no sense then or now for a mere $43. Chilling.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Years ago, I found a "bargain bin" copy of this film for a buck or two. In so many ways, this is quite fitting, as when it was made back in 1933, it was truly a cheaply made film by the "poverty row" studio, Majestic. However, while the film is rather derivative, it is STILL well worth watching and provides a few surprises.

The story is very, very familiar, as in some Germanic town, the people are upset because of some recent deaths that appear to be the work of vampires! Adding to this familiarity is Dwight Frye. He played Renfield in Dracula, and here he is very, very similar--though he plays a much more harmless weirdo. In this case, he's obsessed with his pet bats and people begin to blame him for the deaths. The film does a good job of providing some "red herrings" (i.e., false leads) and while it doesn't take a genius to figure out Frye may not be responsible, the WHO and WHY are intriguing and make it VERY different from the average horror film. In addition, while the production had little money to speak of, it still had some good actors of the day--Lionel Atwill and Melvin Douglas--and it also used Universal Studios sets at night (when they were done filming for the day). As a result, the film looks pretty good overall, though I also thought that, as usual, Fay Wray was terrible--thought it didn't noticeably detract from the film. I have seen her in more movies than most people on IMDb and I have come to notice that her characters have no depth--she always seems to be cast as the "screaming lady" and provides little new in each film.

Overall, for fans of old horror films, this is excellent and worth seeing. For people who are NOT fans of the genre, it's probably pretty skip-able.
+++++++++
A:
positive