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

Review:I revisited Grand Canyon earlier this year when I set out to devise a ten best list of the 1990's. I first saw the film when I was 17 years old. How did I hear about it? It was reviewed, and recommended highly, by Siskel & Ebert in 1991, and I eventually caught it on video a year later.

It's a great film, a powerful film, a healing film, about the power of listening, truly listening to one another. I've seen it six times now, and it entertains and inspires me with every subsequent viewing. But why the poor reviews for this movie? Maltin's movie guide gives it two out of four. Too melodramatic, too much coincidence, too sappy, are the expressions that I read the most. Yes, there is melodrama in this story, and yes, there is a lot of coincidence, too. But it delivers with an intensity and force that seems supple. For all of the "plot" that exists in Grand Canyon, such as drive-by shootings, a police chase, an earthquake, a love affair, a woman's discovery of a baby in the bushes, another shooting, a near accident by a new driver, and worldly advice from a homeless man, this movie wins because of the smart performances by Kevin Kline, Steve Martin, Mary McDonnell, Alfre Woodard, Danny Glover, and Jeremy Sisto. It also succeeds because of Lawrence Kasdan's skillful direction and writing. You know that this isn't just another movie when you consider a sequence at the beginning of the film that involves Kevin Kline being harassed by four black youths. Danny Glover plays a tow truck driver who assists the Kline character, but not before he gets harassed too, by the leader of the bunch. Listen to the dialogue as the kid suggests to Glover,"Are you afraid of me because of me, or because I have a gun?".

Grand Canyon is filled with one perceptive scene after another. Steve Martin should have been nominated for best supporting actor as a movie producer who has a change of heart and then a subsequent change of mind. I think his character is a warning that "the good" can carry us forward, that idealism is a virtue, but one that we must fight for constantly rather than depend upon.

I fear that Grand Canyon may be lost forever in the wilderness of non-new releases at the video store. But with the deals now on older releases as low as 99 cents, I plead with anyone who has read this far into a review from a reviewer that you will thank after having rented it, Grand Canyon is something special. If you loved Magnolia, another movie with a big ensemble about deep humanist themes, you'll love Grand Canyon, too.
+++++++++
A: positive

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

Review:I don't see what everyone liked about this movie. The set-up was too long and talky, and when it was done, the main character remained as flat and opaque as he had been in the first scene. After the film finally got Cusack into the eponymous hotel room, I had to wonder, well, what's going to happen here for the next hour or so to keep me engaged. The answer: not much, just John Cusack having a long, drawn-out, mental breakdown.

Maybe if the Cusack character had more depth . . maybe if his freak-out were a more thorough reworking of his everyday life . . . maybe if the film had either better developed its half-baked themes about loss and faith or had not tacked them on in the first place . . . maybe if the film had made a choice to be either psychological horror or thrill-ride horror and had fully embraced one of these styles . . . I dunno. All I do know is that I saw this movie with two other horror buffs and none of us much liked it.

Except for the disquieting episode on the hotel ledge, the alarming crazy lady with the hammer, and the so-stupid-it-was-fun crypt keeper in the air duct, all three of which account for no more than five minutes of screen time, this film was a bore.

By the way, this story seems to steal ideas from The Shining and use them here to much less powerful effect. Is Stephen King now reduced to stealing ideas from himself?
+++++++++
A: negative

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

Review:For real film people, this film is a must, since it works as a perfect little allegory for the movies themselves. Janos Rukh/Boris Karloff's science has to do with capturing and projecting light from cosmic phenomena. This light can do harm, or it can be harnessed to do good. On the one hand it blinds his mother, on the other it is used to cure blindness ("I can see!" shouts a young girl on whose eyes this light is projected). When Rukh/Karloff is himself poisoned by the uncanny power of this light, we see him actually emitting a ghostly glow on his hands and face like a badly developed negative, drawing attention to the fact that the man we are watching is a projection, an entity viewed on film (only visible, as in a movie theater, when the lights are out).

There is a wonderful passage near the beginning where Karloff/Rukh explains his research as being informed by the fact that everything that happens is captured in light which rolls through space for millions of years, as the light from Andromeda was emitted from that Galaxy at a time when the earth was still molten rock.

There are passages in the film when this new science is juxtaposed to older cultural vehicles: that of the writer, in the persona of Beulah Bondi/Arabella Stevens; and religion, emblemized in the sculptural figures on the local cathedral Karloff blasts with his projector/ray gun.

One has to wonder here if this film was meant to glance at what was going on in Germany at the time, and particularly at Riefenstall's use of film the year before to promote a regime that certainly would go on to do a lot of harm:Triumph of the Will.

Happily in the end, Mother (Violet Kemble Cooper) intervenes, reminding Janos Rukh of the first rule of science.

If only more movies made you want to stand up in the theater and shout: "I can see!"
+++++++++
A: positive

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

Review:Gomez Pereira is the responsible for some of the most despicable comedies of latest Spanish cinema (just take a look at his curriculum vitae), so I didn't expect that much of "Cosas Que Hacen..."... In fact I don't know why in the world did I decide to watch it. Anyway, I just did... And what a surprise. It looks that Gomez Pereira has finally matured and now he's capable of making a good movie. He's last work deals with the midlife crisis, the disappointing, and the seeking for a second chance after you've ruined it all. The last half hour of the movie (the more dramatic) is the best part, and it just makes worth watching the film. Also we have Eduard Fernandez playing the main role, and I keep on thinking he's the best actor of his generation (by far).

*My rate: 7/10
+++++++++
A:
positive