Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This makes the third Errol Morris movie I've seen, and I'm increasingly not liking his style. He seems to find very interesting and varied characters, great personalities to create documentaries for, and then with tongue-in-cheek editing make fun of everything they are about. It's never really a direct caricaturation of them and Morris seems most of the time to be saying, "But no, no, these people are really fascinating, really!", but there's always these subtle little canted angles and not-so-subtle editing techniques that show that Morris seems to be mocking them behind their back.

This movie tracks four people who break the traditional boundaries of organic separation... a man who studies African hairless molerats to find that they are amazingly ant-like, a lion tamer, a man who keeps a garden full of animal-shaped shrubbery, and a robot designer. The general theme of the film seems to revolve around the question of what designates animal, human, and life features? So the title of Fast, Cheap, & Out of Control doesn't really seem to mean anything in terms of the movie... right? Except of course Morris seems just a little disturbed by these individuals' passions (he might call them "obsessions") making synthetic designs on life. I share not that fear and honestly don't appreciate some of the connections Morris makes in the film.

But I stress his subtlety. With no voice-over narration and leaving the words entirely to the interviewees, it's not as if Morris ever pounds that anxiety onto the spectators' collective head. Instead he mixes circus footage and ant footage together often at times when they're taken out of the context of the circus and the ants, showing a sort of collective absurdity behind what all of these people are talking about. I don't find them absurd, I find them all very neat and interesting individuals.

Unless, of course, he didn't intend such juxtapositions, which means he's just a bad craftsman instead of a silent subverter. Considering none of this films I've seen so far have particularly impressed me, I don't really care to find out what he's trying to do.

--PolarisDiB
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This movie was extremely depressing.

The characters were so cold. The mother, who is he main character, is everything but "motherly". OK, she was unhappy in her marriage and always put her husband and children first. Her husband dies. She then goes to visit her son and meets this hunk who is sleeping with her daughter and ends up sleeping with him. Until this part, the movie is all right. Not excellent, but it can be watched. The guy is charming and who can blame her? OK it's not very motherly to sleep with your daughter's lover but let's blame that on the shock of losing her husband.

She becomes totally obsessed with the guy. I think this is the part where I started to dislike the movie. She's always there wanting to please him in an "old fashioned way" with snacks while he is working on her son's house (I guess this is the only thing she ever learned to do), as if it was the only way she could get his attention. The guy obviously is not very interested (actually, it seems more like he considered sleeping with her a charitable activity) and instead of being insulted by that, she continues to beg him to go to go to bed with her and to be nice to her when he becomes very abusive. "I want to please you", she tells him in a desperate way while he is insulting her very badly.

What outraged me in this movie, is the utter lack of self-respect the mother has for herself. She tells Craig something like "I am just a shapeless lump" the first time they sleep together.

This movie is an insult to women kind. If it had been me, I would have bought myself a little object that would have brought me the same satisfaction and a lot less emotional pain... :)
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Granted, this seems like a good idea. Steve Martin, Goldie Hawn, and John Cleese in a Neil Simon comedy. Where can you go wrong? Watch the movie, and you'll find out.

In truth, Martin, the lead, is mis-cast. He's not doing the great slapstick he's known for, from movies like "The Jerk", but instead plays a sort of in-between character that doesn't work. Hawn, with no one to play off of, is terrible. Cleese is the only even partially funny member.

To top it off, the plot is pretty stupid. I can't say how much of it may have been changed, but the characters seem to lack the slightest bit of common sense. They blunder through New York, not doing anything right, and unfortuneatly, nothing funny. Not only is the whole premise completely unbelievable, it seems to give the message that people who don't live in New York aren't very bright, a theme repeated throughout the movie.

In summation, instead of seeing this, go rent the original "Odd Couple" again.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:"The seventh sign" borrows a lot from "Rosemary's baby" and "the omen" (it actually blends the two stories).Even its title recalls Bergman' s "the seventh seal" .

Nevertheless,it begins well enough,with all the omens scattered on the whole earth,and in parallel ,a -seemingly- distinct plot with Moore's husband trying to save a poor boy (who killed his parents who were brother and sister)from death penalty.This time,both Christian and Jewish religions are called to the rescue (even the Wandering Jew is involved),which makes the lines sometimes unintentionally funny (Have you ever been to Sunday school? But they taught me that God was love!).The best scene IMHO ,is the short dialog between priest John Heard -who does not seem to take things seriously ,too bad he was not given a more important part because his laid-back acting is priceless-and the young Jew.

Demi Moore probably registered the same desire as ex-husband Bruce Willis :saving the world.She does not save the movie for all that.
+++++++++
A:
negative