Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I like Billy Crystal, and I thought it would be fun to watch this film, since I know he admired Alan King and they would be funny together. I thought I had seen all Billy's movies but couldn't remember this one, and now I know why. It's so full of cliches and phony emotion; you can smell each scene coming (and going!). Billy doesn't even get to be funny very often. He's too busy trying to cry fake tears or show his angst at how badly his father let him down. Alan King himself is fairly likable, as is the subplot about being an extra in the movies. But what a coincidence that Billy just happens to visit his father just as a major health crisis takes place, etc. etc. Or that two busy doctors can just shut down their practices to moon around in LA. And when the end comes, boy, does it come quickly! Almost as though the writers realized they had painted themselves into a corner and the only way out was to do a death scene. Mostly disappointing with a few glimmers of good humor.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This film about secret government mind experiments and the corrupt use of the citizenry by secretive and vile shadowy figures had the potential for being a really interesting movie. But for me, it failed. I won't elaborate much on the rather confusing plot line, but if you are looking for a detailed explanation, the comment by user "reluctantpopstar" gives a good description of it.

But it didn't work for me. I found it slow, which would be okay but for the fact that it seemed to go nowhere. The viewer is left in the dark about too many things to really be able to get a handle on this movie-in some films, one can argue that the filmmakers intended to provoke thought and left things ambiguous for that reason. I don't think that this is the case here.

As for the frequent long shots of two buildings that have been frequently mentioned by other users...I see that they do have a point-they give the viewer time to get another drink without missing any of the "action". And I suspect many viewers would welcome the opportunity to have several beverages on board to get through this one.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I couldn't help but feel that this could have been a bigger movie than it was. The screenplay is highly intelligent and it just seemed that it could have been opened up in a way more reminiscent of Seven. Not by changing the story - I think mainly through the cinematography. The cinematography was the only thing that I found to be holding back the film. On the other hand, the pacing was absolutely on point. Whoever worked on the editing really did their job well. And I thought Bill Paxton did a great job of directing. Now away from the technical stuff...

This movie threw me for a loop. SPOILER AHEAD!!!! All along, I really felt that Bill Paxton was crazy and then when Adam finally took the FBI agent to the Rose Garden to show him where the bodies were buried and revealed who he was, I got thrown for a loop. I had suspected the first part of the twist but what really threw me was when he touches the agent and sees the agent murder his mother and the fact that the agent too (without any words spoken, simply by touch) sees it again with Adam and asks him how he knew. My dilemma was not that it was yet another twist thrown in but the almost ungraspable idea that this man and his father were not crazy but actually picked out 'bad guys' so to speak, knowing their sins and crimes already. I don't endorse an eye for an eye so I didn't leave the film being able to believe that they were doing God's work. Instead I chose to believe that they were both clairvoyant and that the father had gone off the deep end one day from it and through the things that he subjected his sons to, disturbed them permanently also. That was my interpretation but the vexing thing about the film was it's like a house of cards and a never-ending circle and what is the correct interpretation of the disturbing events you've sat through. It's definitely one of those movies where I'd love to be able to meet the writer so I could just ask him what the real meaning was to it all. Were they crazy and psychotic? Were they simply telepathic and took license because of it? Or did they have some sort of appearance from God? And if so, was it God or the Devil disguising himself as God. My friends and I found ourselves talking about it all night trying to figure out what was what and what the filmmakers had thought was the answer when they made this movie.

A definitely perplexing and thought invoking film with some very disturbing but certainly not sensationalistic elements to it. It's not a perfect film, but it definitely is it's own thing. Great directorial work and acting by Bill Paxton and the child that played Fenton was extremely good. I hope he doesn't end up relegated to the child actor syndrome as he seems to have a lot of promise. I gave this movie a good vote for the majority of the components that make a film, but I would have voted higher if wasn't for the feeling that something (although I can't pinpoint what) was off and if it hadn't have been, the movie would have gone to an even higher level. Still, a definite recommend, especially for those that are inquisitive.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:When Braveheart first came out, I was enthralled, and was admittedly one of the most rabid fans of the film. When Rob Roy came out, I was intrigued, and although I enjoyed the film I did not think it was a great film. However, as time has gone by, my appreciation for Rob Roy has grown, and my enthusiasm for Braveheart has diminished. Braveheart is great entertainment, to be sure, but there are flaws as well. The most significant, in my view, is the unflattering portrayal of Robert the Bruce, who was without a doubt Scotland's greatest king. Another is the historical inaccuracy of the film, which tarnishes the film in proportion to the many historical distortions. I think I am also bothered by the fact that it was in this film, seen only (at least by me) in retrospect, that the beginnings of Mel Gibson's egomania can be seen clearly for the first time. In contrast, Rob Roy has grown on me over the years. Partly because it largely avoids the faults I mind most in Braveheart. But also because Rob Roy is like fine wine, growing more mature and complex with each viewing.
+++++++++
A:
positive