Problem: This review is like what?

Review:An incredible little English film for so many reasons. First it's a rare look a Laurence Olivier in a light comedy. While his performance is not up the standard he would latter set as one of the greatest actors of the 20th century, he is perfectly believable as the hoodwinked barrister. Historically this film is of great interest because of both where and when it was shoot. Being English it didn't have the big budget of the Hollywood films of the same era and it often shows, but more interesting is the fact this movie filmed just prior to the war and shows an England that would soon be gone. When we watch it today we think in terms of modern morality and over look the fact that this movie and its closest American counter part 'It Happened One Night' were in their day as risque as 'Fatal Instinct' was in our time. But after watching and enjoying this movie the first time I can't help but feel sadness when I watch it today. With half of film shoot before 1950 gone, saving the remaining films means hard choices, and unfortunately films like this are often passed over to save movies that we all consider important. The color shifting, lack of contrast, and generally poor quality of the print most often seen is heartbreaking. This movie along with 'It Happened One Night' are perfect to curl up with a love one under a blanket on cool a cool evening and watch, or better yet why not a double feature.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I was going through a list of Oscar winners and was surprised to see that this film beat Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid for best picture in 1969. After actually seeing it, however, I'm not surprised anymore. It was way ahead of its time in regards to its style, cinematography, and use of flashback to help develop Joe Buck's character.

The most amazing thing to me is the depth of Joe Buck's character in such a short movie. I think Voight captured the naivete and the viciousness-when-provoked. The two scenes that really caught me were after he gets the blowjob in the theater and when the older man solicits him. I think when he looks in the mirror he's trying to see if it's really him that has done- or is about to do- something terrible.

I think it was a brilliant decision by Hoffman to take this role. Otherwise he may have been typecast after the Graduate. Anyway, this considered an all-time great for a reason.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I waited almost 25 years to see this movie, thinking it might be an underrated work, from a period animation was no longer of the quality it had once been. It starred one of the best film villains of all time, was based on a beloved series of children's books, and was a Disney Studios production. What could possibly be wrong with it? As it turns outs, almost everything.

Well, not everything. Vincent Price as Rattigan and Henry Mancini's swanky score are the movie's two saving graces. Price is wickedly enjoyable, and Mancini more professional than the material deserves. They bring class to a project that otherwise belongs in obscurity.

Meanwhile the rest of the movie, while filled with inappropriately adult situations, still suffers from a completely dull script, blandly generic voice work, terrible songs, and lazy animation that wouldn't have been out of place on any of Disney's mid-1980s Saturday morning TV shows.

This was a complete disappointment to me. It's amazing that this movie was nearly contemporary with The Secret of NIMH. Costing a fraction of this, an independent studio produced something with more creativity in its trailer than GMD has in its endless running time.

The extra star that keeps this from being "awful" goes to Price and Mancini.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Imagine pulling back the mask of a lethal assassin and finding Barbara Cartland there... that's what happens with this film.

The opening showed promise, but soon it drops all pretenses of being a thriller (or even an imaginative love story) and the only reason they made this story becomes abundantly clear: to fill a gap in their female viewing market by creating yet another re-hash of 'mis-understood, brooding bad-boy' (Andrei) meets 'innocent, whimsical beauty' (Paula).

Rather than waste any time in creating an original premise, the filmmakers went straight for the money-shot: the bad boy being tamed by said whimsical beauty. Thence follows a string of insincere and heavily-cliched love scenes sprinkled with pseudo philosophical/poetic fluff. Andrei's admission of being (eponymously) a 'poet' is levered in to round out the perceived qualities a Byronic hero should have - but even when we're told in heavy, underlined writing who and what he is, it's still difficult to believe it - or care.

For a Byronic hero/antihero to work, the story needs subtlety, style and innovation - all of which are utterly absent here. This is not a modern day Phantom of the Opera, it's just what happens when a weak and rather silly woman (with loose knicker elastic) dates a bad man, who, after meeting her, seems as dangerous as bunny slippers.

The performances might have saved this film, had they been any good: the female lead is preoccupied with looking sexy and 'otherworldly', no matter how forced or ridiculous; and poor Dougray Scott appears to have been drugged as he shambles through his part. This is not his best work. The glimmers of interest were brought by Jurgen Prochnow as 'Vashon', and Andrew Lee Potts as the young photographer/brother. A better movie would have offed the sister and kept the brother instead.
+++++++++
A:
negative