Problem: This review is like what?

Review:The basic plot in this movie isn't bad. A lady makes it big and comes back to her alma mater to be adored. But, despite good acting by Robert Young and Eve Arden, the movie is a mess. The blame for this I place on either Joan Crawford or the director or both, as her performance is just awful. Instead of being a real person, she does a wonderful impersonation of a deer caught in the headlights. In other words, she stares off into space and has a "golly I am SOOOO stunned" expression. After just a few minutes it really became annoying for me. Now this is certainly not the only Crawford film I dislike for her performance, as she had done more than her share of overacting--in films such as JOHNNY GUITAR or many of her later films, such as BERSERK! My advice is to try a different Crawford film--there certainly were better.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This was just another marvelous film of the Berlin Festival. But unlike "Yes", by Sally Potter, which I had seen some days before, where after leaving the cinema I felt a strong desire of wishing to embrace the whole world and was just happy to be alive, this time quite the opposite thing happened: there was something that dragged me down, and the air suddenly felt cold and hard to breathe. It was as if, all of a sudden, there was nothing left, all hope, all future had been taken away to a dead place.

Nina's life seemed to be dismal and locked, but then, one lovely day, there appears that kind of luminosity that opens up the horizon and makes her believe in the fulfillment of her dreams. There was nobody at her side but suddenly she finds a companion, just out of nothing, someone who was able to share the most hidden feelings of her life. That person was Toni, a vagabond girl who does not seem to have any roots, just like herself.

But the film's title is "Ghosts", and ghosts appear and disappear as they wish, there is no way to retain them Ghosts also represent the hidden fantasies of people, strange ideas that occupy your mind and are only perceived by yourself, hiding away from all other people. Francoise, a French woman, is a victim of such ghosts. She once lost her child daughter in Berlin, who apparently had been robbed from her in a supermarket, in just one moment of inattentiveness. Now time has passed, and Francoise is back in Berlin, still looking for the missing child.

Nina could be that child, after all she has got that same scar at her ankle and the heart-shaped birthmark between her shoulder blades which seems to prove her true identity.

And Nina adopts that idea, after all she is not only in desperate need of a companion, she also longs for a mother. But in the end she is empty-handed, Toni has disappeared with a man, and her supposed mum turns out to be a sick woman. "Marie is dead," concludes Francoise's husband, and the statement could not be more disillusioning. Nina is just a "nina", a girl without name, there is no hope for any divine fulfillment. There is no Marie in this world to accompany our lonely lives. Therefore, in the end, we see Nina all alone, about to walk along the road that has opened up before her, into a future that seems joyless and uncertain.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Updated version of a story that had been turned into the film in 1938 England(Return of the Frog) concerning the pursuit by the police of a master criminal known as the Frog because of the frog like get up (bulging eyes etc) he wears.

One of the good Wallace films from the 1960's it's a solid little entertainment. Clearly influenced by ( or did this influence) the restart of the Dr Mabuse films, the Frog seems to be more a super villain than a master thief. While not the best of the Wallace films, it is worth a look. It would make an interesting double feature with the excellent earlier film.

Between 6 and 7 out of 10.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Let me be clear. I've used IMDb for years. But only today I went through the trouble of registering on the site, just so I could give this movie the lowest possible rating. I've seen hundreds of films, some of them bad, a few awful. Never, though, have i seen such a contrast of pretense and incompetence, of high intentions and failure.

Mira Sorvino is horribly cast as the princess, but entirely unbelievable as Phocion, a young boy. Fiona Shaw is always an entertaining character, but the dialogue in the film is much worse, even, than in the insipid French play that is the source (Marivaux never reached Hollywood until now, and we should keep it that way).

To illustrate, for example, that Leontine is a brilliant, passionate philosopher and scientist, she is shown frantically pouring chemicals from beaker to beaker, shouting out names of famous scientists. And the romance between Agis and the princess is played even sillier. For this, the pair should receive a joint 'Clair Danes' award, which in a just world would be awarded for gratuitously anachronistic and uninspired re-interpretation of interesting teens from literature as brats of the 1990's (see Miss Danes in Les Miserables).

Aside from the atrocious plot and dialogue, there are some attempts to introduce artistic tropes into the filming. For example, there are moments when a handful of spectators are faded in and out of view of the action, sitting in chairs, watching the principal characters. The Director wants us to realize she's adapted a play. I get it. But it doesn't happen at all until far into the film. At that point, seeing a crowd of people sitting in chairs for a moment, then disappearing, is creepy and distracting. They're like some sort of un-scary zombie crowd, appearing through the mists, filling us with dread. When you see the horrible frolic and song that ends this movie, you'll want to rouse your own crowd of zombies and kill them all for the grave injustise of poisoning your mind for 112 minutes.

-Matthew McGuire
+++++++++
A:
negative