Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Lets make a movie about a talk show that already exists and basically have everything that happens on the show! Well if that idea doesn't intrigue you, which it shouldn't, stay away from ringmaster. I had the displeasure of seeing this in the theater and actually being able to sit through this mess of a movie. I guess jerry springer doesn't play himself as it shows from the cheap props for his show (yes it looks even cheaper than the real jerry springer show) and he is only known as jerry in the film. The plot (if you can call it that) is about a daughter while living with her mother decides to start sleeping with the mother's live in boyfriend. So the mother's brilliant idea is to call the jerry springer show as well as getting it on with her daughter's boyfriend. (Is it any coincidence they live in a trailer park). Meanwhile somewhere else in america a woman finds her cheatin' man with her friend in bed together. So of course call america's therapist Jerry springer! I'd talk about the rest of the film but even thinking about the film now is giving me a headache. Jamie Pressly who plays the daughter looks totally unattractive in the movie. And remember Michael Dudikoff the kick ass karate master from the american ninja series? Well take a look at him now as a white trash drunk. The thing is he really looks too horrible and out of shape to call it "getting in touch with his charecter". But if your idea of fun is seeing Jerry Springer sing a country song about his own show or guys hooking up with transvestites...well...JUST WATCH THE SHOW INSTEAD! ... at least steve was smart enough to stay out of this flick.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Overall, I thought it a very nice movie - I hate to use the word 'nice' as it's rather dry but it was very beautiful to look at and the central performances by Rupert Friend and Emily Blunt were very strong. What I liked most was that despite the gleaming aesthetics of the costumes and the settings, all gilded and shiny, this aspect never took over the heart of the film which was good, strong writing (thank you Julian Fellowes :D); nothing too flamboyant or saturated with pomp, i.e not sensationalised greatly (when Victoria is dragged out of bed to be informed she is now Queen, well you couldn't get a less glamorous hand over of the crown). It was paced gently and every line in the film held its worth.

Undoubtedly the portrayal of the love between Victoria and Albert, though somewhat fairytale-ish on the face it, was in fact a slow burning candle and Friend and Blunt did well to show how effortlessly these two people 'fitted' together despite the union being initially arranged (my fave bit was when they come home after hunting and Victoria simply hugs her new husband from behind; so much said without any words, that's what film is all about). Blunt held her own beautifully as well, she has a face that demands your attention and I can't not mention the costumes that she wears - every one simply gorgeous. If I was Blunt I would have trouble parting with any of them! The rest of the ensemble cast all played their roles well, Harriet Walter as Queen Adelaide being a highlight.

The only qualm I have, is that it lacked a sense of urgency, or an event that could have made the movie a little more exciting? (It was rather tame) I don't know, I wanted 'something' to happen that would have Victoria draw out some strength and prove her worth a little more. When she and Albert argued, I loved it, I could have done with some more pivotal dramatic moments, though that may be just me.

Lastly, at the risk of sounding all patriotic, it did renew a sort of pride and awe in the crown and what it takes to be in such a position, especially in one so young. This may be in part to the fact that this film's snap shot of Victoria's young life is immediately apt to what I have been writing for one character of mine in 'The Sword & The Scion' but nevertheless, it did flag up those feelings (for those following my book, can you guess what character Victoria so aptly reflects?) It might have been in part to the film displaying how ridiculous the government were back in those times as they didn't seem to give two hoots about the poor and dispossessed of the nation, which only in turns renews appreciation that Queen Victoria and Prince Albert were so active in this domestic domain. It made the government appear rather useless - nothing much has changed then I suppose.

BLOG on films and books: http://sempergratis.blogspot.com
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Deodato brings us some mildly shocking moments and a movie that doesn't take itself too seriously. Absolutely a classic in it's own particular kind of way. This movie provides a refreshingly different look at barbarians. If you get a chance to see this movie do so. You'll definitely have a smile on your face most of the time. Not because it's funny or anything mundane like that but because it's so bad it goes out the other way and becomes good, though maybe not clean, fun.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I often feel like Scrooge, slamming movies that others are raving about - or, I write the review to balance unwarranted raves. I found this movie almost unwatchable, and, unusual for me, was fast-forwarding not only through dull, cliched dialog but even dull, cliched musical numbers. Whatever originality exists in this film -- unusual domestic setting for a musical, lots of fantasy, some animation -- is more than offset by a script that has not an ounce of wit or thought-provoking plot development. Individually, June Haver and Dan Dailey appear to be nice people, but can't carry a movie as a team. Neither is really charismatic or has much sex appeal. They're both bland. I like Billy Gray, but his character is pretty one-note. The best part of the film, to me, are June Haver's beautiful costumes and great body.
+++++++++
A:
negative