Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I enjoyed the innocence of this film and how the characters had to deal with the reality of having a powerful animal in their midst. The gorilla looks just terrific, and the eyes were especially lifelike. It's even a little scary at times and should have children slightly frightened without going over the top. Rene Russo plays her role wonderfully feminine. Usually these type of Hollywood films that take place in the past feel the need to create a straw-man villain but the only adversary is the gorilla. It's an interesting look at how close some animals are to humans, how they feel the same emotions we do, and yet how we really can't treat them just like people because they aren't. Not many films venture into this territory and it's worth seeing if you want to contemplate the human-animal similarity.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Deanna Durbin, then 14 and just under contract to MGM, made a short feature in 1936 which paired her with Judy Garland, a year younger, in the first film for both of them. Louis B. Mayer then decided he didn't need two competing young singers, placed his bet on Garland and let Durbin go. Universal immediately signed Durbin, rushed her into Three Smart Girls and rewrote the screenplay to pump up her part. She's billed last, but with the typographic equivalent of neon lights around her name. Universal was convinced Durbin would be a smash, and they were right. Three Smart Girls is less a musical and more a screwball comedy, and Durbin, 15 when the movie was released, carries it with aplomb. She's Penny Craig, and she and her older sisters, Joan and Kay, are determined to save their father, who had divorced their mother, from the clutches of an elegant gold digger with a fierce mother. They talk their way from Switzerland, where they live, to New York City, where their father lives. They plan not just to break up their father's wedding but to reunite their father with their mother, who after ten years apart still loves the guy. Is there any doubt that Durbin will sing a song or two in her warm, luscious soprano? Nope. Is there any doubt the girls will succeed...with Kay and Joan finding love and matrimonial material along the way? Nope, again. Years later Durbin was quoted as saying that she couldn't keep playing little Miss Fixit forever. She was right, of course, but in Three Smart Girls, her first feature movie, she has little Miss Fixit down pat. Durbin is funny, determined, resourceful, energetic and, of all things, natural. Her personality is so genuine that it makes this comedy -- a mix of farce, confusion, good intentions and cheerful avarice -- downright endearing.

Durbin carries the movie with ease. It's a lot of fun watching her hold her own against the likes of Binnie Barnes as Donna Lyon, the woman with her hooks in Penny's rich father, played by Charles Winninger, who was no slouch at stealing scenes, either. Alice Brady, who played the dithering matron in My Man Godfrey, plays Donna Lyons' mother, who is even more of a gold digger than her daughter. The last of the accomplished farceurs is Ray Milland as Lord Michael Stuart, who through a contrived and amusing mix-up is mistaken for Mischa Auer.

Three Smart Girls holds up well as a light-weight and amusing comedy of manners and mix- ups. So does Deanna Durbin as a brand-new star, who with her huge success saved Universal's bacon.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Did anyone who was making this movie, particularly the director, spare a thought for the logic of the story-line? These are not mere plot-holes, but plot graves, that become ever deeper as we lose any sympathy for the main character and his plight. That is, if you are kind enough a viewer to valiantly ignore the fact for most of the movie that the characters are either servants to the grave-hole plot, or boring and unlikeable. Or, in the case of Downey's & Hannah's characters, apparently superfluous. In pondering the reason for existence of Downey's character's significant screen-time in the movie, I decided that either the director had liked his character and unnecessarily increased his screen-time (unlikley, as the director didn't change anything else about the script he actually needed to) or that his character was going to be sacrificed on the altar of bad plotting. I'll leave you to guess which one it was to be.

I had to keep checking the cover of the DVD to confirm that this really was made by credible talents. I cannot understand why Robert Altman would take this job. Surely he has some power to pick and chose. Actually, I can't understand why anyone would take this script on, except a first-time director looking for the experience.

I suppose Robert Downey Jr. needed the money for his habit. I suppose Kenneth Branagh wanted to try a southern accent. I suppose Robert Duvall was only given a few pages of the script and thought the role in isolation sounded intriguing. These are the only motivations I can see that would coerce good actors to take on roles in this movie. As for Robert Altman, plenty of effort has gone in on his part to making the movie look fantastic. I found myself noticing how he had framed such and such a scene, or used the bright orange float vests in another scene to draw the eye's movements, or imposed a beautiful filter to create a particular mood. I do not typically notice such things in movies, since most movies I bother to watch to the end actually engage me for reasons of good story-telling and interesting characters with understandable motives. I watched this to the end only because some ridiculous element of optimism in myself kept looking at that DVD cover and being convinced that, due to the talent involved, there had to be some redeeming factor in this movie.

Nice direction. But that's not why I watch movies.
+++++++++
A:
negative