Problem: This review is like what?

Review:The arrival of White Men in Arctic Canada challenges the freedom of a fearless ESKIMO hunter.

W. S. Van Dyke, MGM's peripatetic director, was responsible for this fascinating look at life in the Arctic among the Inuit. His production was on location filming from April 1932 until November 1933 (although some annoying rear projection effects show that some of the shooting took place back at the Studio). While considered a documentary at the time, we would likely term it a 'docudrama' as it is scripted with an intriguing plot & storyline.

The film shows the daily life of the Eskimo, both Winter & Summer, and in fact starts in the warmer time of the year without any snow or ice in sight. The constant striving for food is depicted, and the viewer gets to watch the exciting hunts for walrus, polar bear, whale & caribou. The native language is used throughout, with the use of title cards; the only English is spoken by the fishermen & Mounties encountered by the Eskimo. In fact, it is the arrival of White Men, both good & bad, and the change they make on Eskimo society, which is a major element in the narrative.

This Pre-Code film deals in a refreshingly frank manner with the Eskimo moral code, particularly with their practice of wife-sharing, which was an important and completely innocent part of their culture. In fact, the entire film can be appreciated as a valuable look at a way of life which was rapidly disappearing even in the early 1930's.

None of the cast receives screen credit, which is a shame as there are some notable performances. Foremost among them is that of Ray Wise, playing the leading role of Mala the Eskimo. Wise (1906-1952) was an Alaskan Native of Inuit ancestry and is absolutely splendid and perfectly believable in what was a very demanding part. As handsome as any Hollywood star, he would continue acting, using the name of Ray Mala, in a sporadic film career, often in tiny unbilled roles.

Lovely Japanese-Hawaiian actress Lotus Long plays Mala's loyal second wife; the names of the fine actresses playing his other two wives are now obscure. Director Woody Van Dyke steps in front of the cameras as a strict North West Mounted Police inspector. The two decent-hearted Mounties who must deliver Mala to Canadian justice are played by Joe Sawyer & Edgar Dearing, both longtime movie character actors. Danish author Peter Freuchen, upon whose books the film was based, has a short vivid role of an evil wooden-legged sea captain who unwisely rouses Mala's icy wrath.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I remember this show as it became a regular viewing on a Saturday evening.

Sabrina is a young girl who moves in with her aunts who as it turns out are witches and she is one to. So Sabrina must learn how to control hr powers and use them effectively. She also must deal with school a vicious rival named Libby, her ditsy best friend and boyfriend Harvey Kinkle...

The show was funny and entertaining. It kept Saturday evenings entertaining for a 10 year old boy..and made him laugh out loud...And flirt with 'Libby'....
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:. . . or type on a computer keyboard, they'd probably give this eponymous film a rating of "10." After all, no elephants are shown being killed during the movie; it is not even implied that any are hurt. To the contrary, the master of ELEPHANT WALK, John Wiley (Peter Finch), complains that he cannot shoot any of the pachyderms--no matter how menacing--without a permit from the government (and his tone suggests such permits are not within the realm of probability). Furthermore, the elements conspire--in the form of an unusual drought and a human cholera epidemic--to leave the Wiley plantation house vulnerable to total destruction by the Elephant People (as the natives dub them) to close the story. If you happen to see the current release EARTH, you'll detect the Elephant People are faring less well today.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:When I was 11, Grease 2 was like crack. It was a classless, shameful, euphoric, and powerfully addictive experience. My sister and I would watch it, rewind it, and watch it over again and again and again until we passed out or became too confused and hostile to stand one another. So, if you are an 11-year old girl, and you reviewed this film as "brilliant" or "fun" or "better than the original Grease," you have your fledgling adolescent hormones to blame and you can rest assured that this unyielding fixation with utter rubbish will pass.

If, however, you are not a little girl, you have absolutely no excuse to suggest that Grease 2 was anything but an inane, artless, slipshod embarrassment for all who participated in its production, distribution, and/or consumption.

For the sake of criticism, I will dignify the film now by explaining why it blows

1. In a well-executed musical, the songs should advance the narrative or develop the characters. In Grease 2, with a few debatable exceptions, to the music is obscenely pointless. Most of the songs appear to relate gimped innuendo about sex in an excessive and general way ("Score Tonight," "Reproduction," "Do It For Our Country," and "Prowlin'") without making one concrete statement about any of the film's characters or themes. Plus, all of the music is uncomfortably stupid and no one in the cast demonstrates even the crudest semblance of an ability to sing or dance.

2. The T-birds should be badass, and if not at least somewhat likable, but instead each of them is an annoying wussy-dufus-loser. In the end, when Johnny Nogerelli offers Michael the sacred T-bird jacket and initiates him into the gang, Michael should kick it to the ground, spit on it, and duck away to fervently scrub any part of his body that was touched by it. But of course, he accepts it as if it is gold because despite the fact that they are a bunch of bumbling meatheads, there is no greater honor than to be one with the T-birds.

3. Since Michael is beautiful, smart, kind, resourceful, and above average in everyway (his musical impotence notwithstanding), it is feasible that Stephanie would ultimately embrace him when he reveals himself to be the man behind the mask. Stephanie, on the other hand, is a slovenly, slack-jawed, bubble gum smacking, dirty sweatshirt wearing, gracelessly rude and trashy dingbat. So aside from being pretty (I guess), she harbors no likable characteristics, thus, audiences are given no justification whatsoever for the depth of Michael's attraction to her.

I could go on and on, but I didn't want to mention the gross inferiority to its predecessor since there are apparently so many cranks out there who seem to feel that such a comparison is unfair. I will say this though, to those of you who think you want to revisit this mess for old time's sake: Grease 2 is an experience akin to re-living your first kiss. Only you are 32 now and kissing a snot-nosed 13-year old kid with acne and slobby braces. The magic is gone and you are left feeling dirty and disturbed. Trust me.
+++++++++
A:
negative