Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This film is an attempt to present Jared Diamonds theory of "Guns, Germs and Steel", explaining how Europeans have dominated much of the globe.

The version I saw of this documentary came on 2 discs covering 3 hours. I think the information could have been presented in 20 minutes. There are completely useless scenes of: Professor Jared Diamond watching birds through binoculars, Professor Jared Diamond failing to use a bow and arrow properly, Professor Jared Diamond firing a muzzle-loader badly. Was this documentary supposed to make a hero out of "Professor Jared diamond?". This part of the documentary was so bad, it could have been a spoof. The worst was when Diamond is shown breaking down and weeping when touring the malaria ward in an African hospital. None of this helps me understand his theory of "Guns, Germs and Steel." BTW, "Guns, Germs and Steel" is said about 100 times. "Can the Europeans guns, germs and steel get them out of this dire situation? Stay tuned and find out!" When he finally gets down to business, his theory is equal parts interesting and utterly boring. Europeans conquered the natives peoples of other lands, because they had guns and fine blades against stone and wooden weapons. Do I really need a professor to convince me of this? The parts of his theory that explain how the Europeans came to have the advantages that allow the conquest are interesting, but the coverage is paper-thin.

In the end, I think the documentary was only trying to convince me that non-Europeans are as capable as Europeans. If I'm not a racist, I already know this. If I'm a racist, Jared Diamond is not going to convince me with his bumbling use of native implements.

I don't think adults are the intended audience for this documentary. Kids may enjoy this more than I, though. I have read that the book from which this documentary is much better than the documentary.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:"Going Berserk" is actually one of the funniest Candy films I have ever seen, period. Sure, it's kinda low budget, but it's a non-stop comedic tour de force. There are tons of memorable quotes. For instance, when his soon-to-be father-in-law asks him how much he earns, Candy says "Oh, I pull down anywhere between thirty and...eleven thousand dollars a year, sir." Oh course, it is Candy's delivery that sells it. Just classic stuff. Eugene Levy also turns in a hilarious performance as a sleazy filmmaker. A clip of his horrible low budget movie "Kung Fu U" will have you rolling.

So if you are a Candy fan and want to rediscover a forgotten gem, I can't recommend this movie enough.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:as a habit i always like to read through the 'hated it' reviews of any given movie. especially one that i'd want to comment on. and it's not so much a point-counterpoint sorta deal; i just like to see what people say on the flipside.

however, i do want to address one thing. many people that hated it called it, to paraphrase, 'beautiful, but shallow,' some even going so far as to say that norm's desire yet inability to help his brother was a mundane plot, at best.

i'd like to disagree.

as a brother of a sibling who has a similar dysfunction, i can relate. daily, you see them abuse themselves, knowing only that their current path will inevitably lead them to self-destruction. and it's not about the specifics of what they did when; how or why paul decided to take up gambling and associating with questionable folks; it's really more how they are wired. on one hand, they are veritable geniuses, and on the other, painfully self-destructive (it's a lot like people like howard hughes the same forces which drive them are the same forces which tear them apart) and all the while you see this, you know this, and what's worse, you realize you can't do a damn thing about it.

for norman maclean, a river runs through it was probably a way to find an answer to why the tragedy had to occur, and who was to blame. in the end, no one is, and often, there is no why. but it takes a great deal of personal anguish to truly come to this realization. sometimes it takes a lifetime. and sometimes it never comes at all.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I basically found Eden's Curve to be a very poorly constructed that made it difficult to watch. However, there is something I must say about how the director captured something about the atmosphere of the early 70's in the choice of settings and clothing. The "back to the earth" philosophy and the interest in sexual exploration and drugs that was not dramatically decadent, as portrayed in many later versions of the 70's was right on, as was the "don't ask don't tell" pseudo-liberalism of the fraternity made up of east-coast intellectuals, except that I would have thought this was more likely of a New England school rather than one in Virginia, where I imagine the "good ole boy" mentality still dominated even elitist schools like this one. Another thing I appreciated and could relate to is that this was a time when homosexuality was not linked so much to leathermen or drag queens and I appreciated some homosexual roles not related to these terribly overused images. I felt it was very unfortunate that "gay culture" took on certain standard forms in the 80's out of Castro and Christopher Streets and these defined the movement and left out huge numbers of gay men that were more subdued in their lifestyles. I appreciated the film mainly as a way of remembering a more natural way we were about our sexuality and personal relationships without "the scene."
+++++++++
A:
negative