Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:The earlier part of the film was rather enjoyable but towards the end it became trite. Although Turturro is an actor I generally like, his Luzhin often resembled a bad Rain Man impression and the portrayal of the genius as a semi-autistic man was annoying. Overall it seems as if this film is trying to hard and ends up looking pompous in spite of mostly fine performances.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:First let me preface this post by saying that I am a fan of the original Star Wars MOVIES...I don't read the books, play the games, wear the underwear or eat the cereal (if there is one). I am simply a fan of the films.

With that being said, I struggle to see how people are giving this movie such high praise. Taking this movie by itself, and not comparing it to it's terrible predecessors (EP 1, 2), I don't understand how you can say this is an amazing movie. For all of the terrible shortcomings in the script - cheesy dialogue, contrived scenes (ie R2 suddenly being a badass, and long CGI intense chase scenes that have little human touch), HORRIBLE acting, and noted plot holes...how is this good? There was no real internal dilemma within Anakin; it just seemed like a switch was flipped and he was evil all of a sudden. I was not interested in the movie until the last 20 minutes or so (which by the way was ruined by the "NOOOOOO!" Frankenstein scene). When you BOMBARD the screen with intensely amazing CGI effects and fill in the gaps with absolutely atrocious one-liners when more could have and should have been said, this is NOT A GREAT MOVIE. For a film with such a "dark" tone, there was too much levity in the speech of ALL characters.

I close with a question: From the beginning to the end of the film, was there really a sense of urgency and importance for what was actually about to take place?
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:As is nearly always the case, when Britain comes up with an entertaining and/or successful sit-com or quiz show, the Yanks will come along and poach the format and produce their own, grossly inferior, version. Man About The House is, of course, no exception to that rule. The Yanks' version ( Three's Company ) was unwatchable, braindead pap that seem to run forever. A prime example of quantity over ( non-existent ) quality. The original, on the other hand, is a fondly-remembered gem that had the savvy ( like Fawlty Towers ) to pull the plug at precisely the right time ( unlike the 637 episodes of 'hilarity' that Three's Company came up with ). Jo was cute, there was brilliant chemistry between the Ropers, Richard O'Sullivan made it all look so easy, the scripts, whilst not exactly Oscar Wilde-standard, were consistently funny and Chrissy was THE most drop-dead gorgeous woman who has walked the face of this planet since The Dead Sea was merely feeling unwell. 'Nuff said.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:This starts off bad, what with the three women acting like simpering junior high school wussies sitting around giggling with their gin, endless cigarettes and a caramel chocolate treat for the one who tells the best 'man' story, and then it gets worse -=- spoiler alert =-= what with Andie's character falling for the young organ player who used to be her student when he was 14 (she's the headmistress of an English school, believe it or not), only to have him destroyed thanks to her bitch-from-hell 'girlfriend' . ..and then from there, it's basically unwatchable claptrap: she forgives her 'friend' and has the organ player's love child and the 3 women end up as they started, drinking more gin and smoking more cigarettes blah blah blah. Andie's character throws the caramel chocolates out in the street, in a pathetic attempt to symbolize growth. Have mercy.
+++++++++
A:
negative