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

Review:Version: Universal / Hong Kong Legends R4 DVD release. Cantonese / English subtitles

Once upon a time, five years ago, the world was obsessed with 'The Matrix', and I was perhaps one of the few fifteen year olds left who still believed that 'Terminator' was better than 'Matrix'. I was but a simple teenage boy, looking for a good action movie, and then there was a shining light on a TV station I had never really watched, a little station known as SBS. One night I noticed in the TV guide that a movie starring Jackie Chan - 'Police Story' would be on later. Being fifteen, and having only seen 'Rumble in the Bronx' and 'Rush Hour', I said... "WOW AWESOME" and sat down to watch it, and continually shouted "WOW AWESOME" as the movie progressed. Two weeks later, after SBS had shown the 'Police Story' trilogy, I knew I had found my new favourite actor.

Jackie plays Chan Ka Kui, a Hong Kong cop who busts a major drug-lord, Chu (Yuen Chor). Chu's secretary, Selina Fong (Brigitte Lin), is being held by the police as a witness against Chu, and Chan is assigned to protect her. Things go bad - reaaaal bad - when Chu's case is dismissed and he decides he wants Fong and Chan dead.

'Police Story' is one of the greatest action movies ever, and certainly one of my favourite Jackie Chan films. It starts off strong, and ends with one of the most incredible action sequences ever filmed. Everything in between is great. However, some of the funny parts may seem a little tasteless to more than a few people...

As a story, this is still one of Jackie's better efforts. For an action movie, the story is pretty good, and Jackie is a much better actor in this than he is in the acting & plot intensive 'New Police Story'. This isn't 'Miracles', but maybe that's a good thing.

'Police Story' is one of Jackie's finest works. It got me hooked on Jackie Chan movies, and should provide a nice start for any potential Jackie fans. The bad news for anyone who sees this first is that Jackie Chan movies don't come much better - 10/10
+++++++++
A: positive

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

Review:This is the kind of film that, if it were made today, it would probably star Sandra Bullock and Hugh Grant; actually, now that I think about it, this one is quite liable to be remade one day. It's pleasant, but with no depth whatsoever. It suffers from the almost fatal miscasting of James Stewart in a role he is about 20 years too old for, and as a result there is no chemistry between him and the beautiful Kim Novak. Ernie Kovacs, in the small supporting role of an aspiring writer, is the only actor in the film whose performance approaches what you might call "wit". (**1/2)
+++++++++
A: positive

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

Review:I saw this movie, just now, not when it was released and hailed as best picture of the year here in Israel. and to summarize everything right now, I will just say: this is not a good film.

This is Dror Shaul's second feature film, and I have to admit that his first and the TV drama he made before this picture are much better. further more, this is his first attempt at directing a drama. the early works were comedies, and were funny and effective.

The first thing you have to know if you'll ever see this film: Israel of the 21st century hates the kibbutz and the values it represented since the formation of the state of Israel. the real situation of the kibbutzim is very dire, and some of them disappear one by one. the kibbutz, Hebrew word for collective, was a sort of village for members only, where the values of equality and socialism were the dogma for everyday life. with the change in social values with time, it seems now that the kibbutz was a place where the human spirit was repressed, locked within the dogma rules, with no ticket out. the entrance of capitalist values and way of life in the 90's and so far made it very hard on the kibbutzim to survive. the crazy mother in the film is the central metaphor for that.

But, I regard this film as having nothing to do with nostalgia for the good old days of the kibbutz. once, it was a dream of every young couple to live in a kibbutz and raise children in this quite and beautiful environment. but the film shows the opposite. that the kibbutz, with it's socialist dogma, was a place sort of like a cult of crazy people, with crazy ideas that undermine the freedom of each individual within the collective. this is the central philosophy of post modern capitalism: your individuality is the most important thing. you must place yourself in the center, and no one else but you is the matter. this is the philosophy the film stands for, and that's just it's first sin.

If you disagree with me on the political side, I'm sure you will agree that the acting, the tone of the film, it's script and it's direction are the four sins that follow. the film has no real visual text and none of it's shots is something to remember. it is also very "delicate", a delicacy that is no more than artsy fartsy attempt to provoke emotions, which do not surface, not in the film and not with the viewer. it brings nothing but boredom.

Can someone please explain: why this film won so many prizes? maybe because it shows that Israel is in line with the rest of the world, hating socialist and human values? or maybe it shows that Israel is a "delicate" place, not giving in to dogmas and fanaticism? that we are basically very human and good people, capable of emotions, especially when they are fake ones, just like capitalism expects us to be? or maybe because it tells one of the biggest lies of Israeli cinema in recent years, a lie that undermines the justification of the existence of the Jewish state? no matter what the answer is, it's not a good one. not for the world, not for human values and not for the Jews.
+++++++++
A: negative

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

Review:First of all, I liked very much the central idea of locating the '' intruders'', Others in the fragile Self, on various levels - mainly subconscious but sometimes more allegorical. In fact the intruders are omnipresent throughout the film : in the Swiss-French border where the pretagonist leads secluded life; in the his recurring daydream and nightmare; inside his ailing body after heart transplantation.... In the last half of the film, he becomes intruder himself, returning in ancient french colony in the hope of atoning for the past.

The overall tone is bitter rather than pathetic, full of regrets and guilts, sense of failure being more or less dominant. This is a quite grim picture of an old age, ostensibly self-dependent but hopelessly void and lonely inside. The directer composes the images more to convey passing sensations of anxiety and desire than any explicit meanings. Some of them are mesmerizing, not devoid of humor though, kind of absurdist play only somnambulist can visualize.
+++++++++
A:
positive