Problem: This review is like what?

Review:WARNING:I advise anyone who has not seen the film yet to not read this comment.

Although I haven't seen them all,The Hamiltons sure did deliver one lowsy piece of entertainment,which it did not entertain me at all!!!!I thought that in common with the semi-bad acting,stupid plot scheme,and the twist at the end of the movie,which was very retarded,this movie sucked!!!Okay,so supposively these are people who eat other people.Yeah......notice I said people not humans,not because they aren't human,or wait I think they are,OH NO WAIT,THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU!!!!!So okay,are these people cannibals,or are they imbreds,or what are THEY!!!!I mean,maybe they're just "THINGS" that came here to see what people taste like or,are they cannibals who have eaten people for a long time now,or maybe this movie was HHOORRIIBBLLEE!!WHICH IT WAS!!!So if you think The Hamiltons is good,I ask of you,why,why,WHY,WHY,why was it so awesome,because to me it was just flat out terrible!!!One big BOOOOOOO for The Hamiltons!!!Go see The Gravedancers,Tooth & Nail,or Borderland for a piece of entertainment!!!!!
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:When Marlene Dietrich was labeled box office poison in 1938 one of a handful of actresses so named by the trades papers, it was films like The Garden Of Allah. How a film could be so breathtakingly beautiful to behold and be so insipidly dull is beyond me. Also how Marlene if she was trying to expand her range and not play a sexpot got stuck with such an old fashioned story is beyond me.

The Garden Of Allah, one of the very first films in modern technicolor was a novel set at the turn of the last century by Robert Hitchens who then collaborated on a play adaption with Mary Anderson that ran for 241 performances in 1911-12. It then got two silent screen adaptions. The story is about a monk who runs away from the monastery out in French Tunisia to see some of what he's missed in the world. He runs into a similarly sheltered woman who was unmarried and spent her prime years caring for a sick parent. She's traveling now in the desert and the two meet on a train.

The woman is of course Marlene and the runaway monk is Charles Boyer. I'm not sure what was in David O. Selznick's mind in filming this story. Someone like Ingrid Bergman might have made it palatable for the audience. But you can bet that the movie-going public of 1936 when they plunked their money down for a ticket they expected to see Marlene as a modern day Salome rather than a saint with that title. The public still remembered Rudolph Valentino and you can bet that it was some desert romance and seduction that they were expecting.

As for the monks you have to remember that they are self supporting in their monasteries and this particular one bottles a special wine of which Boyer happens to be the one with the secret. The monastery will have to rethink it's economics if Boyer leaves. The monks are a sincerely pious group, but from the head man Charles Waldron on down they've a right to be a little concerned with some self interest.

Anyway a whole lot of religious platitudes get said here by a pair of leads that really are not suited for the parts. Most especially Marlene Dietrich. I would watch this film with an eye for the special color desert cinematography and forget the plot.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:If you really want to know how most of the actors and directors in the Hollywood scene "made it" to where they are, the vast majority will tell you (assuming they will tell) that a strange coincidence took place. They happened to meet the right people at the right time and get into the right project which led to other connections and other projects. Quinten Tarrantino took an acting class whose instructor knew Harvey Keitel. Kevin Spacey lifted a back stage pass from a sleeping old woman at the lecture of a famous playwright who helped him land an important role. And Robin Williams credits his career to Gary Marshall's son who, after having seen "Star Wars", suggested to his father that an alien should visit the Cunninghams of "Happy Days". These coincidences, many times viewed as pure luck, shapes many of the careers in Hollywood today. Or is it pure luck? Is possible something else is going on? "Grand Canyon" written and directed by Lawrence Kasdan, proposes an altogether different explanation for the inexplicable, aka the strange miraculous coincidence. The movie concerns several different characters whose lives intersect because of positive and yet inexplicable happenstance.

Kevin Kline, a middle-aged father, experiences a break-down in one of the more dangerous areas of LA. After he phones a tow truck, a young gang accosts him. They threaten violence if he doesn't leave his car. Just before the confrontation can escalate, Danny Glover appears as the tow truck driver and dampens the intentions of the gang. Although Glover denies it later, he probably saved Kline's life. A producer (Steve Martin) of cheap violent films gets shot in the leg and after wards has a spiritual experience. He then announces retirement from producing blood and gore entertainment. And Kline's wife, Clair (Mary McDonnell), while on a morning jog, finds a baby hidden in some foliage. She claims the baby cried for her and that her "rescue" of the infant was preordained.

The movie explores further the results of these strange connections that lead to further relationships, end to relationships, and new beginnings. And all the while, a strange homeless man appears throughout the movie as if somehow he is also connected to everything that is going on.

It is very rare in Hollywood, or for film in general, to explore such a purely esoteric subject. There are a few moments that seem somewhat unbelievable, but maybe that's the point. What makes the film work is the superb acting by the cast. Although the miracles and coincidences may seem far-fetched, the actors make you believe they are experiencing these new realities. Maybe this is a subject we should explore more often.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:The only reason to give this movie even a single star is how much the ending made me laugh. I had high hopes as I usually love bad campy holiday horror movies, but this just didn't qualify. It's really just a bad attempt at showing a character slide slowly into insanity, which again, isn't a bad plot, but is done poorly here. There are some scenes (such as the ending) which are not intended to be funny, but actually made me laugh out loud. There were a couple of times when I thought the movie would actually go in an interesting direction, but it never fulfills what it could and should be. In my opinion, if you are looking for a Christmas slasher flick, try Silent Night, Deadly Night.
+++++++++
A:
negative