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

Review:This is one of those movies that you wish you hadn't seen before - so you could see it again " for the first time " . Van Dine's books still bring pleasure - but are termed excessively flowery by many . This movie is by far the best film adaptation of his works . William Powell is William Powell - say no more . The plot is intricate . The story moves all too quickly , because you want it to last . Enjoy.
+++++++++
A: positive

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

Review:This documentary film is based on incomplete considerations of the evidence, in which Brian Flemming, perhaps purposely, fails to mention important evidence to the contrary. Perhaps his most crucial mistake is one of the earliest: His claims concerning the invalidity of Paul's testimony about Jesus Christ disregard key facts, like: **The existence of some formulated creeds within Paul's letters. These creeds suggest that most of the central claims about Jesus were already formulated into statements of faith possibly within a few years of Christ's death and resurrection. **The testimonies of the early Christians can't just be tossed out as mere fantasy. There were indeed many people claiming to be the Messiah during that period, but only ONE of them has remained: Jesus. Why? Because it would have been preposterous for anyone to have actually believed Christ was the messiah, and go on to die for those beliefs, if they knew that he had not been resurrected. **Even if the Gospels are dated more liberally, we are still talking about accounts of Jesus written within the lifetimes of other eyewitnesses that would have pointed out inaccuracies in these Gospels. And there is evidence that the Gospels were written much earlier.

What I am saying is that Flemming's documentary is an incredibly biased and self-serving piece of work that hodge podges different arguments and evidence to serve his anti-Christian view. Don't be fooled by poor investigation.
+++++++++
A: negative

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

Review:Sensitive film does lack brilliance and, to some degree, narrative structure, but is nevertheless superbly shot and performed. However, the narrative structure point is debatable. While it gives the impression of tying off loose ends nicely in the final scenes, and connects its thoughts with what might be described by the modern viewer as a "story", I'm sceptical as to whether this feel *needs* a "narrative structure" that is definite and detectable. Inevitably, it will be compared with SOMERSAULT in that its central protagonist (I'm not sure that's the correct word!) is a young, and very young-looking, woman, whose newly discovered sexuality both confuses and empowers her - although of course Cate Shortland's film tackles this aspect better. But while the possibility exists for reckless viewers to dismiss this film as a cliche, PEACHES is, in some ways, much more ambitious than SOMERSAULT. Perhaps that's where it doesn't quite make it. It's certainly very different to Monahan's first feature - THE INTERVIEW! I'm not quite sure how the sex scenes between Weaving and Lung added to the story. Who knows - maybe they did. They certainly rammed home the compromised and flawed nature of Weaving's character - although I personally think this was achieved without the need for these scenes.

*****JUST SAW THE FILM AGAIN*********

On a second viewing, I can see how some would dismiss it as a telemovie dressed up as a feature. But I'm not sure how distinct these 'categories' are anymore, or even if we should be making that distinction. In any case, I do think there are enough layers in the film to distinguish it from Hallmark efforts. On the other hand, the film's structure is very formal, and its content is hardly challenging,at least in the way SOMERSAULT, TOM WHITE, THREE DOLLARS, THE ILLUSTRATED FAMILY DOCTOR, LOOK BOTH WAYS and THE HUMAN TOUCH are. The performances are all good, but I did come to the realisation that the main reason I was enjoying the film was because it fit the "Australian" genre, without necessarily adding anything...and I can understand that this can be a fairly good reason for another person *NOT* to like it! Indeed, it wasn't until Lung enters the room in her Vietnamese dress that the film really begins to pack a punch. But that leads us into another debate - *should* we expect that a film must challenge us all the time? Certainly I enjoy being challenged by a film (or a book, or other people), but is there no room anymore for what is simply a nice story?

I haven't deleted my initial post on this film, because I'm all too aware of the Orwellian overtones of such an act. But I would downgrade my initial rating from an 8 to perhaps a 6.5.

As for nominations for AFI Best Film, my votes go to THE HUMAN TOUCH, THREE DOLLARS and LOOK BOTH WAYS - and I think LOOK BOTH WAYS should win.
+++++++++
A: positive

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

Review:I bought this (it was only $3, ok?) under the title "Grey Matter". The novelty of seeing Sherriff Roscoe in a non-DukesOfHazzard role intrigued me. As the other reviewers warned, it's a pretty boring tale of a top secret government experiment gone awry.

And yes, there are plenty of establishing shots, especially of a house with a pool in front of it. Some of the characters and interiors are so nondescript I guess the filmmakers worried we might forget who is who, so they keep tipping us off by first showing the outside of the buildings. It's actually kinda funny. After awhile the pool shot feels like a tv channel's station identification logo, reminding us that we are watching "Grey Matter".

I also enjoyed two bouts of name-calling. At one point an angry test subject taunts somebody in charge by calling her a "Scientific b*tch!". It's just a very inadequate insult. Several scenes later a different subject lets off steam by muttering about that "scientific b**tard!". It just sounded very awkward to me.

Someday this movie will disappear forever. Another decade from now it will likely be impossible to find any copies of it. Almost like it never happened.

+++++++++
A:
negative