Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This star-studded British/Spanish co-production looks great, what you can see of it. I have three versions, two VHS, one DVD, and all are terribly cropped, so badly that it looks as if buildings are having conversations with each other. Few films suffer as badly from pan and scan as this one, as director Robert Parrish seems to have been so enamored with the widescreen process that he tended to use both sides of the screen at once, neglecting the middle. Another user comments that we see the entire inhabitants of a church massacred at the beginning; not in any of the copies I have. There are some abrupt cuts of peasants firing their rifles, one Mexican officer is shot, Shaw and Landau celebrating, and that's it. We never find out why Shaw has become a priest (if he really is), we never find out what happens to Don Carlos (Savalas) although I suspect he was called home to star in Kojak, as his departure seems arbitrary. And there is a strange flashback sequence where Michael Craig (Mysterious Island) is dancing around in a bowler hat and bad suit in the great old English music hall tradition to the 1960 hit BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS, not sung by Johnny Horton here but with some lyrics I've never heard before. On the plus side, the location is great, a huge old ruined fortress with Escher-style stairs leading nowhere, some nice scenery-chewing by Robert Shaw, and good performances by Stevens, Landau, Lettieri, and Telly Savalas as Telly Savalas. I didn't really like this film, but I haven't exactly seen it. I will seek the widescreen version and make my decision then.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Went to see this movie with my brother and his girlfriend. The place was pretty packed and we all laughed so hard it was easy to miss lines. I knew it looked like it would be good but it was much funnier than I thought it would be. I liked both Edward Furlong and Christina Ricci, they seemed really weird just like normal people, if that makes sense. I get sick of movies that show teenagers as being like cookie cutter people, like "jock" or "geek" or "cheerleader"...etc. Both characters were unique but still very human and normal enough to relate to. I will be recommending this movie to all my friends and waiting very eagerly for it to be out on DVD, Go see this movie with your friends who can laugh at the funniest parts of life! I plan to see it again in the theater and I don't go see things more than once very often.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Both Robert Duvall and Glenn Close played their roles with such believability, I simply cried. Glenn Close's role as Ruth, showed her wanting to deal with the situation, but she was under the domination of her husband. "Let him think about what he did," Robert Duvall's character, Joe, said staunchly. The story depicted a rural family dealing with an accidental death of a son by his brother, called "The Stone Boy," meaning he was so distraught and overwhelmed by what he did, he became emotionally paralyzed. Then towards the end when Jason Presson's character, Arnold, let it all out to a stranger, I was so broken hearted for him, that I actually thought of some of the terrible things that I did in my life. I personalized and identified with his character. Frederick Forrest's and Gail Youngs' roles, did NOT add not much to the film. I thought of Frederick Forrest, who played Ruth's antagonistic, womanizing brother, Andy, as a jerk who did nothing to try to help the situation. His wife, Lou, played by Gail Youngs, acted like a crazy-lady smacking Arnold around out of frustration with her own problems without pity and blaming him for her troubles. I could NOT really feel sorry for these two. Though Lou tried to keep her marriage together, she was unsuccessful. Both did NOT deal with their problems effectively. They really did NOTHING for the film and were totally ridiculous. Wilfred Brimley's minor role as the grandfather was, touching for he was the only character that showed Arnold any attention. I felt his role should have been elaborated. The players were just doing what they felt was adequate and sufficient. However, I really liked the ending so much, I actually smiled and cried tears of joy. I felt good. The Hillermans were a family again. I actually wanted to be a part of this family. They were so realistic.
+++++++++
A:
positive