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

Review:When I first saw "A Cry in the Dark", I had no idea what the plot was. But when I saw it, I was shocked at what it portrayed. When I saw it a second time in an Australian Cinema class, I realized a second point: communication issues. You see, when a dingo snatched Lindy Chamberlain's (Meryl Streep) baby, she and her husband Michael (Sam Neill) were grief-stricken but didn't show it. As Seventh Day Adventists, they believed that God willed this to happen, and so they couldn't mourn it. But when people all over Australia saw their lack of sadness, everyone started believing that Lindy did it herself.

The point is, the wrong message got communicated to the public, and it turned people against Lindy. Even though this was a pure accident, it still happened. It may be one of the biggest disasters resulting from the existence of mass media, regardless of any media outlet's political views.

As for the performances, Streep does a very good job with an Australian accent (no surprise there), and Sam Neill is equally great. You will probably get blown away just by what you see here. Definitely one of Fred Schepisi's best movies ever.
+++++++++
A: positive

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

Review:Would that more romantic comedies were as deftly executed as this one? I never thought anything as mundane as the simple sale of a music box could leave me catching my breath with excitement. Margaret Sullavan makes a marvellous saleswoman, and she and James Stewart always brought out the best in each other. This movie sports what I think is Frank Morgan's most winning performance, and with "The Wizard of Oz" and "Tortilla Flat" under his belt, that is saying a lot. The way he finds a Christmas dinner partner left me giddy with joy. Director Ernst Lubitsch might have thought "Trouble In Paradise" his favorite, but this one he must surely consider a triumph. With some of the wittiest dialogue American movies of the 30's has to offer.
+++++++++
A: positive

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

Review:This film is basically two hours of Dafoe's character drinking himself - nearly literally - to death. The only surprise in this film is that you didn't have enough clues or character knowledge to be surprised. It was just a grim, sad waste of time.

Willem Dafoe is excellent actor. Peter Stormare is an excellent actor. But this film just sucked. Slow doesn't make the movie bad, it was just bad. The sketchy plot mixed with artistic ramblings of anamorphic detail aren't cohesively drawn together in a meaningful way for a plot except to highlight some gore which is illustrated from several perspectives, finally at the end. I really appreciate the artistic vision, but as entertainment, it put me to sleep. (Seriously, I fell asleep and had to re-watch the film - which was even more disappointing.)

I generally don't like to make negative comments or reviews on the works of others, even when they suck, but this film warranted one. It's just too bad that these great actors were shamed with this end result.
+++++++++
A: negative

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

Review:It takes a Serbian or at least a Balkan familiarity to understand and enjoy many of the situations, characters and jokes of 'Zavet' as well as of many other films of Kusturica. See for example the opening scenes, with the remote village in the Serbian mountains, with the low-tech devices that defend the integrity and way of life of the inhabitants, the nostalgia for the good days of the Communist rule, and the awakening of the young brat watching his nude teacher at the sounds of the Soviet hymn. Kusturica not only tries to depart from the tragic history of Serbia described in his previous movies, but creates a whole world of himself in the process.

This is not a political film or not an explicit political film in any case. It's a fun film before all. Kusturica creates a set of characters that we care about. Music plays an active role in this film same as in all his other movies. His style is direct and grotesque, we now what he feels about his characters and we know that he wants us to feel the same. The space he develops melds present, history and magic, and the colours seem to be of a Douanier Rousseau of modern cinema.

This is not a perfect film either. The principal flaw is the length, some editing and shortening would have been useful, as at some point in time the director seems to have run out of ideas and repetitions show up. It is yet one of the most catching, amusing, moving films that I have seen lately.
+++++++++
A:
positive