Question: Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I realize that bringing a novel to the big screen is always problematic. That is the only positive thing I can say about this truly horrid adaptation.

Have you read 'Wise Blood?' It's an amazing book. Flannery O'Connor wrote about the south as no one else has. She was a southerner herself, a devout catholic, and a remarkably gifted writer. In her first novel she wove together a dark and deeply disturbing tale of faith, doubt, and redemption with a macabre sense of humor and surprising evenhandedness. The characters in the book may seem outrageous to those who have not lived in the rural south, but I can assure you that such people do exist. Not only do they exist, they are human beings with families, feelings, and concerns like anyone else. Flannery's intentions were so often misunderstood - she was not lampooning these backwoods zealots - she saw in them the beautiful operation of what she would have called 'grace'...even in the most violent, distressing, and maddening of circumstances. To read 'Wise Blood' is to be washed over with a sense of dread and impending doom. Finally, it is to think long and hard about our judgments and preconceptions - our entire world view.

None of this comes through in John Huston's 'Gilligan's Island'-like adaptation. None. It is a farce. A bad farce. The entire film is saturated with a hauteur that turns the stomach. The acting is poor, the southern accents are fake and insulting. The filmmakers show no insight into the thinking of religious southerners. Ms. O'Connor's intense prose are reduced to sight gags and cheap, amateur theatre. The soundtrack is a mixture of hayseed silliness and 'Clockwork Orange'-style cheeseball electronics that doesn't fit the story or even the MOVIE. I was granted free admission to this movie and almost walked out. Truly, truly terrible.

As an aside, I do not agree with Ms. O'Connor's religious views, and while I was raised in the deep south, years ago I made my way north and have not looked back. But the south is a beautiful place full of fascinating individuals (like every other place on earth), and the cartoonish mockery with which southerners and their attitudes are dealt in this movie borders on offensive. If you're into being offended (which I am not), then this movie most DEFINITELY crosses the line.

I don't like to talk crap about an artist's work - John Huston was a man that I did not know, and I'm sure he was a sincere and gifted filmmaker, to which his respected place in film history attests. My views are clearly skewed by having read (and loved) Flannery O'Connor's work. So I don't claim to be coming from any other perspective. Maybe as a stand-alone film it works for cinephiles. But for Flannery O'Connor fans - and, I might add, for self-respecting southerners and openminded individuals of all stripes - this movie is a waste of time.
+++++++++
A: negative


Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I caught this on the dish last night. I liked the movie. I traveled to Russia 3 different times (adopting our 2 kids). I can't put my finger on exactly why I liked this movie other than seeing "bad" turn "good" and "good" turn "semi-bad". I liked the look Ben Chaplin has through the whole movie. Like "I can't belive this is happening to me" whether it's good or bad it the same look (and it works). Great ending. 7/10. Rent it or catch it on the dish like I did.
+++++++++
A: positive


Problem: This review is like what?

Review:...that the Bette Davis version of this film was better than the Kim Novak version.

Despite all of the other comments written here, I really prefer the Bette Davis version, even though the Novak version has a more coherent story line.

However: Davis' Mildred's raw emotions seem to me to be more apt to a sluttish girl who seems easily to become a prostitute.

And it is those raw emotions that constitute *part* of what the poor doctor falls in love with. He has emotions of despair, of failure, of "otherness" - strong emotions that he represses. Davis' Mildred, on the other hand, displays her emotions immediately and without censure. She has no feelings of despair, or of failure, or of "otherness"; rather, she is merely surviving as a poor Cockney woman in the Victorian era.

Novak's portrayal was a more vulnerable Mildred than was Davis', almost through the the whole movie. Davis' Mildred was **never** vulnerable until she actually had to go to the doctor and beg for assistance. And when he reviles her - for her method of keeping body and soul together, and for continually taking advantage of his love for her - she unleashes arguably the most passionate repudiation of snobbish holier than thou attitude ever seen on screen: "I wiped my mouth! I WIPED MY MOUTH!!" Novak's vulnerability was excellent. Davis' realism was monumental.

IMDb votes concur!
+++++++++
A: positive


Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This TV-made thriller is all talk, little action. It works hard to set up its convoluted plot, yet the writing is so muddled the exposition is still cloudy at best. By the end, I knew no more about these characters than I did at the beginning. It has a quasi-"Ten Little Indians" scenario, but ditches it mid-way through in favor of spotlighting Sally Field and her uncovering of a killer. Field overacts here with a gracelessness I've seldom seen from her. The early introductions are good, but the writing quickly strays off-course and eventually goes over the top. Lots of hysteria, and constant thunder and lightning effects (which adds nothing). A curious failure from producers Aaron Spelling & Leonard Goldberg. With all this talent, couldn't they give us something more than a script full of red herrings and Sally Field hiding in a closet?
+++++++++
A:
Answer: negative