Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Okay, sorry, but I loved this movie. I just love the whole 80's genre of these kind of movies, because you don't see many like this one anymore! I want to ask all of you people who say this movie is just a rip-off, or a cheesy imitation, what is it imitating? I've never seen another movie like this one, well, not horror anyway.

Basically its about the popular group in school, who like to make everyones lives living hell, so they decided to pick on this nerdy boy named Marty. It turns fatal when he really gets hurt from one of their little pranks.

So, its like 10 years later, and the group of friends who hurt Marty start getting High School reunion letters. But...they are the only ones receiving them! So they return back to the old school, and one by one get knocked off by.......Yeah you probably know what happens!

The only part that disappointed me was the very end. It could have been left off, or thought out better.

I think you should give it a try, and try not to be to critical!

~*~CupidGrl~*~
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:SERIES THREE- BLACKADDER THE THIRD " If you want something done properly, kill Baldrick before you start" Hot on the heels of the second series the show returned with the current owner of the famous name down on his luck and in service as butler to the Prince Regent, a vain and stupid foil for Blackadders venom, played by Hugh Laurie. Baldrick is still in tow as the other piece of the comedic jigsaw. The format is similar to the previous show, after all now they had found the winning formula why change things. We see Blackadder trying to get rich off of the back of the gullible regent in many more ingenious ways, trying to make Bladrick an M.P.or trying to woe a suitable bride for the prince. In many ways this is one of the most accurate of the series historically, the prince regent did take control of the throne during his fathers bout of madness and some of the characters lampooned tell a lot about the times. Samuel Johnson, William Pit and Wellington all pass through the events and all manage to steal their scenes, not an easy thing with such a stellar cast
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:It's official, folks -- Hou Hsiao-Hsien doesn't have a thought in his pretty little head. Are you wondering why he chose Shu Qi as his muse?

Shu ( or is that Qi? ) doesn't appear in this one. Instead we get a snaggletoothed Yo Hitoto, apparently a pop star in Japan -- judging by her song at the end, she's a pop star just like the girl who serves you at Rockin' Curry is "a actriss" -- and a wasted Tadanobu Asano, typically an indicator of quality, who is required to do nothing here but stand around and look like a mumbling Asian hipster and is too old to manage even that.

Hou's philosophy? Life is limbo, a big nothing, feel it and move on. I'd like to do that but Hou gives us nothing to feel in Cafe Lumiere beyond a bland photo essay of Life in Tokyo Circa 2003 and the flabbergasting observation that people are ships that pass in the night, no, make that trains that pass in the day, never connecting, each hurtling to its own destination, usually some variant of a dark tunnel or maybe a bridge if they're lucky. Yikes. Flowers of Shanghai is one of the most rarefied, technically accomplished and mesmerizing films of all time. How could the same director who created the opening shot of that film, which features about twelve actors conversing at machine-gun speed for about ten straight minutes -- an impossible directorial feat -- get trapped making this laconic sub-Jarmusch reality porn for two films in a row now? Millennium Mambo may be dead weight, but at least it has two great shots, shots that hint at Hou's true calling as the film equivalent of Odilon Redon: Those shots are the sex scene with the arrhythmically blinking lights and the opening shot of Shu Qi floating down a blue corridor. His M.O. while making Cafe Lumiere seems to have been to remove the two great shots from Millennium Mambo to make it more consistent. You be the judge if that sounds appealing.

Hou does not need to refine -- you cannot refine the limbo idea further than Flowers of Shanghai. He needs to expand, to bloat outwards, to release the inner expressionist and genre-revitalizer that is being squandered so senselessly on cliched minimalism. It's time for him to do a live-action remake of Akira or something. This kind of art film where the actors are supposed to be authentic because they are held facelessly in long-shot and speak in monosyllables is now every last bit as safe, ghettoized and stagnant as the Hollywood action blockbuster. ( What is the connection between "reality" and people who can't talk? It seems to me that people "in real life" never stop jabbering. ) Then again, considering that 2005 alone brought big-budget movies as diverse and rich in ideas as Aeon Flux, The Island, and King Kong, it's now safe to say that even Michael Bay has surpassed Hou, and that's really sad.

The good news is that, though Hou is in his 50s, it frankly feels to me as if he hasn't even begun. There are a couple moments in this film that show the promise is still there, such as a moody bit early on in the bookstore when the room dims to a bloody sunset-red while Hitoto talks about babies with the faces of goblins. But whatever fear is holding him back, however comfortable it is to make the same film over and over and be hailed by the gullible and pretentious as the savior of cinema, Hou, your time as the darling of the Rotterdam, Venice, Toronto, Berlin and whatever else film festivals is almost up and people are catching onto your ruse double-quick. Two words for you: Atom Egoyan. Two more words, or maybe three: Tsai Ming-Liang. You are now cribbing from both of these tedious frauds who are about to go up their own dark tunnels forever. Risk your shirt on a sci-fi epic, sell out, be reviled -- but leave the social critiques to people that have no eye and no heart. Let your painterly talent express itself to the full. You're not going to ever get out of limbo otherwise.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:To start off with, since this movie is a remake of a classic, the rating has to be lowered already. Since this version stars Viggo Mortensen in the lead role of Kowalski, it helps.

Isn't this just like the United States government though, to terrorize one of its own citizens. Sounds like Jason Priestley's character from the movie! But it is the truth, the government would do anything possible to destroy a man's life for trying to get home to his wife. A wife, who is in labor no less, and may not make it.

"There was a time in this country that the police would escort a man to his pregnant wife." The words of the Disc Jockey.

There were some great shots of scenery in this film, and great car chases and a lot of spirituality. After much consideration, I gave this film a 7.
+++++++++
A:
positive