Problem: This review is like what?

Review:The filming is pleasant and the environment is keenly realistic. I liked that it boldly redresses conceptions of the many difficult moral and social morays of the 1930's Chinese-mainland countryside as well as more basic human questions - I felt I could get a real sense of the times, recreated even in splendid shots of traditional Chinese theatre and in purist depictions of street living. It seemed worthwhile to experience. The interwoven role which Buddhism plays is probably the most true-to-form - both in its menial and in its philosophic aspect, perhaps the most effective that I've seen in Chinese film. Casting is great. Images are memorable. Acting is solid enough. Thematically puerile but still rich enough to compliment the vehicle of its expression.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I can't believe I've just spent one and a half hours watching such a weak film. If there is only one film you have to miss, this is the one.

Robert is a teenager whose father's died recently so he starts hanging out with some local anti-social teenagers and using drugs. All these make him subconsciously more violent and at last such subconsciousness explodes...

The first thing is that I don't think I can find any sense or trace of great ecstasy in this film, not in any single character. If the director considers what I saw in the last couple of minutes as great ecstasy, I have to say that that's not even close.

The use of cinematography is also not mature. Most of the time I couldn't see any facial expressions from the actors and I didn't feel the body language was sufficient enough to make an impact. Maybe the crew was just so tired that they fixed the camera there to include everything in the settings. Everybody happy except the audience.

The plot is particularly weak. There are a lot of unrelated scenes and talking which might be supposed to be related but they are really so random that you can never pull them all together, perhaps unless you're the one who wrote them.

In the one and a half hour you may find less than 5 minutes of real acting and all other time there are just people walking, talking and moving. So I really can't comment on acting here.

Nice choice of music in the last couple of minutes though. Maybe this is the only good thing.

I have never given a film a 1 but this film certainly deserves it (at least you laugh when you watch Scary Movies). This is a film about when a failed attempt to portray troubled teenagers meets extremely disturbed audience. Hope you fall into neither group.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:On the surface the idea of Omen 4 was good. It's nice to see that the devil child could be a girl. In fact, sometimes, as in the Exorcist, when girls are possessed or are devilry it's very effective. But in Omen 4, it stunk.

Delia does not make me think that she could be a devil child, rather she is a child with issues. Issues that maybe only a therapist, rather then a priest could help. She does not look scary or devilish. Rather, she looks sulky and moody.

This film had potential and if it was made by the same people who had made the previous three films it could of worked. But it's rather insulting really to make a sequel to one of the most favoured horror trilogies, as a made for TV movie special.

On so many levels it lets down. It's cheap looking, the acting is hammish and the effects are typical of a TV drama. The characters do not bring any sympathy, and you do not route for them. I recently re-watched it after someone brought it for me for Christmas, and it has dated appalling.

If your thinking of watching this, then I would suggest that you don't. Watch one of the others, or watch the Exorcist, or watch The Good Son. Just don't waste your time on this drivel!
+++++++++
A:
negative