Problem: This review is like what?

Review:"Fred Claus" somehow avoids becoming this year's "The Santa Clause" by at least having a bit more amusing moments than that Tim Allen starrer, but it doesn't mean that it's got enough going for it that's worth a trip to the theater.

As holiday movies go, it's contrived and sentimental. But actually, that could be the least of one's concern as "Fred Claus," boasting of having David Dobkin ("Shanghai Knights," "The Wedding Crashers") at the helm, contains virtually nary a genuinely funny moment as it clumsily treads the line between a boorish Vince Vaughn vehicle and a fuzzy Christmas film. In the end, it amounts to not much of both. And with a cast that comprises of Paul Giamatti, Kevin Spacey, Rachel Weisz, and Kathy Bates, all the more it leaves one disappointed.

Vaughn plays Fred, Nick's (Giamatti) older and estranged brother, who once upon a time, left him and their parents (Bates and Trevor Peacock) after having had enough of enduring his parents' favoritism of his younger sibling. Nick grows up to be Santa Claus (and as the voice-over tells us, time freezes on you and your family when you become a saint), while Fred becomes a Yuletide-jaded repo man in Chicago who's having a hard time remembering his girlfriend Wanda's (Weisz) birthday.

He runs in trouble with the law and had to call his younger brother (who eerily looks at least a decade older than him) to bail him out of jail. Nick agrees but only if Fred agrees to help out on the toy-wrapping business up in the North Pole. Fred reluctantly agrees but his cynicism clashes with Santa and the elves' perpetually cheery nature, even as an efficiency expert (Spacey) is checking on the toy factory operations, only too happy to have the whole Arctic operations shut down if things fail.

The film, as said, does have its moments, but the padded running length stretches them thin across its duration. In between are piles of Christmas film cliches that were handled better in, say, "Elf" and the attempts at sentimentality are as endearing as last year's fruitcake.

Vaugn, as usual, brings on his coarse charm to the table, but the neutered script of Dan Fogelman keeps him from REALLY doing his thing. Giamatti, underneath the bad fat suit, brings a jolly old charm to his iconic character, but unfortunately, has to play second fiddle to Fred. Spacey brings his game face, but his turns usually end as unfunnily vapid.

Ultimately, "Fred Claus" becomes a forgettable film that falls below what those involved in it deserve. Sure, there are worse ways to start the season at the cinema, but there are certainly far better ways.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I never actually thought that a film could be so atrocious, but alas I was wrong. Terrible acting, terrible plot, terrible effects. The Crocodile was awful and as for the stupid sex/killing scene all in one, that was a bad move from the word go. It was truly shocking and that is not a compliment! How can someone make this film, watch it back and then actually say "Yeah, thats a good movie. People will watch that" If you haven't seen it I beg you DON'T BOTHER :-(
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This must be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I was actually expecting a bad movie but I was caught by surprise believe it or not. The storyline is the traditional, all clichees are included.

The dialogue is so poorly written that you actually laugh when the otherwise half-descent actors are trying to make it sound real. The photo is not too good, the music is so malplacee it actually made me angry, the actors are not even trying, altho the script makes it almost impossible you could expect more from people that have been acting for 30 years and the so called action scenes actually manage to lack the "action" itself.

I dont understand why these types of bad movies keep on coming, who is financing this shit? Where is the screening ? And why on earth do actors take on this mission impossible script?

There are a million hollywood-movies in this genre without even aspiration of reaching the theaters, but even them Straight To Video things actually manages to look professional in comparison.

I can not say anything positive about this except the title which explains it all, I feel robbed of 2 hours of my life.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Anyone who saw the original 1970 movie knows how an excellent cast, script, and director can put together a comedy masterpiece. By the same token, it's easy to see how the opposite of that can create another insipid Hollywood bore-a-thon! This movie was pathetic! Had it not been for John Cleese (a comic genius), I would have walked out about 15 minutes into this dreadful waste of celluloid.

Neil Simon wouldn't write another screenplay for this version (he said that he couldn't improve on the first), and I'm surprised that after this cinematic fiasco he wouldn't sue for defamation of humor!

Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis did such a wonderful job in the original, what were the producers thinking about when they cast this one? How could the director and editor look at these scenes and think any of them were funny? I don't know, but one thing I do know---it's no surprise why foreign and independent movies are becoming more and more popular.......
+++++++++
A:
negative