Problem: This review is like what?

Review:The sequel to the ever popular Cinderella story reminded me somewhat of what they did with one of the Beauty & the Beast movies. It's basically three short stories rolled into 1.

OK, the mice are adorable (I love Gus! He's sooo cute!), and Lucifer's awesome (as usual). I liked some of the newer characters as well, (Pom Pom was adorable and I did like Prudence.). Still, the storyline was somewhat limited, but still very cute. So, I vote 7/10.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Val Kilmer... Love or loath him, sometimes he gets under the skin of a character and pulls out a performance that makes you go 'Hey! This guy is a GREAT actor!' He did in the leather pants of Jim in The Doors and he's done it again in the leather underpants of John.

Revolving around the fall and fall of uber porn king John Holmes, Kilmer strutts to his knees as we unravel one of the biggest murder mysteries hollywood has never solved for over twenty years, with Holmes the key suspect to a brutal Manson-style slaughter.

What Kilmer does so effortlessly is exhude the low-life of the celebrity, the do anything to anyone craving that overwhelms anyone who had it and then lost it. Go see him, you'll know what I mean.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:They sell it as a horror movie, it's supposed to be a thriller, but I found it pretty funny (comedy?, don't think so), I laughed the whole movie I think it was because of the ridiculous acting and plot. I don't blame the actors, I think they were not very good, but O.K. I think Cillian is a very good "bad guy" I loved his acting in Batman Beggins, and Rachel McAdams.. whoa! she's a beauty, and a good actress as well, but let's try to be a little objective here, the story mm mm... the direction mm mm... it lacks a lot of good suspense in fact is a really boring movie, but there's one good thing tho, it's a short movie, only 1 hour and 30 minutes (FOR ME IT WAS LIKE 10 MINUTES UNDER THE WATER!!!)

I just don't know why this movie is rated so high, and in rotten tomatoes, even higher, what's wrong with good, rational and objective criticism?
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This is a terrible production of Bartleby, though not, as the other reviewer put it because it is "unfilmable," but rather because this version does not maintain the spirit of the book. It tells the story, almost painfully so. Watching it, I could turn the pages in my book and follow along, which is not as much fun when dealing with an adaptation. Rather, see the 2001 version of Bartleby featuring Crispin Glover. That version, while humorous, brings new details to the film while maintaining the spirit of the novel. What's important is the spirit, not the minutiae of things like setting, character names, and costumes. The difference between these film versions is like night and day, tedious and hilarious. This version is a lesson as to what can go wrong if an adaptation is handled poorly, painful, mind-numbing schlock.
+++++++++
A:
negative