Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This programme bugs me! There is no humour to it and is far too serious to be called "fun"! It's just far too educational for my liking! The characters are very stereotyped and unappealing. The plots are redundant and the morals are just repeated over and over again. Where's the fun in it? Also I feel this has been on the BBC for far too long and is broadcast way too much. Does it really need to have a slot on T.V every 2 or 3 months when a brand new show runs out of episodes? I think it's time that the BBC starting bringing back some of their older shows like: Inspector Gadget, Bananaman, The Smurfs, Snorks, Moomins, the Raccoons and Count Duckula other than continually giving contracts to these newer shows! I thought the BBC where bring back Danger Mouse, so what's going on with that?! 3/10
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Yes, definitely better than my viewing of Death Tunnel. Actually some of the deaths were pretty original and the gore was decent. It was kind of like Wrong Turn meets the Hills Have Eyes.

BUT: 1.) When the "kids" (high school or college?) are discussing horror movies in the kitchen, everything Shae says is almost an exact quote from Scream (1996). The thing about the big-breasted girls etc.

2.) Was Steve NOT a bootleg Randy from Scream? 3.) Besides the fact that it took place in October, what the hell did the movie have to do with Samhain? Pretty unnecessary if you ask me. I find it humorous when I see those horror movies from the 80's that explain away loose ends by pointing the fingers at the druids or a pentagram.

4.) Wow they made a Sam Raimi reference!!! 5.) Why was Gary and his sister in the movie? They're characters had nothing to do with anything. And hes so psychic that he couldn't even see his OWN death? 6.) When Gary was being killed in the bathroom (at that point, the deaths became simply Troma-licious) how could she hear the screams when she was downstairs but not hear them when she was standing outside the door? 7.) Gary's sister commented on Haggis- thats primarily a Scottish dish, not Irish.

8.) So the lesson is if you ARE like Shae and don't have any fun or crack a smile through the whole film, you'll be the one to live? 9.) The mutants were pretty cool, but they looked like walking dishes of Chili con carne.

10.) When they brought in Gary's sister, did they forget that Steve HAD been strapped there and wonder where he went? 11.) Was there not more than one killer? Shae beat that one, but never encountered any more of them.

12.) What was with the flashbacks to those other people? Half of them Shae didn't know if they were dead or alive, so what was with that? 13.) Why didn't they kill Gary and his sister before? 14.) Why did no one ever call the police? And apparently everybody KNEW those people lived in the woods, why did they never organize some kind of raid? 15.)As far as I know, they were not zombies OR vampires- so how could she "turn into" one at the end? I'm with everyone else on the giant "huh?" at the end.

Way better than death tunnel, but still quite sloppy. I still don't understand why they even placed it IN Ireland, considering Samhain had close to nothing to do with the plot.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I understand this movie was made on a very low budget but that is no excuse for the monstrosity that is Grendel. Deathstalker, The Throne of Fire, Barbarian Queen, Conquest, the Invincible Barbarian were all done on shoestring budgets and poor special effects yet they still managed to create cult classics by adding some scantily clad women warriors and a good sense of humor. The primitive costumes, dark castles and beautiful Bulgarian landscape gave Grendel the potential to be a very good low budget sword and sorcery film, but the makers completely ruined this opportunity by using extremely poor CGI effects and colorless characters. Compare this film to Beowulf (1999). It may not be Citizen Kane but it is a good example of how an entertaining low budget sci-fi/ adventure movie can be made by using credible special effects and appealing characters.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:When viewing a movie as silly as 'Hot Rod,' one must sit back, relax, and alter one's intellectual capacity to a like state which is, in this case, a state dimwitted enough to endure brainless drivel that has somehow been mistaken for comedy. With a brief runtime of 88 minutes, this film was long past drawn-out and buried itself beneath a bundle of repetitive jokes jokes that came at a minority and weren't even funny in the first place. 'Hot Rod''s base material is as superficial and irrelevant as 2004's cult hit 'Napoleon Dynamite,' though it's much more contrived and comes without ANY of the laughter. In fact, the movie's blatant desperation to be compared to 'Napoleon Dynamite' is scornful and offensive, and left me ticked off, instead of just being annoyed.

The movie, if one were compelled enough to call it such, poses a paltry story that puts self-proclaimed stuntman Rod Kimble before us, with the trifling intention of jumping fifteen buses (one more than his idol Evel Knievel jumped, so we're told by Rod) and raising $50,000 dollars for his stepfather's impending life-saving heart operation; all so that he can fight his stepfather, once recovered, and gain his respect because in order to gain one's respect, one must first fight them. Huh? Whatever. Each character is no more interesting than Rod's stick-on mustache, and from the film's opening joke to its ridiculous conclusion, each scene played like a nonsensical, and terribly unfunny, SNL skit which, with the addition of an extra 85 minutes, is, essentially, what 'Hot Rod' strives to be.

The film's star, Andy Samberg, contributed an effort to the screen that observably exerted every last drip-drop of his comedic capabilities. Unfortunately rather, realistically his humorous talents are no more admirable than a five-year-old retelling his own exhausted joke that somewhere includes the innocently crude poop and pee-pee gags. And if that's disappointing, pull a chair, hide your face in your hands, and brace yourself for the real blow: he IS the film's humor! To rescue them of their mortification, I'll willingly omit the ghastliness of Samberg's co-stars' roles and leave the second third of The Lonely Island team, director Akiva Schaffer, to his non-existent talent as a director or a comedian. Basically, every thing one could possibly do to further trample a crash-course comedy is perfectly portrayed here; and done so arrogantly, as though the film would be funnier that way. Trick yourself into believing that there's even a single laugh in this heap, or treat yourself to another movie ANY other movie.
+++++++++
A:
negative