Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Moonchild is a very difficult movie to categorise. It's easiest to think of it as several snapshots of the lives of the two central characters. The fact that these characters are members of a street gang set in an multicultural city of the near future and that one of them is a vampire does not preclude them from having moments like any other people, and this is one of the places where this movie is different to anything else I've ever heard of. It doesn't get wrapped up in the fact that one of the main characters is a vampire, it's just something that has to be dealt with like any other problem. The way the characters interact is surprisingly realistic- there are embarrassing relatives and tricks that are meant to look cool that just don't work, which leaves the film with a lovely sense of not taking itself too seriously for the most part.

The other area that really stood out to me is the languages. The fictional city of Mallepa contains various cultural groups, and characters speak the language that they would be expected to speak. Japanese gang members speak Japanese to each other, but Chinese when talking to characters of Chinese descent. Possibly the most amusing exchange involves an Australian and is conducted in English. The actors of the four arguably main characters have three separate mother tongues between them and speak varying levels of each others' languages, so it's quite a feat that the movie was made at all. Which, I suppose, brings me to the lead actors.

Much has been made of the fact that the movie stars two of Japan's biggest rockstars, Gackt and Hyde, as well as Taiwanese superstar Lee-hom Wang, whether it is to praise them for their acting or criticise it or simply fangirl about them. In my opinion, Lee-hom is the best at playing a straight and realistic character. However, any lack of acting ability on Gackt's part is mostly masked by the fact that the character he plays is prone to being over-dramatic. I wasn't sure if Hyde's character was supposed to be as sulky and sarcastic as he came across, but it doesn't really detract from the movie either way.

There are several scenes which take rather melodramatic turns, which made it difficult for them to affect me much emotionally (Although this doesn't seem to stop a lot of people). I found it's best to just enjoy the movie for what it is and not take it too seriously- It's perfect for getting out and watching with a group of friends. It does have its flaws, but overall it was very enjoyable and I'd highly recommend it to anyone who doesn't mind a few subtitles.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I am a huge Willem Dafoe fan, and really sought out this film (I had to get a Region 5 Chinese DVD of it!). But, it is truly one of the worst that I've seen in quite a while.

The acting (except for Dafoe) is horrible. Dafoe and Colagrande BOTH wrote and directed this ( though he isn't credited as a director), and they have NO discernible talents for writing or directing. (Stick to acting Willem; Giada get out of the business, PLEASE!)

Absolutely nothing happens. Except a series of completely unconvincing, totally without believable motivation, acts by these two people (that just met) in this house. Colagrande's sleepy, I couldn't care less expression practically NEVER changes. And the sex scenes are downright lame. I actually cringed twice at one of them. Yuck! They're definitely not the least bit erotic, and yet are the only time the film isn't putting you to sleep. Then, it's busy repulsing you.

Just awful.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> With their no holds bar cruel offensive humor, sure enough to offended anyone, you would sure think this would be a laugh riot! ............wrong. Worest movie since Open water. Don't be to surprised if you completely miss this movie upon release date as I'm sure it wont do very good at all at the box office. This movie had a lot of Potential but fell to little to short. No enough character development, awkward actors and The upside of this movie was nudity. Boobs. Amazing. If I had to see this movie again, I myself would go POSTAl. <<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:In fact, these young people were so distasteful that I couldn't wait for all of 'em to get slaughtered, and that includes Clarissa (Joanna Canton) since I considered her the most annoying of the bunch.

But I knew it was gonna be a mess from the opening minutes when a teen Christine opened fired on the priest and the nuns with the Leslie Gore music playing in the background. It had nowhere to go but down.

Even the prosthetics looked fake and the "blood" looked suspiciously like Hawaiian Punch, although later on it took on red day-glo look to match the silly halloween makeup they were all wearing. I'm sure all the GOTH morons out there will appreciate this bullsh-t since it'll appeal to that bunch. It sure didn't appeal to me. Blah...

And not even my favorite horror babe Adrienne Barbeau can save this stupid teen horror flick from itself. She still looks hot, though. I'm glad she takes care of herself since we don't get to see too much of her nowadays.

However, it is a step up from Dante Tomaselli's meandering HORROR (2002) in that it has a somewhat coherent plot, so I'll give it that much. That and the little Boston terrier named Boozer also brings it up a notch. I like what Boozer does to Clarissa in the end. It was the only good scene in an otherwise silly film.

Lion's Gate Films sure must have been desperate when they picked this one up.

2 out of 10
+++++++++
A:
negative