Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This film is shoddily-made, unoriginal garbage. I like romantic comedies sometimes. Watching a good one is like eating ice cream for dinner. It's not something you are going to do all the time, but the experience is so pleasurable that you can ignore how unwise you are being. This movie made me think about how stupid I was for continuing to remain seated for its entire running time. Everything about it screamed made on the cheap. It actually looks like they overexposed the film at certain points it is so washed out. It boasts cheesy CGI and lame sets, too.

The writing was clunky. I know that you can usually expect some plot problems in a screwball comedy, but you usually don't really care because you are laughing. This movie is so unfunny that you actually sit there and wonder about the unlikely series of coincidences and completely unbelievable behavior involved. Events were placed in the film just to move the characters from one scene to the next or to provide exposition. Sure, this is how all movies work, but you shouldn't notice that it's happening. Inelegant. That's the term I should use.

There was almost no one in the movie who was really likable. I didn't care who ended up with whom, as long as they all stayed the hell away from me, and I didn't have to listen to them talk about it anymore. Why would the only really cool character in the movie, the Paul Rudd character, want to have anything to do with the completely bitchy, condescending, control freak played by Eva Longoria? Also, almost all of the characters involved consistently picked the sleaziest solution to any situation. A straight man pretends to be gay for five years just to hang out (and bathe with) with a woman he is attracted to? The best feel-good moment they could come up with was to tack on a happy ending for the same schmoe where he gets together with Rudd's equally annoying lying, kleptomaniac sister? Lake Bell and Eva Longoria are very attractive, appealing women. Maybe they will find something better to appear in down the road.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I was forced to see this because a) I have an 11 year-old girl and b) we had shown her the Bonita Granville Nacy Drew movies from the 1930s, which she thoroughly enjoyed. Personally, I didn't think it was as humorous as the 1930s flicks, but on the other hand, it wasn't the nauseating piece of intelligence-insulting fluff I feared it would be. It was an inoffensive, mildly entertaining movie. Although I'm pleased that they didn't try to "upgrade" Nancy to 21st Century "hipness" (Veronica Mars holds the title as the Modern Nancy Drew), I do think that they made her a little too bland, that they didn't do enough to develop Nancy Drew - the movie could have been titled "Jane Doe, Girl Detective". I have to blame the script: I think each actor did a good job with what they had to work with. I liked Emma Roberts in this role, but they gave her a made-for-TV, not theatrical release, script...
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:About 1986 I saw this movie by accident on TV one night. I was 6 years old. It was similar to my accidental viewing of the terrifying ending to Don't Look Now in 1987. I went to Venice on holiday the next year in silent terror, hoping to god that my parents wouldn't find out I'd watched it!

Would I have minded if my parents knew I'd watched Les Valseuses when I was a kid? I'd probably avoid the subject with my dad even nowadays, and my mum's probably disapproving in the afterlife. I don't know if they'd want to see it anyway. From the stalking and trapping of a woman at the block of flats in the first scene to sliding down the mountain roads with glazed satiated eyes I'm never sure whether this film is an insensitive piece of trash that disregards the sexual revolution or if it's a sexy liberating movie to watch as it dawns on you that you could never be so offensive yourself.

It's definitely violent. It has a violent view of sex, virtually no acknowledgement of love. Even suckling a young baby mutates into a greedy sexual act of exploitation. But the scenario IS very erotic and (god I'm so British) arousing! Do they suck her breasts for her own good? That is exploitation. So why am I getting a woody?

The fellows go in search of an experienced older woman, find an ex-con, mother-figure? I don't know. It ends in a truly gruesome suicide. I described it to my friend JB Nelson, who has Cannibal Holocaust-guts, and he went eeuurrgghh! No motherly love for this movie, quite the opposite. Mutilation of where the boys began. Why do they shoot the girl in the leg? Why does she come back to them? Do women need to be punished so that they learn what is right from men?

I'm thinking of two movies, one of which I wish I'd never seen, the other makes me wish it wasn't such a harsh world. Swept Away/Madonna what a pile of insanity doesn't compute never been so offended that a woman punished for being a woman becomes slave to man and its maybe madonna saying everybody respect guy ritchie im so enraged i cant use punctuation! Once Upon A Time In America/Leone god why does Noodles do it? Destroys the path to joy we've been following him on his whole life. So close to finally finding love with Deborah. Now they are both destroyed. Why Sergio? Why?

There is no rape in Les Valseuses but lots of sex and nakedness in abundance, of both sexes. Very honest, no titillation. No fantasy shags, no perfect Hollywood smooth moves. Jokes, yes. But there's too much darkness and jealousy and trickery in here to call it a sex comedy. Forget Carry On Shooting A Naked Hairdresser In The Leg Cos She'll Come Back & You'll Hook Her Up With Your Ex-con Lover's Vengeant Son & She'll Learn How To Cum From Him.

Two things I can't stand are rape movies and prison movies. Les Valseuses isn't a rape movie! God nobody's going to want to watch it now! It is a brilliant movie!
+++++++++
A:
positive