Problem: This review is like what?

Review:In what I can say was a theft of my time I was taken to see this movie and I must say what a horrible experience. Fay Ann Lee is a terrible actress and is unconvincing in this movie. Larryjoe76 is obviously a shill reviewer. The plot is thin to say the least, the Cantonese dialog is not funny. See this movie at your peril.

David Tang from Shanghai Tang should be after the movie for the little or no revenue this movie will generate. The banal plot attempts to compete with other rom-coms out there, and just blends into the scenery. It was like watching paint dry.

In short this movie was a total waste of time and space. I've seen better movies on youtube.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Reading all of the comments Are very exciting. but can someone please tell me the name of the real artist that painted the pictures for the good times broadcast. I realize that everyone refers to j.j. as the artist in the family but, there was a real family that has the real artist, and he hasn't gotten any credit in this sight yet. So if you don't mind if someone can tell the name of the real artist I would also like to tell him "job well done". I know this Sight is for the GOOD TIMES cast but, wouldn't you agree that he has also touched the hearts of us all. I would like to know if he still paints or, if he is still alive. I would like to have some of his work displayed in my home.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This was different, that's for sure. Just look at the cast! Talk about oddballs.

William H. Macy and Ben Stiller were the stars, although a bunch of actors almost share the spotlight, in this farce about superhero-wannabees. The most outrageous was played by Paul Reubens of "Pee Wee Herman" fame.

There is lots of humor, garish colors and no lulls. It's a pretty entertaining, lightweight comedy with nothing but goofy characters, all of whom want to be heroes a la Superman, Batman, Spiderman, you name. They have talents in strange areas, however, that the real heroes don't (and don't want to!). It's silly, but you know that going on.

It's also a film you can watch in installments and not really miss any continuity. It's a long movie for one so hectic, so taking a break here and there is okay. The language was tame so kids could enjoy this, too. In fact, I don't recall any swearing in here, except the guy in the theater next to me who kept uttering, "What a dumb, f---ing movie." I thought it was fun two hours but I'd rather watch it on DVD and take a few breaks.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:To me this just comes off as a soap opera. I guess any depiction of profligate people can be considered "social commentary." But in the final analysis, I simply don't care how you characterize this film. None of the characters are very likable or engaging. I felt no chemistry between Hudson and Bacall. If there is a love story here, it is lost in the malaise. And despite the twist ending provided by a complete and immediate (and therefore, incomprehensible) reversal by Dorothy Maguire on the witness stand, the story is insufficient to hold my interest. No matter how much Freudian symbolism and psychology are throw in, this story is sleazy, melodramatic and trite.

Rock Hudson is nobly wooden. This is Lauren Bacall's least engaging role and one of her poorest performances. Dorothy Maguire and Robert Stack deliver more inspired performances, but her character is vile, and his is pathetic. Robert Keith, as the loving, out-of-touch father of two miscreant adult children, is the most sympathetic character. Most interesting of all, however, is the severe-looking Robert Wilke in a small role as the bar owner. He is best remembered as a nasty henchman in countless Westerns, but here he is an honest, likable fellow.

I take my social commentary with an interesting, engaging story and a few likable characters, thank you.
+++++++++
A:
negative