Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Just saw the movie this past weekend, I am upset, and disappointed with it. Basically, the movie tells you that immigrants, the ones from former Soviet Union especially, come to this country, bring everyone they can with them from the old country, and invade and take over what Americans have been working for. Which is a very wrong way of looking at immigration, and a much worse way of telling people about it. That's the main thing. Another thing, the overall writing, directing and filming is on the level of village amateurs. The actors did pretty well, but it wasn't up to them save this bunch of crap. A few jokes were funny, but most were bad and cheesy. Couldn't wait to get out of the theater, want my money back.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:"The big goodbye" introduces us to the first holodeck adventure, in this case Captain Picard posing as private investigator Dixon Hill. This episodes creates some sort of standard pattern, repeated several times on TNG as well as DS 9 and Voyager. After entering the holodeck something goes wrong and the characters have to deal with the program under different circumstances beyond playing a game (represented by the failure of the holodeck's safety program).

This concept is used to expand Star Trek's possibility and enabling a kind of genre-mix. Picard's Dixon Hill stories are examples of 1940s crime fiction and their representation on the screen are referred to as Film Noir often having the stereotype antihero in the lead (see for example Chandler's Marlowe stories or Polanski's all time classic "Chinatown"). Star Trek never focuses on the story (mostly it's a simple "how-do-we-get-out-of-here" scenario) but enables the actors to take a different approach to their characters. Those Holodeck "games" are commonly used for recreation and reflect the private interests of the crew members. Therefore the technical aspect is always neglected and from that point of view the stories are never sound (but did Star Trek ever had a technical, scientific point to it, I mean besides some utopic concepts?).

"The big goodbye" shows a relaxed Patrick Stewart, a McFadden that hardly ever looked better in a Star Trek episode (at least the early ones) and Data has some great scenes, too (although I find it hard to believe that pulling the lamp's plug out of the wall would have really surprised him, for the fact that he'd done research on that period and its customs). Wesley continues turning peaceful Trekkies into potential murderers (why didn't they take him to the holodeck and let the gangsters finish him off?) but all in all this one's fun...
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Ron Howard directed this? The 1966 cartoon is charming, teaching a simple lesson to children using a simple plot. In this movie, Howard gives us a Whoville filled with greedy, manipulative, self-centered Whos. Jim Carrey is terrible, but I'm sure it's not his fault; I imagine the script called for the nastiest person imaginable, so Carrey channeled Tom Green and the result is movie magic. Much like Danny Devito's Penguin in Batman Returns, Carrey's Grinch is so thoroughly unlikeable that any degree of comedy that might be mined from his character simply evaporates. Where the 1966 cartoon featured a Grinch that we could all identify with, Carrey's Grinch is that angry, soulless old man that we've all seen at one time or another, sitting in a parked car muttering to himself or tripping toddlers at the supermarket with his cane. This Grinch is thoroughly bereft of any degree of humanity, humor, or insight whatsoever, and his redemption at the end of the movie rings false. The whole movie rings false: there is some stupid Christmas lighting competition, a failed attempt at explaining why the Grinch is such a jerk by digging into his childhood, and an indecipherable mystery as to why some of the Whos have that weird lip extension and some of them don't. Contrary to the 1966 cartoon, I would imagine children would find this movie tiresome, irritating, and filled with contradictory messages. Did we really need to see Slutty Smurf, aka Christine Baranski as Martha May Whovier? In addition, Ron Howard filled the cast with his untalented relatives. Throw in the requisite butt jokes, fart jokes, sex jokes, and other obligatory Carreyesque low-brow humor, and you have a movie that is about as far from the 1966 cartoon (or book that inspired it) as George W. Bush is from rational, lucid thought. Thumbs down on this big fat turkey.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Human Tornado (1976) is in many ways a better film than it's predecessor. The director knew what he had to work with and catered towards Rudy Ray Moore's limitations as an actor. It's a fun movie that's more technically sound and acted. The performers don't take themselves too seriously and it seems that this time around everyone is on the joke and goes with the flow. Rudy Ray Moore seems more relaxed in front of the camera and not as stiff like he was in Dolemite.

I enjoyed the film very much and I highly recommend it. Just like his first film, it's catered towards a certain audience (I highly doubt that Mr. Moore was trying to broaden his audience at this point in his career). Check it out!

Highjly recommended.
+++++++++
A:
positive