Problem: This review is like what?

Review:good lord! (and that coming from an atheist), this "movie" is bad !

much has already been said by the reviewers before (the ones who rated this piece 3 and below) to which I fully agree, I just like to add a few things:

among the three guys who had to eat their own digestive end products, got chopped up by an Axe, raped by a broomstick, had their balls blown away - the ex-boyfriend suffers the worst torture while having to listen to the girl's endless and pointless babble at the kitchen table (as do we, but at least we have the mercy of the mute button).

had the director cut out the point- and endless graveyard and inverted scenes, our suffering would have been over after 30 minutes.

the only things that made this flick at least somewhat bearable are Emily Haack's tits (one point).

forget it. don't buy it. don't waste your time. and your sanity. my brain is so fried after watching this I feel the urgent need to watch (and suffer?) "Scrapbook" right now.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I love the depiction of the 30s and 40s in film. I love Salma Hayek. I was more than ready to love this picture. but . . .

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ! ! ! !! !

No sir, nothing good about this. The only entertaining aspect for me was Colin Farrell's character is an insecure writer and this screenplay, despite tackling the juicy subject of racism, approaches the audience in the fashion of an ABC Afterschool Special.

The only person who didn't sound like he was "acting' was Sutherland, and his minutes were few.

Stale approach to a tired plot.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I read somewhere that Hollywood should concentrate on remaking bad movies and leave the classics alone. We can only hope. While this remake wasn't a total waste, I still wish I had the six bucks back to go toward a DVD of the original. Lots of violence and one of the worst endings I've ever seen. This version doesn't add anything new. It only reiterates why Hollywood should leave the good stuff alone.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:End of the World is an uneventful movie, which is odd since it is supposed to be about the total destruction of the earth. The main character is some kind of scientist, I'm not exactly sure what kind. He has two jobs at a government(?) facility guarded by four security men. His first job is monitoring transmissions to and from space (although this actually seems more like a hobby he does when not working on job #2). Job #2 requires him to put on a protective suit and go into a dark room...at least that's the best I can figure. Apparently the "plant" is not exactly top-secret, as the scientist brings his wife there. She hangs out (they're on their way to a dinner) while he discovers a message from space: Major Earth Disruption, repeated over and over. He says something about it being the first message from space he's ever been able to decipher; his wife tells him they're going to be late for the dinner party. So they leave and go to the party (!?!). Moments later he finds out that China has suffered a major earthquake. From there, the movie goes... nowhere! Yes, Christopher Lee is in it, but that really doesn't help much. Besides, Lee gives a lackluster performance along the lines of his appearance in Howling II. This movie is boring, but it has enough stupid elements that you might want to suffer through it once if you like Christopher Lee or Z-grade sci-fi. Plus, there's lots of stock footage of the earth being destroyed.
+++++++++
A:
negative