IN: Review: It was obvious that this movie is designed to appeal to the Chick Flick audience, to which i have sat through quite a few and enjoyed most. However, this was a very irritating attempt by Heather Graham to become the next Meg Ryan ( who became annoying as hell in her own right ). Her acting was overdone and it appeared that she was overanxious compared to her colleagues who were relaxed in their roles. This film might have been more, as there was suitable budget for settings, actors and a decent story line. My wife and I both agreed that this was 'Muck' at the end, as the film ended on a painful embarrassing high! Better luck next time, hope Miss Graham sticks to the type of films that she belongs in like From Hell.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: When i first saw this film i thought it was going to be a good sasquatch film. Usually when you have these types of movies there's generally ONE sasquatch, but in this one there is like what? 7 or 10 of them?. Acting was good, plot was OK, i liked the scenes where the sasquatch is killing the first few victims, very good camera work. I was expecting it to be a gory film but it was very little. This movie was way better than Sasquatch. The SCI-FI channel really needs to make more sasquatch films, i mean i really liked Sasquatch Mountain, Abominibal was not good, the one i'm reviewing is OK, but the movie Sasquatch was not, but I'm not reviewing that so let me get back on track. This movie is good for a rainy Saterday afternoon, but for any other occasions, no.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Lots of singing and dancing in this one, especially by Gene Kelly. Two sailors go on liberty to see if they can find love and romance. They meet up with a woman who is trying to break into show business. Musical lovers only.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: The person who wrote the review "enough with the sweating and spitting already" has no grasp of what cultural, literary, or psycho- critique is. He dismisses Zizek's interpretations because they don't seem "in line" with what the director originally intended. So What? The importance of a director's (or author's) intention is not important in critical theory. This is known as the author's "Intentional Fallacy" and should be avoided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_fallacy A text or movie CAN be analyzed through a number of theories, many of which disagree with one another, as well as completely ignore the author's intention. This is the most fundamental idea of Critical Theory.

Because of this, whoever wrote that wall of text wasted a lot of time and effort on insulting Zizek. In reality, anyone who studies theory would immediately discredit this guys opinion (I suggest you should too) as it is completely off point.

That being said... If you are at all interested in Freudian, Laconian, or Kristevian discourse, this movie is a must. It connects these theories with popular film, making them much more palpable and enjoyable than simply reading or thinking about them.
What is this review like?
OUT:
positive