Problem: This review is like what?

Review:"Shore Leave" is mostly an average Star Trek adventure. Nothing wrong with the episode, though. I simply think that this is not the best representation of what the show had to offer to fans. It is lightweight entertaining, nothing more. However, I'm glad to see that a TV show of this type had enough good sense to take a break from serious intergalactic conflicts. In this episode, Kirk decides to grant his crew some time off, and a landing party is beamed down to a planet that looks like the perfect place for a vacation. As usual, the planet is not as peaceful as it appears to be. There are some action and tense moments, but most of the story is played for laughs. Good, but unexceptional.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:please don't rent or even think about buying this movie.they don't even have it available at the red box to rent which would cost a $1 & i think its worth less than that.the main reason why i rented this d movie was because Jenna Jameson is in the movie lol between 2-5 min.i will give credit that the movie had hot chicks and quite a bit of nudity but other than that you might as well buy another d horror movie that has the same thing with nobody you know.Ginger Lynn has more acting time in this movie than Jenna & she's not even on the front cover of the movie nor her name.i recommend people to watch zombie strippers because you see Jenna almost throughout the whole movie & nude most of the time.this movie is a big disappointment & such a huge waste of time.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:If scientists behaved in a way that H.G. Wells was confident they would in the future, history wouldn't quite have turned out the way it did in Things To Come. Were almost 80 years past the point that Wells wrote The Shape Of Things To Come on which this film is based and no closer to the world he describes than before, in some ways farther away.

Though such well known players as Raymond Massey, Ralph Richardson, and Cedric Hardwicke are in the cast, they're more caricatures than real characters. It's the main weakness with the film, it's devoted to Wells's philosophy of science will solve all problems and the rest of us are backward fools.

Massey's characters, two generations of the same family holds that supremely optimistic view. Cedric Hardwicke is a skeptic who feels man is rushing too far forward. And Ralph Richardson is a warlord arisen from the destruction of another Thirty Years War fought with modern weapons. By the way as the atomic bomb had not been invented, poison gas was deemed to be weapon that almost destroys mankind.

According to Wells, science and conquest can never mix. Scientists as a group are far too above the world of politics to engage in such things. In Wells's lifetime scientists certainly fled the rightwing fascistic governments of Hitler and Mussolini. Those same folks however in order to defeat them, subordinated themselves to the Allies and fashioned the atomic weapons that ushered in the modern age. If they behaved as Wells would have liked them to, someone like Albert Einstein would have headed a junta of scientists who would have established a new order after World War II.

Wells got it wrong both in time and in development. He apparently never envisioned the computer as well as atomic power. Computer programmers are far more likely to be our rulers in a brave new world than scientists at the moment. Still Things To Come, aided by the direction of William Cameron Menzies and the sets created offer an interesting glimpse into the mind of H.G. Wells, certainly a respected thinker of his time though he didn't quite get right the shape of Things To Come.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This movie has received a lot of bad press from people who don't understand what it was meant to be. One must understand that this movie was never meant to be taken seriously. It's camp, along the same lines as "Army of Darkness." AoD was silly, but funny and bad in a good way. "House of the Dead" fails to be "good bad.".

There are qualities inherent in good campy movies, most important of those being believable fantasy. One needs to believe what's happening in a movie to see the humor when a situation goes incredibly wrong. Without boundaries, the movie becomes absurd. HotD lacks any believability.

Worse still, HotD brings nothing new to the genre, and repeats the same plot twists and character reactions that many horror movies inevitably start to exhibit. For example, all too often, horror movies fall into the trap where the main characters find love amongst the gore and destruction. I don't know about you, but when I'm being chased by zombies, I wanna make out with a hot chick. Believe it? No? Then, you probably won't believe it when the characters start sucking each other's faces in this movie.

Beyond the obvious issues that plague this movie like so many other horror movies, Uwe Boll elected to add scenes from the video game of zombies being shot, randomly whenever a character shoots a zombie in the movie. Not only is there no clear rationale for this artistic choice, but it distracts one from an already unbelievable plot. Further, there are frequent and numerous examples of bad acting, and seemingly no attempts by the director to guide the actors' reactions to events... leaving the movie with no redeeming qualities. Avoid...
+++++++++
A:
negative