Problem: This review is like what?

Review:We really enjoyed Grey Owl: a simple tale well told in classic Attenborough fashion: a little over-romanticized, with archetypes, humor, and a stress of dignity and values.

Beautifully shot and told at a nice pace this is the true story of Archie, an Englishman who turned native Indian, and went to live and trap in Canada.

Solid performances from all makes this film with a message easy viewing.

Two of the stars of the film are without a doubt the cutest we have ever seen - and the message is a good one with its ecoleanings. It must have been great to meet or read Grey Owl in the 1930s, a unique character and this is a fitting film tribute.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Beautiful attracts excellent idea, but ruined with a bad selection of the actors. The main character is a loser and his woman friend and his friend upset viewers. Apart from the first episode all the other become more boring and boring. First, it considers it illogical behavior. No one normal would not behave the way the main character behaves. It all represents a typical Halmark way to endear viewers to the reduced amount of intelligence. Does such a scenario, or the casting director and destroy this question is on Halmark producers. Cat is the main character is wonderful. The main character behaves according to his friend selfish.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I'm a big fan of movies that make you think. I'm still thinking long and hard about this one, fully seven minutes after the credits have rolled. What's really confounding my neurons is the attempt to fathom the relevance to the plot of the naked girlie fondling her slick oily body, made extra-tacky by being filmed on cheap video. This happens three times and I was certain it would be explained in the end. I put my trust in the film-makers that this lurid attempt to lure viewers would be justified. It was not.

The movie has to be the most apathetic I've come across in the genre. The sets look like a cross between a 1970s Dr Who set and someone's ill-formed idea of a sponge-painted living room. The lighting is unimaginative (if your sets are going to be that bad, at least film them in semi-darkness to hide the plasterboard and create some ambiance). Of the abducted quartet, the girl stands out as being particularly lame, but none of them is given a personality. The aliens' plans for world domination are just plain silly - all they need is a birth control pill and their problems are solved. Most of the movie consists of people running down corridors. Yes, it really is that exciting. The "ray gun" special effect is ... curious, to say the least (what use is a weapon that takes a 15-second concentrated blast to kill, and even then the guy comes back for more?). The script is like a bad episode of The A-Team, and the ladies' hairstyles come from the same era, so they look like school teachers instead of an advance team of murderous alien invaders. When we finally get to see what the aliens really look like, they're in suspended animation and never even get out of their boxes. The resolution of the story - traitor alien simply has a few words with invading fleet commander and without a second thought he heads home - is truly the sign of a writer who's never had an idea more complex than a Saturday morning cartoon (I mean the bad ones with no plot, action, or characterization) in his or her life.

But seriously, what is with the naked chick?! Was it really just so they could justify putting flesh on the DVD cover to boost sales?
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:All of the X-Men movies were great. And I mean all of them, including the long hated X-Men 3. They had solid characters (Magneto and Xavier were the best ones, in my opinion), and a good story arch.

I was all excited when I heard this movie was on production, and my expectations grew bigger and bigger until I saw the movie. I was so disappointed.

Hugh Jackman is not a bad actor (his best movie is The Fountain, although you won't hear about this movie when they talk about the actor), and his acting is not what screws the movie up.

The whole film is plagued with lots of meaningless characters that add nothing to the plot (like Blob or Gambit), which were tossed there to make fans believe that the film makers had read the original comics.

I am a fan of XMen, I have read many, many of their stories and this movie respected none of them. None. Not even the continuity. It doesn't respect Weapon X project, or the relationship between Wolverine and Sabretooth, or Emma Frost, the motivations for wolverine are plain stupid and seen in millions of movies: Revenge for the death of a loved one.

Oh. What I was expecting the whole darn movie was a Berseker moment for Wolverine similar to the one he has in X2 in the school when Stryker men come in and he alone decimates the enemy forces, but hey, this is Fox, this a family flick and you will not see explicit violence from the most violent and gruesome Marvel hero.

Besides, I had a feeling of constant deja vu with this movie because Wolverine's Origins are already explained in X2, we already know how he got his adamantium skeleton so it kind of does not make sense to make a movie of something we already know.

I personally believe that wolverine is one of those few characters that does not need a solid back-story because mystery is the nature of the character. Do we really want to know how the Joker got his scars?
+++++++++
A:
negative