Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This has got to be the most stupid film I have ever seen (spoilers ahead)! First of all, the plot is stupid. The little kid is weird and they move to a hotel because his father is the caretaker of it. We find that the kid has a gift, the "Shining". This gift never ever has anything to do with anything except to make the kid seem cool. Then the movie gets more boring and boring until the man finally goes crazy. He goes on a rampage to kill the kid and his wife because... well, he feels like it. Why else would he do it? All of a sudden we see a naked woman in the tub. The man kisses her and realizes he is kissing a dead corpse, which is utterly disgusting. Somehow a black man enters the hotel and is whacked with an axe. Then the kid and the woman take the black man's vehicle and leave the father, who dies within minutes of hypothermia. Most movies aren't a complete waste of time, but this falls right into that category. The music is trashy, the characters are corny (except Jack Nicholson, who is a good actor), the plot is twisted and fits the description of vomit, the ending is very predictable, the storyline is slow, tedious, and boring. This movie is extremely overrated. AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS. I'm surprised it's gotten such a high rating on IMDb.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Three tales are told in this film, that seemed to have been shot without knowledge of this being a combined vignette film. The makers relate the three vignettes by having them all connected to shrink Martin Kove, although you never see some of the leads with Kove.

The first vignette has sexy Vivian Schilling, a woman afraid of everything under the sun(she makes Adrian Monk look brave), having a paranoia laced evening at home alone. You will literally scream at Vivian for doing some ridiculous things. She spends the majority of her time in a nighty which shows off her amazing features. But her film is the worst if not the most nail-biting.

The second vignette is owned by Bill Paxton as he portrays the roommate from Hell. His geeky roommate allows him to take complete advantage of him, and Bill does so whenever he can.

The last vignette was funny as a man fears that death will take him at any moment, much like his pal who choked to death on an olive.

Not very interesting, as the movie as a whole seems chopped together with very little thought involved. A must for Bill Paxton fans.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:The 1963 version of "The Haunting" has been one of my favorite horror films for years, so I anticipated the release of this 1999 remake with a good deal of trepidation. It hardly seemed that any follow-up could exceed or even equal the original masterpiece. Unfortunately my worries were well-founded: This movie stinks.

I don't know what the people involved in this film were thinking. Jan De Bont, who seemed to have had a fluke when he directed the excellent "Speed," does as poorly here (or perhaps even worse) as he did with the much-hyped duds "Twister" and "Speed 2: Cruise Control." Hey Jan, stick to cinematography, would ya? Liam Neeson is adequate in his role as the doctor-pretending-to-be-a-sleep-psychologist -- I don't think he is capable of turning in a truly bad performance -- but even he cannot save a lame script and weak story. Catherine Zeta Jones proves once again (as she did in "Entrapment") that she lacks the acting ability to rise above the material that is handed to her. The female lead, who did great in an episode of "The X-Files," looks lost here as Eleanor, an insomniac hovering on the edge of sanity. And that blond guy, whoever he is, is more wooden than the laughably strange statuettes of children carved into the woodwork around the house. I don't think he changes expression once during the entire film.

(SPOILERS AHEAD)

The reason the first movie worked so well is because we were never sure whether the house was truly haunted or whether the manifestations were a result of Eleanor's precarious mental state. No spirits are actually seen in the original, leaving much up to the imagination--a hallmark of other great horror films like "The Changeling" and "The Blair Witch Project." In this updated version, we of course get tons of CGI ghosts, which basically (in the face of the weak script/plot) make the movie totally unscary. The f/x aren't even that great, considering they were done by ILM. The frozen breath looks particularly fake. The effects in the underrated Peter Jackson film "The Frighteners," which I saw just before this one, were a lot better. The wooden carvings of the children, which are supposed to look creepy, just look silly (especially when they scream), and the CGI monsters are nothing to write home about. Rather than providing a relief from the bad acting, bad direction, and bad writing, the effects only add to this mess of a film.

Some particularly dumb scenes: When the three other characters break into Eleanor's bedroom, and none of them seem at all surprised to find a huge scowling demon hovering over the bed. The scene where Eleanor "sees" the former lady of the house hanging from the rafters... the acting here is particularly bad. And last, but not least, the unintentionally hilarious bit where Wooden Blond Guy utters an uninspired shout of what is supposed to be anguish, leaps up on a piece of furniture, and starts slashing away at the painting of the old, evil guy who built the house. We actually get some satisfaction in this scene, as seconds after his attack, Blond Guy is dragged over to the fireplace by the ghost of the old guy and promptly gets his head cut off by the flue. It was the only part of the movie I enjoyed.

In sum, stick to the original 1963 "The Haunting." 3/10 stars.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:A powerful adaptation of the best-selling book and the smash Broadway play about the lives of Bessie and Sadie Delany, two "colored" sisters who lived past the age of 100. Wonderfully played in their old age by Ruby Dee and Diahann Carroll, respectively, they tell their story in flashbacks to Amy Hill Hearth (played by Amy Madigan), a white New York Times reporter. The flashback and present-day scenes don't have as much inspirational value in them as in the book, but really are powerful. However, certain aspects of the sisters' lives, such as the inter-racial background of their mother and the reasons behind their father's stern personality are not presented clearly. You need to read the book to fully understand these things. Which is just as well, because the book's just as great! Aside from those flaws, it's wonderfully done and performed, especially by Dee and Carroll, and a very powerful and educational movie.
+++++++++
A:
positive