Problem: This review is like what?

Review:What a wasted opportunity to actually make an interesting film about a complicated subject. There is very little exploration about what it really feels like to be a straight (or gay) man working in a gay sexual environment.The dancers keep talking about their art as if it has no erotic component. They may not all be prostitutes for hire, but they are indeed sex workers playing out fantasies and selling private sessions where more than dancing is offered. From the film one would get the impression that they mainly appeal to the women who go to the gay clubs and then end up hiring the "dancers" for private sessions. Even the shots in the club only show women in front of the stage and the "dancers" only playing to the women in the audience. This just isn't the reality of these clubs. It would be pretty hard to make a living doing private dances for straight women and couples. So what do they really feel about their gay admirers and clients? We learn very little. Instead we get filler. A gay activist who adds nothing to the study of straight dancers. A manager who tells us about the costumes for the drag acts but offers no insight into the dancers' lives and attitudes.

The pictures of Mexico City are generic. The phallic montage showing sausages roasting is ridiculous.

This is a totally simplistic film which should be of interest only to those who want to see a few pictures of pretty boys dancing. The rest of the movie is an insult to gay men.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I remember watching ATTACK when it first came out and caught it again recently. The sci fi channel has run worse, but not by much. A shameless ripoff of Jurassic Park, ATTACK substitutes sabertooth cats for dinosaurs. And they are on the loose, devouring as many extras as possible. The CGI is pretty bad, and closeups of prosthetic cat heads are laughable. We get some gore, which helps a little. Wait until you see how the mad scientist who started this whole mess gets it. Other than Robert Carradine, who has very little to do, the cast is unknown. Apparently this was shot in Fiji. Nice work if you can get it. Reminds me of all those low-budget monster STVs that were popular in the 80s and 90s.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:It is obviously illegal. Pedophiles pray on stuff like this. How did they get away with making such a movie? This movie is all summed up in one word, SICK. Where do people get off making, and watching these kinds of films. As I was watching the movie I didn't actually think they would allow this kid that is say maybe 12 if that actually sleep with this woman. Sorry if this is a spoiler to you but I would have rater not seen this. Where has the sanity of these people gone? Maybe the makers of this movie are pedophiles? Our society today is filled with all types of sexual predators that pray upon children, yet film makers make these types of movies that do nothing but provoke this type of behavior. I noticed that on a previous comment someone asked if there was a version where it showed them naked. This is a kid here, and someone is asking something like this? What is wrong with this picture?
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I have an awful pan-and-scan videotape of "Boom!", and I want to see it in all its widescreen glory. So I voted "1" and hope you will too. Together, we can pull this movie down into the pits of cinematic dross, and hope that someone will see an opportunity for BIG MONEY in releasing "Boom!" in its Director's Cut Extended Version. The movie is one of my howling favoritesyou just look at the people involved, the director, the actors, the cameraman, and you say to yourself, "Yep, I guess you can fool some of the people for a lot of time." Producers considering the DVD release of "Boom!" should note that, everywhere it's been shown, there have been sellout crowds in the theaters. But it hasn't been up to Frostbite Falls yet.
+++++++++
A:
negative