Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Max had the V-8, Trace (Wheels of Fires last and only hero) has a jet engine on the back of his car allowing him to make unintentionally humorous faces as he rockets around the halfway desolate wasteland. Be amazed as Mad Max 2 (aka The Road Warrior) is dissected and spliced back together as a new movie albeit filmed in a lackluster manner with bad actors and lousy stunt work.

Why is WoF set in a post-apocalyptic wasteland? Simple, The Road Warrior was! Actually any questions can be answered by: it was that way in the Road Warrior! Except for the out of work mutant actors from the original 60's The Time Machine film that make a cameo appearance for sake of giving the audience some non-vehicular action to chew on for a few minutes.

In typical 80's fashion, all cars driven by bad guys that are bumped or slightly jostled explode in a huge billowing explosion. Inevitably all car chases will happen near convenient cliff sides and cars will unavoidably fall off of them. Along with this 80's cinematic wild ride is the general rampant misogyny in this style of cheapie film. Generally I waited for Trace's rocket powered car to accelerate and shoot flames so there would be another shot of him scrunching up his face like he is supposed to be tough, which comes off more as him looking constipated. Badly choreographed action coupled with bad acting makes this film a true sinker. The unintentional humor value even manages to wear thin.

Rats: Nights of Terror by Bruno Mattei is superior. And that in and of itself is saying a lot! By this count 2020 Texas Gladiators is a cinematic masterpiece compared to Wheels of Fire. A poor Road Warrior knock off that doesn't have near enough cheese factor to make the film watchable.

+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I think everyone was quite disappointed with this sci-fi flick. For one thing, it was directed by Tim Burton. Another thing, it's a remake of what is supposed to be a classic. I found it boring, gross, and ridiculous. If you've seen it, you know what I mean. Just about everyone at Imdb say it's crap and boy, are they right! If you haven't, avoid it. It's a snorer. 1 out of 10.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I watched this movie purely for the setting. It was filmed in an old hotel that a friend owns shares of. The plot was predictable, the acting was mediorcre at best, the scares were all gross-outs, not true scares.

I don't remember much of the plot, and I think that's because there wasn't much of one to remember. They didn't even use the hotel to it's fullest potential...The beaches are fantastic and the hotel is situated on a peninsula. At low tide, you can walk almost 1/4 mile into the bay, which is actually an eerie sight first thing in the morning or late at night when the wind is howling through the cracks.

The best way to see this movie is with the remote in your hand so you can fast forward through the action (and I'm using that term loosly)scenes and pause at the beauty of the surroundings!
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I saw this film on its release, and have watched it 3 or 4 more times, including last week. I regret I have to be a voice of dissension with regard to Mr. Branagh's performance.

This is really a glorious, sumptuous film, to say nothing of ambitious at over 4 hours long - beautifully shot and designed. Derek Jacobi, Julie Christie, Kate Winslet, Richard Briers, and many others do fine jobs. Then there's Kenneth Branagh. If ever there was a vanity project for an actor, this is it, and Mr. Branagh spares nothing in putting the "ham" in Hamlet. From the stunt casting (which gives us the worst performance ever by the woefully miscast Jack Lemmon), to the bits of distracting business thrown in to infuse a sense of "naturalness," to his own performance which runs the gamut from throwing away the single most famous soliloquy in all of literature to screaming every line of others. His performance confirms that, while he may come across better on stage where bigger is necessary, he has never been a great film actor. The scenery budget could be charged to catering, Mr. Branagh eats so much of it. His performance is a perfect example of why people don't go to see Shakespeare - "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." And if there is fault to his direction, it is that he keeps the camera firmly glued on his overblown performance.

No matter what theories people may posit on the Bard, he was, after all is said and done, a playwright. The brilliance of his plays rest in the fact that his themes are universal and timeless. Although there is no "right" way to play his plays, there is most certainly great acting, good acting and bad acting. Shakespeare himself gives instructions to the players in the text of "Hamlet" itself. It amazes me how Mr. Branagh "mouthed" it, but did not hear it. It was an example of spending too much time working out how he's going to say something, and too little figuring out WHAT he's saying.

While Mr. Branagh has certainly done a wonderful job in mounting some entertaining productions, he would be wise to stay behind the camera and allow those who know the art of acting to practice it. His direction has always been better than his acting. I still give him immense credit for resurrecting interest in filming Shakespeare. He set a great template for other productions. And, it would be interesting to see him onstage, from about 20 rows back. But, I do hope he chooses to direct more and act less.

Is it worth seeing? Certainly. There are many little joys to be found in the film. But, it's a long, long movie and, by the end, one may feel less that they enjoyed than survived it.
+++++++++
A:
negative