Problem: This review is like what?

Review:***SPOILERS*** Let's start with the "good" of this film--the serviceable acting of Cynthia Rothrock and Richard Norton. The rest of the acting is awful (this isn't aided by the atrocious script). The worst culprit is the villain, Buntao, the head of an Asian crime syndicate (played by Frans Tumbuan). I was laughing my head off as he was expressing his "fury" over having lost a bunch of money; horrid performance. Patrick Muldoon isn't much better, and his "it's a hostile takeover" line (that's the remainder of the title of this film) was delivered about as badly as one could do it. There are no other main characters, but no other actor/actress distinguished him/herself in this film. We next come to the plot. This should tell you all you need to know: In the original "Rage and Honor," Cynthia Rothrock, who plays Chris Fairchild, was a teacher in the inner city. Now, she's a C.I.A. agent (or was it some other governmental agency--sorry, but this film was so bad that I don't even remember). Hmmm...I can imagine what that C.I.A. application process was like. Interviewer: What past job experience do you have? Chris: I was a teacher. Interviewer: Okay; you're hired! I only give it a "2" because of some decent acting and a nice plot twist at the end (though we know that Tommy (Muldoon), the secret villain, will be caught).
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This movie was based on actual fact? I sincerely hope not!

We get to see what appears to be numerous armed cops empty an equal amount of guns at 2 guys who only got armored torso's. That's a great idea; aim for the armor!...excuse me, but how about those big fat unmissable heads or their legs for crying out loud. Or were there invisible tanks protecting them? were they from Crypton?Did i miss something here?

This movie started out decent enough but after 20 minutes of shoot-out it really takes a turn to boringlane.

And that documentary style didn't work for me either, but thats just something one finds likable or not.

Highly unbelievable stuff which makes it hard to see it through 'til the end.

3/10 for the fine editing.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I saw this film on True Movies (which automatically made me sceptical) but actually - it was good. Why? Not because of the amazing plot twists or breathtaking dialogue (of which there is little) but because actually, despite what people say I thought the film was accurate in it's depiction of teenagers dealing with pregnancy.

It's NOT Dawson's Creek, they're not graceful, cool witty characters who breeze through sexuality with effortless knowledge. They're kids and they act like kids would.

They're blunt, awkward and annoyingly confused about everything. Yes, this could be by accident and they could just be bad actors but I don't think so. Dermot Mulroney gives (when not trying to be cool) a very believable performance and I loved him for it. Patricia Arquette IS whiny and annoying, but she was pregnant and a teenagers? The combination of the two isn't exactly lavender on your pillow. The plot was VERY predictable and but so what? I believed them, his stress and inability to cope - her brave, yet slightly misguided attempts to bring them closer together. I think the characters, acted by anyone else, WOULD indeed have been annoying and unbelievable but they weren't. It reflects the surreality of the situation they're in, that he's sitting in class and she walks on campus with the baby. I felt angry at her for that, I felt angry at him for being such a child and for blaming her. I felt it all.

In the end, I loved it and would recommend it.

Watch out for the scene where Dermot Mulroney runs from the disastrous counselling session - career performance.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I consider this movie a masterpiece, but it took me at least 4 o 5 times to see it, so as to realize what a great movie it was. First, it describes a face of WW2 that we don't usually see in Hollywood movies. In particular, German soldiers, army and the Nazi government are shown more "humanized". One of the facts that impressed me most was the mention, by the end of the movie, of a murder that took place in a forest in the last 20's... that forest is the place where the final chapters of Berlin Alexanderplatz take place: those are the woods where Reinhold kills Mieze. Another clue for those who like the details, is the representation of doors. Fassbinder is obsessed with the changes in people each time they walk across a door, or a door is opened. Many doors are shown in the screen, opened and closed. And the characters change in their personality, their acts, etc any time that happens. Have you noticed that?
+++++++++
A:
positive