Problem: This review is like what?

Review:For a made-for-TV "horror" movie the movie started off very interesting. I was really intrigued by the story and the mystery of the film. But the ending was a total dissappointment. The movie was going along fast-paced and was building up to, it seemed like anyway, to a very climatic end. But guess what there is no end. The movie is just over and after almost one-and-a-half hours the audience is just left wondering what happened. Why were all the unanswered questions in the film left unanswered. There was no explanation at all about any of the key points in the plot. This film is like watching a murder mystery and then never finding out who did it. Very dissappointed. This film looks like the producers just ran out of money and never completed the film. A real BOMB!
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Anyone who loved the two classic novels by Edward Ormondroyd will be disappointed in this film. All the magic and romance have been modernized out of his original story of a girl who does a good deed for a mysterious old lady, and given "three" in return. Three what? Not three wishes, but three rides into the 1800's on a rickety elevator...

The first novel is Time at the Top. The second is All in Good Time.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:In 1993, "the visitors" was an enormous hit in France. So, the sequence was inevitable and unfortunately, this sequence ranks among the worst ones ever made.

This is a movie that doesn't keep its promises. Indeed, it's supposed to tell a sole story. Jean Reno must go in the twentieth century and take Christian Clavier back in the Middle Ages so that time can normally follow its course. The problem is that Clavier feels completely at ease in the world of the twentieth century, and so make him get back in the Middles Ages is rather hard... Instead of this, the movie goes on several other stories without succeeding in following the main plot. As a consequence, the movie becomes sometimes muddle-headed, sometimes a bit of a mess.

But the movie also suffers from the performance of nearly all the actors. Reno and Clavier fall into the trap that however they could avoid in the first movie: they're going over the top and become annoying. Then, why did Jean-Marie Poire the film-maker engage Muriel Robin in the female main role? He made a mistake because she seems ill-at-ease and is absolutely pitiful. The other actors aren't better: Marie-Anne Chazel is nonexistent and Christian Bujeau, unbearable.

Of course, the movie contains a few good moments with efficient gags but it often falls into vulgarity and easiness. Certain sequences and dialogs are affected. It also appears hollow because Poire takes back elements that secured the success of the first movie. Thus, a young girl takes Reno for a close relative of her family and asks him to take part in her wedding.

A labored and disappointing follow-up. Anyway, what's the interest of this movie otherwise commercial?

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

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Shot into car from through the windscreen, someone is playing someone else their latest song, someone else didn't react, according to the voice-over. I just wonder how that came to be made. There were too many scenes in this movie that I wondered about how come a camera was there. If the scenes shot where the Warhols descended on a BJM post-party are true then that was inexcusable exploitation to the max, if not, then it was a total fabrication, either way it made me uncomfortable, if that was the purpose? All the way thru this movie I kept wondering how the footage came about. Taken at face value, a nice portrait of the (tortured) genius we all believe ourselves to be.
+++++++++
A:
positive