Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I'm not usually given to hyperbole, but after seeing over two decades worth of Academy Awards, I can honestly say that this year's awards show was the most disgraceful example of poor direction, total cruelty, and sheer stupidity that I've ever had the misfortune to witness. I'm not talking about the awards themselves- as usual, there is plenty to argue about when you tally up who won, who lost, and who never even got nominated, but the process is as it's always been and is as fair as it's liable to be. What is terribly UNfair is the treatment both the "stars" and "non-stars" received at the hands of Cates and Horvitz, in the name of "reducing boredom."

It is bad enough that for the last several years anyone who isn't Al Pacino has been "played off" at 45 seconds without any regard for what he was saying, how he was saying it, and what the emotion was behind the statement. It demonstrates nothing more than a total lack of respect, however, to herd nominees on the stage like cattle without paying them the honor of showing their faces while their names are read, to make them slink away quietly when they lose, to deny them the thrill of a walk to the podium, and to force them to read their statements with their backs to the audience. All of those things were done to the "non-stars" -never mind that the movies wouldn't exist at all without those artists and that most of them only ever get one chance to face their peers and their audience.

The stars didn't fare much better. It's becoming more sad than funny when winners of the caliber of Hilary Swank and Clint Eastwood have to beg for a few extra seconds for their speeches. Chris Rock, as host, was neither as inflammatory and controversial as the Academy had hoped, nor nearly as funny as he could be. His opening remarks were almost (but not quite) as offensive as Sean Penn made them out to be, and his comments during the show were more innocuous than interesting. Of course, he could hardly be blamed when it was clear that was being kept on as short a leash as any host has. In the end, Chris Rock was something he's almost never been before: a non-entity.

Even the musical numbers were handled poorly. Beyonce sang well, but there was simply no reason why she should have been featured in three out of the five songs. Another example of utter disrespect for an artist was giving Jorge Drexler's nominated song to Antonio Banderas- even though Drexler was present and clearly wouldn't have minded singing his own song, based on his winning "speech."

The efforts of Cates and Horvitz to make the show shorter and faster may have worked to a degree, but what resulted was a show devoid of life. We've all whined about the overlong speeches given by people we don't know, about the overblown production, about the self-congratulatory quality. But this is THEIR night- not ours. What is meant to be a celebration has become an insult to the people being celebrated. Cates and Horvitz should, frankly, be ashamed.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I first saw this movie when I was about 10 years old. My mom bought it at our local Kmart because it was on sale for $5 on VHS. She thought that it would be a nice Christmas movie for me and my brothers to watch. This movie, however, scared the hell out of me. You may be asking yourself, how could a movie about Santa Clause scare anyone? The plot of the movie revolves around Satan sending one his minions, Pitch, to earth in an attempt to kill Santa and ruin Christmas. That's right, Satan sends a demon up from hell to kill Santa Clause. Pitch stalks Santa throughout Christmas eve in an attempt to trap him on earth when the sun rises on Christmas day, for if Santa doesn't make it back to his home in space, he turns to powder. Don't get me wrong, the movie is funny and fairly entertaining, however, the image of demons and devils dancing in the depths of hell (which occurs at the beginning of the movie) is just downright creepy.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:By far the most important requirement for any film following confidence tricksters is that they must, at least occasionally, be able to pull one over on us, as well as their dumb-witted marks, the cops, the mob and (ideally) each other. But this film NEVER pulls this off. Every scam can be seen coming a mile off (especially the biggen!) Neither are they very interesting, intricate or sophisticated. Perhaps Mammet hoped to compensate for this with snappy dialogue and complex psychological relationships. If so, he failed. The lines are alright, but they're delivered in such a stilted, unnatural, stylised way that I thought perhaps some clever point was being made about us all acting all the time... but it wasn't. As for the psychological complexity, the main character's a bit repressed and makes some ridiculously forced freudian slips about her father thinking she's a whore, but she gets over it. I really liked the street scenes though. Looked just like an Edward Hopper painting.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Ooverall, the movie was fairly good, a good action plot with a fair amount of explosions and fight scenes, but Chuck Norris did hardly anything, except for disarm the bomb and shoot a few characters. The movie was very similar to the events of Sept. 11, with a bin laden-like terrorist sending a video to the president (Urich) and threatening to detonate it. Judson Mills had some superb action roles, taking out Rashid's compound and various kick-butt roles but, there was a lack of Chuck Norris. Judson took over most of the action, leaving Joshua (chuck) with Que on her computer. But, overall, it was realistic and didn't lack the action, but only did it on Mr. Norris' part. I gave the film 7/10.
+++++++++
A:
positive