Written on: 12/30/11
There is no point to this, none at all. It just seemed like fun at the time. I hope you have as much fun reading these as I did.
All reviews are off members of Netflix.
It may be just me, but I think it's kind of pathetic that I'm making fun of these reviewers without bothering to go back and check for typos or poorly worded sentences (or just poorly chosen words).
Review of “A Dog's Tale” (1999) – Why does it say that David Bowie is in this film?!?! It's David BOWE. Big, huge, astronomical difference there, people!.
Review Review – This review lacks depth and detail and attempts to use exclamation points and large words to emphasize an irrelevant point. Frankly, I found the review to be bland and lack-luster. I feel that if this reviewer had put just a little more time and effort into this review, it might have been worthwhile. As it is, I was disappointed and did not feel informed after reading it.
Review of “A Dog's Tale” (1999) - do not add this to your queue if you are trying to see a movie with david BOWIE in it...it is david BOWE not BOWIE that apears in this film. david BOWE is the guy that was in the movie AIR PANIC, not the guy that sang PANIC IN DETROIT. BOWIE is the rock icon who wrote millions of songs...BOWE is that guy that you've probably never heard of who was in a million TV movies. however, it's "little wonder" that there was a mix-up since their names are so similar...
Review Review – I found this review to be slightly confusing due to the chaotic use of CAPS LOCK and periods..... and what was up with that “bit” at the end with the quatations?. Was that sarcasm?. What was that?. For the record, most people find CAPS LOCK harder to read, so by going “BOWE not BOWIE” they are actually likely to confuse the reader even more. As if trying to confound the reader even further, the reviewer refuses (multiple times) to capitalize the beginning of a sentence. On top of all of that, this review has strayed far, far off topic until it becomes a comparison between two different actors, one of which did not even appear in the film. Not even a decent review of the actors either. Yet another example of a reviewer who was in too much of a hurry to think about what they were actually SUPPOSED to be reviewing.
Let's just get these out of the way....
Review of “17 Again” (2009) – Zac Efron is SO HOTTTTT!!!!!. AWESOME!!!.
Review of “High School Musical” (2007) – Troy (Zac Efron) is the hottest thing EVER!. HOT, HOT, HOT!. LOVE!.
Review of “Twilight” (2008) – Don't listen to other people, Vampire Sparkles are HOT!.
Review of “Twilight” (2008) – Kristen Stewart is blah, “I” should get the sexy Robert!
Review Review – All of these reviews (and others like them) have something distinctly in common: they are not reviews. Of any kind. They appear to believe that CAPS LOCK and exclamations make their review more profound. They don't. And, quite frankly, anybody should be able to see on the cover of these movies whether or not said actor is “hot”. It doesn't give the reader any information they do not already possess. These reviews are dull, repetitive and unintelligent. I don't think any amount of time would have improved them, although maybe a basic lesson in how annoying constant CAPS LOCK use is might have helped a little, but I doubt it. CAPS LOCK does not emphasize the reviewers point in this context. It merely emphasizes their ignorance of the subject at hand. I just don't know.... words cannot describe how unhelpful these reviews really are.
Review of “Bad Moon” (1996) - Bad movie. A brief opening teases the viewer with graphic violence and partial nudity- hey, the thing all great movies are made of- then launches into... An absolute waste of your time. The same theme is repeated ad nauseum: Family dog senses something fishy about a guy- he's a werewolf, of course- and the two play a cat and mouse (!) game. The questionably talented Mariel Hemingway finally gets what she deserves- a lead in this movie.
Review Review – At least this review makes some attempt to explain itself and is, in fact, a review, though not a terribly helpful one. The beginning of the review is direct and to the point. I like that. Unfortunately, the rest of the review tends to meander and uses -dashes-somewhat-excessively-. The reviewer appears to know something about horror films “graphic violence and partial nudity” are a staple of the genre. Repitition and laughably thin plots are ALSO a staple however. It's as if the review was written by two different people, one praising the film for being a horror film, the other scolding. There is a brief mention at the end of one of the actors in the film, but very little in the way of depth. Is the actor any good in any movie?. The review doesn't know. Are they good in THIS movie?. We don't know. The reader is left wondering what the reviewer was actually trying to get at, and wondering if watching the movie would make the review make more sense (it doesn't). Bad movie?. Maybe (depends on who you ask). Bad review. Definitely.
Review of “K-9000” (1989) - If you are watching this movie to see a robot german shepherd, fast forward to minute :43. Otherwise you have to sit through watching a mullet in a rage, feathered haired snipers, and bad 80s drama.
Review Review – Actually, truth be known, this is a pretty accurate description, all things considered. I do have one bone to pick with the reviewer however. “robot german shepherd” is not accurate. The dog was a real dog from the first time you see it in the film to the last. Within the movie, it did technically have robot parts, but was in fact a real dog. Calling it a robot implies that maybe the reviewer didn't really watch the movie very closely and thus probably wasn't qualified to review it in the first place.
Review of “K-9000” (1989) - This Movie SUCKED, BEYOND SUCKING, I am person that is willing to and frequently does endure the one star movies, b rated movies etc.with out too much loss - life goes on. This is worthy of Negative Stars if they would allow it. Looks like it was filmed with home video equipment and the sound besides being bad, was very irritating. I can't even bring my self to comment on the story. Good luck, but hey I told you so! Happy watching. Sorry they forced my to give it at least one star before it could submit the review, but I give it minus -10
Review Review – This review certainly knew what it wanted its reader to think. However, it gives no decernable reason for the lashing it gave the film, refusing to comment on the story, characters or acting. Also, I'm not sure they really understand what “one star movies” and “b rated movies” are. The review was repetitive and uninformative. It doesn't give the reader a reason for watching the film, but it also doesn't really give them a reason not to. The remark at the end I found to be childish, since “-10” is a nonexistent rating and thus does nothing to inform the reader. “but hey I told you so! Happy watching” I find to be rather confusing and contrary, almost as if they are daring the reader to disagree with them and actually enjoy the movie. Fortunately, they were right about one thing. Life does go on, thank goodness. I finished reading this review and my life went on and yours will too.
Review of “The Breed” 2006 - Really boring. I generally approve of Wes Craven movies (even his so bad they're good, like the Wishmaster series) and most films with Rodriguez - but this was just severely boring. No surprises whatsoever/easily guessable plot. I ended up fastforwarding more than half the movie away. On the otherhand, most of the actors did fairly well with the script given.:
Review Review – To my knowledge, Wes Craven's only real contribution to this film was to provide money. I have not found any evidence to support the notion that he had anything further to do with it. The first thing the reader must know about this movie is that it is yet another in the horror genre, so no surprises and easy to guess plot is a given. The reviewer is in no position to tell the reader anything about the movie, as they themselves admit they only watched half of it, at most. I found this review to be severely boring and not in the least surprising with an easily guessable conclusion. One other thing, what's the : at the end?. Did they not finish the review?. They could have edited that with very little difficulty, but evidently didn't want to take the time. I suppose the reviewer did relatively well, considering that their topic had nothing to do with the film at all.
To truly appreciate the useless nature of this review, you must first read Netflix's description of the film.
Description: Bruce Willis is back and kicking bad-guy butt as New York detective John McClane in the third installment of this action-packed series, which finds him teaming with civilian Zeus Carver (Samuel L. Jackson) to prevent the loss of innocent lives. McClane thought he'd seen it all, until a genius named Simon (Jeremy Irons) engages McClane, his new "partner" -- and his beloved city -- in a deadly game that demands their concentration.
Review of “Die Hard: With A Vengeance” (1995) - Willis is back and kicking bad-guy butt as McClane in the third film of this action-packed series, which finds him teaming with Zeus Carver (Samuel L. Jackson) to prevent the loss of innocent lives. McClane thought he'd seen it all, until a genius named Simon engages McClane, Zeus -- and his beloved city -- in a deadly game that demands their attention. SO COOL!. THIS WAS AWESOME MOVIE!!!!.
Review Review – This “review” quite frankly makes me sad. It is little more than an edited version of the film's original description, and I find that to be revolting. This review has no point, no originality, no spirit. As if the reviewer actually had nothing to say and probably hadn't even seen the film before. Their only contribution to the original description is a short, uncreative and uninformative CAPS LOCK frenzy. SO SAD!. THIS WAS TERRIBLE REVIEW!!!!.
I plan to make more of these posts in the future. If you see a terrible review (from any site) please feel free to let me know by sending a link in my direction ;)