Here are some interesting reviews. I leave it up to you to decide what “interesting” means in this context.

Review of a performance of “King Lear”

He played the king as if afraid someone else would play the ace.
          — John Mason Brown, U. S. literary critic

Review of “The Wizard of Oz”

Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first woman she meets, then teams up with three complete strangers to kill again.
          — Richard Polito, in a listing in the TV section of the Marin County Independent-Journal (Summer 2002)

Review of “Lady Chatterley’s Lover”

Although written many years ago, Lady Chatterley’s Lover has just been reissued by the Grove Press, and this pictorial account of the day-to-day life of an English gamekeeper is full of considerable interest to outdoor minded readers, as it contains many passages on pheasant-raising, the apprehending of poachers, ways to control vermin, and other chores and duties of the professional gamekeeper. Unfortunately, one is obliged to wade through many pages of extraneous material in order to discover and savour those sidelights on the management of a midland shooting estate, and in this reviewer’s opinion the book cannot take the place of J. R. Miller’s “Practical Gamekeeping.”
          — Ed Zern, “Exit Laughing”, Field and Stream (Nov. 1959).

Review of “The Cat In The Hat” Movie

I will not watch it on TV,
I will not watch on DVD.
I will not watch on VHS,
I will not watch on CBS.

I will not watch it in a car,
I will not watch it in a bar.
I will not watch it with my dad,
I will not watch it when I'm sad.

I will not watch it in my bed,
I will not watch with my friend Fred.
I will not watch it on a box,
I will not watch it shown on FOX.

I will not watch it on a table,
I will not watch when it's on cable.
I will not watch it in a chair,
I will not watch it anywhere.

I wish I had not paid eight bucks,
This movie really really sucks.

          — posted by Mark Krosky to rec.humor.funny (Nov. 21, 2003); message id