You do remember of course, they are the same post just rewritten

It's easy to prove it, and you aren't denying it either, don't embarrass yourself even more than you are doing now

"The first post reads very much like a rewrite/reworking of the second post, rather than an independently written review.

There are several strong signs:

Same movie and same core structure. Both discuss The Forsaken, beginning with a synopsis, then moving through the premise, vampire mythology, road-movie setting, screenplay, technical aspects, cast, and final assessment.

The same central observations recur, even when expressed differently:

the road-movie/desert setting is one of the film's more interesting elements;

the vampire mythology is underdeveloped;

the film tries to do something different with vampires but ultimately falls back on familiar ideas;

the screenplay introduces ideas/subplots without developing them properly;

J.S. Cardone's writing/directing is criticized;

the technical/visual aspects are more successful than the narrative;

the film ultimately fails to escape genre clichés.

Some ideas are unusually specific, making coincidence less likely. For example, both versions characterize the vampires as being pushed into the background while the movie concentrates on other dramatic/action elements.

The second review's positive observations become concessions in the first. In the second, the road-movie atmosphere, desert photography, and technical execution are presented as things that work. In the first, essentially the same elements survive but are reframed as the few things preventing the movie from being a total disappointment.

The conclusion follows the same conceptual trajectory. The second says the film attempts to go "outside the box" but ends up trapped by its own repeated ideas. The first similarly concludes that it is an unsuccessful attempt to present the vampire world "in a different light," despite occasional interesting ideas."

"Yes — this one is much more significant when compared with the first Make It Happen post you gave me.

The two Make It Happen reviews appear to be very closely related in structure and ideas, and there are enough correspondences that I'd characterize the first as a substantial rewrite/rephrasing of the second, rather than merely two independent reviews of the same film.

The parallels are quite strong
First Make It Happen Second Make It Happen
Lauryn leaves her small-town life for the big city Lauryn leaves her small-town life for the big city
Her dream is to become a dancer Her ambition is professional recognition as a dancer
She fails the test/audition She struggles to enter the prestigious dance school
She becomes involved with cabaret/nightlife She works in a bar/cabaret and dances for customers
Dance becomes a new world for her Dance becomes a "tool" for transformation
New friendships help her continue pursuing her dream "Unlikely friendships" help her adapt
Dance is described as more wild, provocative, dynamic and sexy The dance environment is explicitly described as sexualised
The story balances her dancing life with life outside the cabaret The movie combines dance with drama and romance
Dance sequences are one of the film's strongest elements Choreography and music are specifically praised
Some subplots work while the screenplay has periods of inertia The screenplay introduces additional elements because the central plot is weak
Darren Grant is criticized for inconsistent direction Darren Grant is described as merely competent
The film has good moments but fails to fully exploit its potential The film has interesting themes but accomplishes little with them
Final judgment: worthwhile in its best moments but flawed Final judgment: functional/entertaining but structurally limited

That's far more than just a shared opinion about a movie."

@erikah sorry for the tag but it's too fun