Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Lately I have been watching a lot of Tom Hanks films and old Chaplin films and even some of Rowan Atkinson's early Bean performances, and it seems that all of them have their own unique charm that permeates throughout their work, something that allows them to identify with audience members of all ages, in a way that just makes you feel good. A Bug's Life has that same charm, it has a connection with real life that allows us to easily suspend disbelief and accept a lot of talking insects, because even though they talk, they still ACT just like real bugs. It's like the team that made the movie found a way to bring us into the mind of a child and allow us to think like them, to imagine bugs the way a young mind does.

Honey, I Shrunk The Kids was one of my favorite films when I was younger, and to me, A Bug's Life is like a more realistic version of that movie, if only because the animation is so breathtaking and this style of story-telling just opens up so many more narrative possibilities. I try not to compare it to something like Toy Story (which I still maintain is the best computer animated film ever made), because the story of A Bug's Life is not quite as good as Toy Story's, but then again, almost nothing is. The important thing is that it is still wonderful fun.

The story concerns a colony of hard working bugs who have an impressively developed society, mostly geared around building a harvest of food, most of which will go to the tyrannical grasshoppers, vastly superior in strength and general meanness, and hopefully still leave enough left over for the bugs to make it through the winter. We are treated to some visits from the grasshoppers, who make it clear that if the bugs provide an unsatisfactory quantity of food, the consequences will be dire. And incidentally, the similarities between this crippling level of food extraction is strikingly similar to Mao Tse-tung's vicious forcing of food from his own people during the "Great Leap Forward"

The fun and excitement begins when Flik, the main character, sets off on a quest to find a gang of appropriate warrior bugs to come back and help defend the colony against the grasshoppers. You see, he spilled all of the amassed food and placed everyone in great danger, so he feels it's his responsibility, but he inadvertently ends up hiring a struggling group of insect circus performers. Great for the audience, not so great for the safety of the clan.

The movie was released back in the late 90s, when so many films seemed to have been coming out in twos, like Armageddon and Deep Impact, Independence Day and The Arrival, A Bug's Life and Antz, etc. Comparisons between A Bug's Life and Antz are inevitable, although it seems clear to me that A Bug's Life is by far the superior film, and not only because it doesn't star Woody Allen stuttering and whining through the lead role. This is great family fun!
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: "Hitler, the rise of Evil" is clearly produced by people emotionally unburdened by the horrors of World War 2. Which makes watching a refreshing experience.

I think its greatest value lies in its crystal clear revealing of the Nazi-mechanism. Of the utterly corrupt ways Hitler used to make it to the top. Having arrived there, this film ends.

When on top, the 'Fuhrer' (= German for 'leader') led his Germany to the biggest & most devastating war in history of mankind. Ending six years later in Germany's utter defeat. As a result, Germany lost its eastern provinces (= about 35% of its prewar soil), and was forced to accept a 44 year-split of its remaining territory. Both West and East Germany had to be rebuilt from scrap, their reputations severely damaged by the many Nazi-atrocities inspired by racism.

As I said, "Hitler, the rise of Evil" makes an good watch. Set in an acceptable thirties-environment, with (more than) competent acting. In particular Peter O'Toole's role as the aged president von Hindenburg stands out, even adds an extra dimension.

My copy of "Hitler, the rise of Evil" also provides a second DVD with two good documentary films. One is about Hitler's personality, the second deals with the forgery of the Hitler-diaries. In 1983 this forgery caused a hilarious scandal in England and Germany, damaging the reputations of several historians and journalists.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: If you rent a movie titled "Exterminators of the year 3000," the odds are good you know what you're getting yourself into. I myself was sold by the promising descriptions of "nuke mutants," "motor-psychos," and of course the "exterminators" themselves which, according to the back of the movie-store case, are all cavorting around a post-apocalyptic barren wasteland wreaking all sorts of mayhem. Let the wacky hijinks and low budget buffoonery ensue--at least, such were my hopes for this "film."

Now I like the occasional terrible movie, and if you're reading the comments on Exterminators of the Year 3000, you probably do too. That being said, I rated this film a solid "1(awful)"--not because I completely hated the film but because it is one of the most legitimately dreadful efforts at movie-making I have ever seen. The dialogue, the acting, the cinematography, the sound-editing, the editing in general, the plot, etc., etc., etc--all are worthy of what must surely be low spectator expectations given that marvelous title.

So what is really "good" about this bad movie? It does have several of what my circle affectionately terms "quality kills." A quality kill, for those few of you unfamiliar with the phrase, isn't a hard and fast term, but in general refers to someone killed in a particularly gruesome, creative, or ridiculous fashion.

Exterminators of the Year 3000 also has a fair supply of "dialogue-so-bad-it-becomes-funny," provided in great part by Crazy Bull, the aptly titled leader of the hapless motor-psycho gang--who incidentally also provide most of the quality kills (if you're hoping for big things from the nuke mutants, think again, they play essentially zero part in the movie...shucks!). Crazy Bull, however, is all you could ask for in a b-movie motor-psycho. Shakespearean paraphrase and oddly PG-style insults are all he knows how to say...and that's terrific.

Despite its quality kills and bad dialogue, however, if you're looking for a truly entertaining bad movie, Exterminators of the Year 3000 does disappoint somewhat in that with its draw limited to things like silly and outdated special effects, quality killing, and bad dialogue, there is simply not enough to justify a full feature length, owing principally to the forty minutes or so in which the audience is forced to follow the characters in protracted and boring car "chases" and long desert hiking sequences...All in all, a pretty good awful movie, but hey, it's no Death Race 2000.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Big S isn't playing with taboos or forcing an agenda like, say Mencia or Chapelle (though I like them both). She states the obvious in subtle, near subliminal remarks. Her show won't change the World, nor is it meant to. But, along with the hilarious Brian Posehn and Paget Brewster's ex-boyfriend Jay Johnston of "Mr. Show" fame, this is one mean show with an appetite for destruction! My side's were thoroughly wrecked by the first episode. Look, I love this woman and like her famed boyfriend, Jimmy Kimmel, she just delivers the lines and lets the viewer run- with-it. The best kind of comedy around. Spoofing anything and anyone, like "Mary Poppins" in the second episode when she sings to the fake birds on to quick hitting commentary on society and college aged existential nonsense. This one is highly recommended, but only for those who still have a funny bone (and didn't lose it in their most recent lippo-suction treatment or boob job).