Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: Artemesia takes the usual story about the art world, eg, "You can't paint that! But I want to!" and plasters it with sex and scandal to make the whole film, well, interesting, but not remarkable.

The story is about one of the first female painters around, Artemesia who course, is fiercely independent, but just can't stop thinking of men, and their bodies for artistic purposes of course. She soon gets private tutoring from one of a well known artist, but soon tutoring becomes much more then art, and soon after that, scandal erupts! Funny how they could take a historical biography and make it almost into a soft-porn fantasy. I mean, was Artemesia THAT much of a man-hungry person? Also, it's quite funny when she's insisting that she "paints for herself!" yet falls for the first person she sees.

Actually, the story itself is quite fascinating, and it ends with a trial, which I always love. But I wasn't too crazy about the male lead who played her teacher, who looked rather like the person someone like that wouldn't fall for. I woulda gone for the young fisherman :P

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: This reboot is like a processed McDonald's meal compared to Ang Lee's very good but very underrated 2003 "The Incredible Hulk".

Ang Lee's "The Hulk" is a comic book movie for the thinking person. The Hulk takes some time to appear (about 40 minutes), but when he does we see the conflict at our protagonist's core. He does his best to avoid losing control, but as he admits, when he does give in to his rage, he likes it.

Now compare this to Edward Norton's turn, where there is no display of conflict in his personality, and he turns into the Hulk whenever he becomes excited and his pulse rate hits 200 beats per minute (not 183, not 197, but exactly 200). To this reviewer, this felt akin to the introduction of midi-chlorians in The Phantom Menace, which tell how strong the "force" is with one, as if mystical abilities can be gauged through a blood test. In the 2008 movie, all Ed Norton's Bruce Banner has to do is to keep his pulse rate under 200, as monitored by a device strapped onto his wrist. And for the record, it is extremely difficult to get one's pulse rate up to 200 even through a very exhilarating run, especially for a physically fit person.

Emotions drive Eric Bana's Hulk. He has repressed memories of his mother's death and his father's role in his early life. On the surface he is calm, but there underneath there is significant anger, enough rage to fuel the Hulk when it is unleashed. But the Hulk never kills intentionally, even his attackers. Mostly, he just wants to get away or close to Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly). He incapacitates his shooters and in one critical scene, saves a fighter jet pursuing him from a collision.

In the 2003 movie, the visual effects are there, but as necessary. The action scenes (and there are plenty of them) are necessary to the plot, unlike the 2008 movie where action is inserted for the sake of action.

In his quest to turn it into a "fugitive" story, Ed Norton loses focus on how Bruce Banner feels about the Hulk. To him, the Hulk is a dangerous side effect of an experiment went awry. And Louis Leterrier, the director picking up on Ed Norton's cue, fails to add any emotional dimension to the Banner-Hulk relationship. The story can be summed up as: Banner is pursued and Hulk kicks butt, Banner is pursed and Hulk kick butt. Repeat as necessary.

The only thing that went against the 2003 movie is that it is perhaps not as true to the comic books as the 2008 version. However, even as I am a fan of the comics, I would prefer a movie that is not as true to the comics as a fanboy's dream but has heart over the comics-loyal but manufactured and soulless 2008 version any day.

Perhaps Ang Lee should have read more comics. Iron Man, also released in 2008, is a perfect example of a movie that is true to its comic-book roots and has heart.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: Back in the day of the big studio system, the darndest casting decisions were made. Good old all American James Stewart appearing as a Hungarian in The Shop Around the Corner. Had I been casting the film, the part of Kralik would have been perfect for Charles Boyer. His accent mixed in with all the other European accents would have been nothing. Stewart had some of the same problem in the Mortal Storm also with Margaret Sullavan.

Margaret Sullavan was his most frequent leading lady on the screen, he did four films with her. But is only this one where neither of them dies. Sullavan and her husband Leland Heyward knew Stewart back in the day when he was a struggling player in New York. In fact Sullavan's husband was Stewart's good friend Henry Fonda back then.

I think only Clark Gable was able to carry off being an American in a cast of non-Americans in Mutiny on the Bounty. Stewart in The Mortal Storm was German, but all the other players were American as well so nothing stood out.

But if you can accept Stewart, than you'll be seeing a fine film from Ernest Lubitsch. The plot is pretty simple, a man and woman working in a department store in Budapest don't get along in person. But it seems that they are carrying on a correspondence with some anonymous admirers which turn out to be each other. Also employer Frank Morgan suspects Stewart wrongly of kanoodling with his wife.

Though the leads are fine and Frank Morgan departs from his usual befuddled self, the two players who come off best are Felix Bressart and Joseph Schildkraut. Bressart has my favorite moments in the film when he takes off after Morgan starts asking people for opinions. He makes himself very scarce.

And Joseph Schildkraut, who is always good, is just great as the officious little worm who is constantly kissing up to Frank Morgan. You really hate people like that, I've known too many like Schildkraut in real life who are at office politics 24 hours a day. Sad that it pays off a good deal of the time.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer:
A number of factors make it easy for me to state that I still think this is the most important science fiction film ever made, despite some of the acting, outdated dialogue etc.

First, there is the scale of imagination in describing the Krell, a humanoid race native to the planet, now all dead, who were 1 million years more advanced than Earth humans(us), and their technology, particularly the 8,000 cubic mile machine.

Second, there is the music and sound effects, which are inseparable from each other. It creates an eerie, unearthly feeling, unlike "2001", which had traditional classical music.

Third, its "monster" is not only the most powerful and deadly ever envisioned, it's also based on real science and doesn't break the laws of physics and biology.

Finally, and most importantly, Forbidden Planet is the only movie ever made that attempts and, more incredibly, succeeds in making an honest, intelligent and mercilessly logical statement on the limits or ceiling of human (or any other biological entity's) development, no matter how long we survive as a species.

In other words, it predicts our inevitable destiny.