Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: That's right! Under 9 on average, but maybe under 12s for some others! I was 11 when I originally saw this on video and at such youth I wasn't able to notice the shoddy cartoon-quality or the fact that those classic characters we have all grown to love are Not the same or as good to see. Just about everything is so 2D here! Belle is, I'll agree, not even beautiful but just a plain-looking woman with tinted skin, she wears the same bright blue dress all the way through with not one glamorous dress on, Wardrobe is to say the Least, annoying - my ears may bleed if I had to listen to her everyday! Lumiere, in both the original and the Christmas edition was suave and elegant, but here he is a womanizing, unfunny twit! Cogsworth, despite being the no-nonsense housekeeper he is famous for, is a complete sh-t and the most insufferable character I'd say! He always seems to find shutting that unbearably grating pie-hole of his very difficult in this one and whose clock face should really have been used for turning back in time to the unforgettable two film in this series! Poor, poor Mrs Potts was not brought to life by Angela Lansbury (one of my favourite classic actresses) but by Anne Rogers who captured none of Mrs Potts' character, no offence to her! Not if she did her best! When the beast roars it sounds so horrifically fake with clearly no additional roars, snarls or growls by a microphone. I am aware that this is only a third feature following two other films so of course it wouldn't be as good but I'm sure that more of a contribution wouldn't have hurt the Disney artists who, indeed, have achieved such remarkable styles of animation over the years. It's alright, I guess, and I do watch it sometimes though only when it suits me. It's quite difficult to make a recommendation for you reading this because it depends on how old you are but remember this will not at all be what you may expect following the earlier spectacular movies! And to think that on my video of it the text on the back cover said "boasting brilliant animation"! It's a nice little flick but for one thing it's also highly poor and, for another, those 3 words ought to have been saved for the next re-release of the original!

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: There are so many stupid moments in 'Tower of Death'/'Game of Death 2' that you really wonder if it's a spoof. At times, it felt like I was watching a sequel to Kung Pow rather than a Bruce Lee film.

To be honest, this film has bugger all to do with 'Game of Death'. If anything, it's more a sequel/remake of 'Enter the Dragon', incorporating many elements of that film - particularly the actual footage. Bruce Lee's character Billy Lo (apparently) investigates the sudden death of his friend and encounters a piece of film that was left with the man's daughter. When the body is stolen during the funeral (!), Billy is also killed and it's up to his wayward brother to avenge both men's deaths.

Tong Long stars as brother Bobby Lo and doesn't really have the sort of charisma to carry the film. His fighting abilities are very good however. Bruce Lee obviously turns up thanks to (no longer) deleted footage simply to cash-in on the legacy. Saying that, on the whole, the footage is actually edited-in better than in 'Game of Death' but it doesn't stop the film from being a mess.

OK, so the fights are actually very entertaining (dare I say mind-blowing) and make the film at least watchable. But there are so many daft elements to this film that it really tests your patience. First off, there's the supposed villain who lives on his palatial estate... or is that mental institution? Seriously, the nutter eats raw venison, drinks deer's blood, carries a monkey on his shoulder and owns some peacocks and lions (?!). This attempt to make him look tough and intelligent just makes you feel sorry for him - you half expect someone to escort him back to his room.

In fact, this middle section is awful and when the scene involving a naked hooker and a lion suit arrived I turned it off. However, I did finish the film and was kind of glad I did because the fight scene towards the end (much like 'GOD') was the whole reason for watching. While the story is an embarrassment, the action is very good and contains excellent choreography.

But even the finale disappoints if the premise was anything to go by. What we were told was that the 'Tower of Death' was a pagoda that was upside down and underground. This sounded great, like a twist on Bruce Lee's original idea with different styles of fighting on each level. Could this be the 'Game of Death' that was originally planned? No! The film should have been named "Generator Room of Death" because thats as far as the tower goes. Of yes, there were indeed one or two 'different' styles... there were foil clad grunts, leopard-skinned henchman and stupid monk. It's as though Enter the Dragon had never been made, with the plot being a poor imitation.

Worth watching once for the fast paced fight scenes, but so stupid sometimes that it hurts. If this was intended, then fine. Thumbs up, however, for recreating that projector room scene from 'Enter The Dragon'.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: Peter Ustinov plays an embezzler who is just getting out of prison when the film begins. As soon as he walks out the gates, he immediately begins working on a scheme to once again make a bundle by stealing, though this time he has his sights set pretty high. This is actually one of the weak points about the film, as he apparently knows nothing about computers (few did back in 1968) but manages to become a computer genius literally overnight! Yeah, right. Anyway, he comes up with a scheme to impersonate a computer expert and obtain a job with a large American corporation so he can eventually embezzle a ton of cash. Considering his knowledge of computers is rudimentary, it's amazing how he puts into effect a brilliant plan AND manages to infiltrate the computer system and its defenses. But, it's a movie after all, so I was able to suspend disbelief. By the end of the film, he and his new wife (Maggie Smith) are able to run away with a million pounds.

At the very end, though, it gets very, very confusing and Smith announces she's managed to actually accumulate more than two million by shrewd investing in the companies that Ustinov started (though she didn't realize they were all dummy companies). This should mean that eventually these stocks she bought were worthless. What they seem to imply (and I could be guessing wrong here) is that Ustinov and his new partners quickly cashed in the stocks before this became known and the stocks would thereby then become worthless. Either way, the film seems to post on a magical ending whereby no one is hurt and everyone is happy--and this just didn't make much sense. It's a shame, really, as the acting and most of the writing was great. Karl Malden, Bob Newhart, Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith were just wonderful.

If I seem to have interpreted the end, let me know, as the film seemed very vague in details at the end.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer:
I can still remember first seeing this on TV. I couldn't believe TVNZ let it on! I had to own it! A lot of the humor will be lost on non-NZ'ers, but give it a go!

Since finishing the Back of the Y series Matt and Chris have gone on to bigger and better(?) things. NZ's greatest dare-devil stuntman, Randy Campbell has often appeared on the British TV series Balls of Steel. Yes, he still f^@ks up all his stunts because he is too drunk.

Also the 'house band' Deja Voodoo have since released 2 albums, Brown Sabbath and Back in Brown. The band consists of members of the Back of the Y team and singles such as 'I Would Give You One of My Beers (But I've Only Got 6)' and 'You Weren't Even Born in The 80's' continue their humor.

The South-By-Southwest film festival also featured their feature length film 'The Devil Made Me Do It' which will be released early 2008 in NZ.

All up, if you don't find these guys funny then you can just F%^K OFF!!