Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:Channel 4 is a channel that allows more naughty stuff than any of the other channels, this show was certainly a naughty one. The presenter of this sometimes gross adult chat show, Four-time BAFTA winning and British Comedy Award winning (also twice nominated) Graham Norton was just the perfect gay host for a good show like this. It had one or more famous celebrities in the middle of it. They basically had an adult idea which would either gross, humiliate or humour the guest, but some are not for the faint-hearted. They had women playing the recorder with their parts, men using their dicks to play a xylophone, women weeing upwards in the bath, men with or without pants under their kilts, and many more gross but hilarious ideas. This is just for adults, but enjoy it! It won the BAFTA twice for Best Entertainment (Programme or Series), it won the British Comedy Awards for Best Comedy Entertainment Programme (also nominated), Best Comedy Talk Show, it won an Emmy for episode #18 (?), and it won the National Television Awards twice for Most Popular Talk Show. It was number 52 on The 100 Greatest Funny Moments. Very good!
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:Style but no substance. Not as funny as it should be. Not as deep as it wants to be.

This is another in the genre of films about the difficulties of filmmaking. A young filmaker is hired to finish a campy 60s sci-fi movie called Codename:Dragonfly. Think Barbarella, or Danger Diabolique.

But Jeremy Davies is an angst-ridden filmmaker. He's no hack he's an artist. The movie he wants to make is a diary of his life. Hardly original.

All the characters outside of Jeremy Davies filmmaker are as thin as rice-paper. Characters that might be interesting, such as his father, his doppelganger, or Jason Schwarzmann as a hack director are introduced and then shown the door without adding a thing.

This movie is full of eye candy but when compared to other films about filmmakers such as Stardust Memories or 8 1/2 it pales in comparison. Those movies are funny, provocative with well-developed characters. Those movies have lessons that apply outside

The movie wants to be comic and campy but its just derivative and there is not one funny scene. The filmmakers describe it as a send-up but what's the satirical target? The actors say it's an homage but I think I would rather a full-length version of Codename:Dragonfly.

Coppola is clearly amused by the setting as is evident by the visual humor of the sci-fi movie within a movie. But he fails to share why we should be amused.

Outside of the sci-fi movie its just a mess. There are continuity errors, the filmmaker chooses a sci-fi weapon after its already been chosen. What?

Just because he has a scene were the filmmaker is confronted by the critics complaining about the lack of story, lack of a point, a scene where he admits empty cleverness does not mean that he has addressed those criticisms.

I guess if your Roman Coppola you can get away with making a movie about an angst-ridden idealistic filmmaker who doesn't know what he wants to say and so ends up saying nothing. In that sense it may be considered autobiograhical.

I would watch it at Circuit City on a wall full of TVs if I had a choice. Watch the 15-minute Codename:Dragonfly movies included on the DVD as extras and then send it back.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:His choice of films, the basic 'conceit' of the production (which places him in the sets or simulacra of the films he is commenting on ) and his delivery are brilliant! But if you want Freud, be aware that you're getting Zizek's version of Lacan, which should not be confused with Lacan himself. As usual, Zizek delivers complex ideas with gusto and in a convincing manner. The rub is he is also quite mercurial and so there may be more in his gusto than in actual content. Cinematically, it is a gem. Psychologically, this will have people of all persuasions (Freudians, Lacanians and Jungians) scratching their heads but reaching for the popcorn all the same. Zizek is a phenomenon and pop icon unto himself.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:I thought the movie was OK but very disappointed that they didn't capture the true image of his life. I was so anticipating to see his mother being an actual Jamaican, that it's driving me crazy. Just watching the beginning of the movie told me that the movie was not accurate. Which I completely lost interest just a matter of seconds from the beginning of the movie. I'm very disappointed, that's like watching a biography story on Mark Anthony and having Arnold play the part. I don't know what the writer was thinking missing a valuable piece of the movie which I'm sure his mother played a huge role in his life. I will say the movie was OK besides the major Fla!!!!!!
+++++++++
A:
negative