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

Answer: 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!

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

Answer: I unknowingly had this movie on my shelf for a while in a Mill Creek Collection, and one night I just decided to watch it; though not expecting much. As the beginning credits roll around I'm surprised to discover this film was made under the Filmirage company. Filmirage brought the world such amazing stinkers as "Troll 2", "Ator the Invincible", and "Quest for the Mighty Sword", so I was compelled to watch.

As the movie started out it had potential to be pretty decent, even though it was unoriginal. The gore scenes could have been improved if they were extended and more frequent. But after a while into the film, the pace started dragging and I found myself thinking "Okay someone better get killed soon",or "Someone better mutate". At the onset of this drag, when I was having these thoughts, though someone may have gotten killed or have mutated, however as noted, the gore and effects weren't very good. What made matters worse was that the scene transitions were confusing; example: first Dr. Houseman would be at the Zoo, then he'd have a flash back about possibly killing someone, finally he'd wake up in a cold sweat in bed-- making the audience ask "Was he dreaming he was at the zoo?". Like the movie's pace, these scene transitions got progressively worse.

I could try to say the character development of Dr. Houseman was pretty good, but towards the end of the film, that is, once you've seen what the Doctor has metamorphosed into, hopefully you'll laugh-- which really, is the only reason to see this movie at least once; this movie unintentionally runs like a long-winded joke.

The costume of the um, thing that Doctor Houseman becomes can also be seen in Joe D' Amato's "Quest for the Mighty Sword", which was made in the same year. You've gotta love Filmirage movies, they're always re-using the same stuff!

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

Answer: Please see also my comment on Die Nibelungen part 1: Siegfried.

The second part of UFA studio's gargantuan production of the Nibelungen saga continues in the stylised, symphonic and emotionally detached manner of its predecessor. However, whereas part one was a passionless portrayal of individual acts of heroism, part two is a chaotic depiction of bloodletting on a grand scale.

As in part one, director Fritz Lang maintains a continuous dynamic rhythm, with the pace of the action and the complexity of the shot composition rising and falling smoothly as the tone of each scene demands. These pictures should only be watched with the note-perfect Gottfried Huppertz score, which fortunately is on the Kino DVD. Now, with this focus on mass action, Lang is presented with greater challenges in staging. The action sequences in his earliest features were often badly constructed, but now he simply makes them part of that rhythmic flow, with the level of activity on the screen swelling up like an orchestra.

But just as part one made us witness Siegfried's adventures matter-of-factly and without excitement, part two presents warfare as devastating tragedy. In both pictures, there is a deliberate lack of emotional connection with the characters. That's why Lang mostly keeps the camera outside of the action, never allowing us to feel as if we are there (and this is significant because involving the audience is normally a distinction of Lang's work). That's also why the performances are unnaturally theatrical, with the actors lurching around like constipated sleepwalkers.

Nevertheless, Kriemhild's revenge does constantly deal with emotions, and is in fact profoundly humanist. The one moment of naturalism is when Atilla holds his baby son for the first time, and Lang actually emphasises the tenderness of this scene by building up to it with the wild, frantic ride of the huns. The point is that Lang never manipulates us into taking sides, and in that respect this version has more in common with the original saga than the Wagner opera. The climactic slaughter is the very antithesis of a rousing battle scene. Why then did Hitler and co. get so teary-eyed over it, a fact which has unfairly tarnished the reputation of these films? Because the unwavering racial ideology of the Nazis made them automatically view the Nibelungs as the good guys, even if they do kill babies and betray their own kin. For Hitler, their downfall would always be a nationalist tragedy, not a human one.

But for us non-nazi viewers, what makes this picture enjoyable is its beautiful sense of pageantry and musical rhythm. When you see these fully-developed silent pictures of Lang's, it makes you realise how much he was wasted in Hollywood. Rather than saddling him with low-budget potboilers, they should have put him to work on a few of those sword-and-sandal epics, pictures that do not have to be believable and do not have to move us emotionally, where it's the poetic, operatic tonality that sweeps us along.

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

Answer:
If you've ever seen the trailer for the film "The Recruit" with Colin Farrell and Al Pacino, you'll never have to see that film. Sadly, Renaissance has had similarly revelatory trailer makers.

The story of Renaissance is about a detective investigating the kidnapping of a young woman and medical researcher. The setting is a futuristic Paris, and science fiction elements feature throughout. The special thing about Renaissance, though, is its visual style, and not its story. Renaissance is 3D computer animation, like Final Fantasy, but highly stylised into black and white with ultra sharp contrasts. The result looks stunning (although the problems of 3D animation of human beings are still noticeable from time to tome: slightly robotic movements, slightly wooden facial acting, etc) As a highly stylised, beautiful film noir, Renaissance succeeds at stunning the audience, especially visually. The story and writing, though, are not quite at the same level of quality as the visuals. It's not a bad story (and presumably, if you haven't seen the trailer, it's a lot more exciting than it was for me). But it is a story that isn't highly original, and verges on the corny. A few lines of dialogue were painfully corny, making the writing sound like a beginner's first efforts.

I will definitely recommend Renaissance to friends. It's unlike anything I've seen before, visually, and I believe its originality alone makes it a worthwhile experience. It is also a watchable story, even if it isn't perfect.