Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: This film is worth seeing alone for Jared Harris' outstanding portrayal of John Lennon. It doesn't matter that Harris doesn't exactly resemble Lennon; his mannerisms, expressions, posture, accent and attitude are pure Lennon. Best scene: Lennon in a local cafe verbally sparring with a stuttering fan as to whether Paul McCartney & Wings' "Silly Love Songs" is worthy of #1 status in America.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: The Comeback starts off looking promising, with a brutal death scene by a mask wearing killer. The mask itself is pretty cool too, and looks almost identical to the one used in the 1990's slasher film "Granny". From then on the film is mostly boring. We get a few more deaths, which again are good, but there's not enough of them. The reason the deaths are so good is because they are frenzied and bloody. The story behind the film is actually rather interesting and would have worked very well had it not been so boring for the most part.

I would avoid this unless you're a die-hard collector - there's not enough here to even make it an average slasher flick.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: I was very unimpressed with Cinderella 2 and Jungle Book 2, but this is possibly worse than both titles. First of all, I didn't like the animation, very Saturday-morning-cartoon, only worse in some scenes. I liked some of the characters, namely Thunderbolt and Patch, but the other characters, like Cruella were mediocre. Cruella was truly villainous in the original, but she lost her quality in the sequel. What she said was nothing at all to write home about and her animation was kind of ugly. Also her artist companion Lars was a joke to be honest with you, and Roger seemed to have quit smoking overnight. The voice talents were very good though especially Barry Bostwick as Thunderbolt, with the exception of Jodi Benson, the accent ruined it for me. There were some good moments, but the whole plot seemed bloated for me, and highly suggestive of an extended TV episode. All in all, a hugely disappointing sequel to the most memorable of the 60s Disney movies along with Jungle Book. Sorry, I can only give this a 3/10, it just wasn't my cup of tea. Bethany Cox

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer:
Apparently Shakespeare equals high brow which equals in turn a bunch of folks not seeing something for what it really is. At one point in this film, someone (I believe Pacino's producer) warns him that film is getting off track, that it was once about how the masses think about Shakespeare through the vehicle of RICHARD III. Instead he decides to shoot a chopped up play with random comments sprinkled throughout. Some scenes seemed to be included as home movies for Al (was there really ANY reason for the quick visit to Shakespeare's birthplace, other than for a laugh about something unexpected which happens there?), and, before the film has really even begun, we are treated to seeing Al prance around and act cute and funny for the camera. I thought his silly act with Kay near the end of GODFATHER III with the knife to his throat was AN ACT - but apparently it's how Al really behaves in person.

Enough rambling. Here's a shotgun smattering of why I didn't even make it 3/4 of the way through this: 1) pretentious - Al always knows when the camera is on him, whether he's acting as Richard or in a 'real' conversation with someone - you can see it in the corner of his eyes, also, some of the actors around the rehearsal table become untethered and wax hammy to the extreme. If anyone reading this has ever spent any time with an group of actors and has witnessed this kind of thing from the outside, it's unbearable. "Look at me, chewing all the scenery!" 2) Winona Ryder. When she appears as Lady Anne, this film comes to a screeching halt, which it never recovers from. She has nothing to add in the discussion scenes but the camera lingers on her to bring in the kiddoes. Her performance is dreadful, to boot. 3) the only things you really learn from this are told to you by the very scholars the filmmakers are trying to keep out of the picture. Of course, you also learn that Pacino shouldn't be directing films (or doing Richard in the first place). I'd rather watch BOBBY DEERFIELD than this.

Lastly, read the play and learn it for yourself. Go out and see it performed. In 1997 I saw the play performed at the University of Washington Ethnic Cultural Theater, and it made what we see in this film seem like high school drama (except for the gratuitous throat slashing of Clarence! My God! Was that necessary?!)

It's all just a bunch of sound and fury, signifying nada.