TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
PROBLEM: this is crap , but , honestly , what older american audience is going to be able to resist seeing jack lemmon and james garner as bicker- ing ex - presidents ?
especially when their supporting players in- clude dan aykroyd as the current commander in chief , lauren bacall as a former first lady , and john heard as the dan quayle - ish vice president .
yup , you 're talkin ' pre - sold property here and , for warner brothers , the perfect fit into their now - ritual grumpy old men holiday slot .
for the non - discriminating viewer , my fellow americans is fine .
the raw star power alone will have audiences applauding this atrocious political- thriller road - comedy .
( they did in mine , heaven help us . )
for the rest of us , the movie is immediately tiresome .
the tone is terrible and the banter is worse .
forget
wit-- lemmon and garner merely exchange profanities through most of the movie .
( has anyone counted the number of first penis references ? )
sure , some of the bits are absurdly funny , including a men 's room macarena joke , the appearance of an elvis impersonator on a trainload of tarheels , and an all dorothy marching band performing " over the rainbow " at a gay men 's march .
the get there from here , though , you have to submit to one of the most offensively overbearing musical scores of all time .
judas priest , is there a single moment of silence in this film ?
even the dialogue gets drowned out .
what a waste .

SOLUTION: N

PROBLEM: everything about this ninth trek movie seems on the cheap , from the roger corman - grade special effects to its highly derivative and ugly ad campaign
( the poster is nearly identical to that of star trek
vi : the undiscovered country ) .
but piller 's not - quite - half - baked screenplay should ultimately claim responsibility for insurrection 's failure .
i 'm about to give the same advice to rick berman and co .
as i 've given to the financiers of james bond movies : it 's time to breathe life into this workhorse by hiring solid genre writers and a real director .
( while we 're at it , put that visor back on laforge ! )
for three hundred years , the ba'ku species ( who look just like humans ) have lived on a ringed - planet that might as well be called the fountain of youth .
six hundred of them occupy the briar patch , the area affected by metaphasic radition , a positive energy that reverses the aging process in the elderly .
but evil ru'afo ( this is probably abraham 's last stop before performing " amadeus " at a dinner theatre near you ) , leader of the son'a ( who look just like burn victims after reconstructive surgery ) , wants to relocate the ba'ku and movie his people onto the briar patch in their place , in order to replenish his dying breed .
the federation is all for this , but picard feels this is a direct violation of the prime directive : to not interfere with the development of an alien race .
( never mind that the ba'ku did n't exactly evolve - they went wandering in the universe one day and stumbled upon the magic world . )
every time frakes gives an interview lately , he seems to top whatever ludicrous statement he last gave regarding this installment .
he has called it a comedy , a thinking man 's picture , a throwback to the old series , and , most grievously , he has likened it to a john ford western .
( i presume that 's some john ford
he went to school with , not the director of the searchers . )
he has also gone on record as saying paramount recut the film from his version .
that 's no excuse -
someone generated this footage .
muddy cinematography and sitcom sets are the least of its problems ; star trek : insurrection appears to have been beamed in from the planet plotholia . consider such curiosities . . .
picard 's love interest , anij ( donna murphy ) , can slow things down by staring at them ( such as a waterfall or falling rocks ) -her scientific explanation for this ?
" do n't ask .
"
worf gets a pimple ( he 's re - experiencing klingon puberty thanks to the time - defying atmosphere ) , laforge regains his eyesight ( trust me , levar burton 's real eyes are scarier than those electronic lenses he wore in first contact ) and troi brags about her firm boobs , but picard remains as bald as an android 's butt .
most suspiciously , what exactly is the problem with letting this endangered race have a little fun in the sun ?
the filmmakers cloud the issue with some nonsense about a family feud of sorts , and they also turn ru'afo into a completely power - mad superfreak , just so the characters will have something to do in the climax .
( and if you 've seen return of the jedi , you 've seen the ending of this movie . ) did n't picard himself previously disobey the prime directive when he prevented the borg from assimilating millions ?
frakes lucked out with first contact , and repeat viewings of that film reveal the seeds of what went wrong in his direction of insurrection :
he has no sense of comic timing , and he mines for acting chemistry where none exists .
( take a look at the painful " troi gets drunk " scene in fc and you 'll get the general idea of insurrection 's unsuccessfully jokey and hollow tone . )
even the worst shatner and co .
treks , like the final frontier , maintained a watchability thanks to the effortless ,
charming comaraderie between kirk , spock , and bones .
neither first contact nor insurrection has any idea what to do with crusher ( gates mcfadden , whom i must say maintains a fabulous physique ) , troi , or laforge .
and all three next generation films spend too much time on data , who is the franchise 's answer to urkel .
need a cheap laugh ?
have data say something sexual , or start singing , or lift up a four hundred pound boulder as if it 's the hunk of styrofoam it really is .
here 's my proposed title for number 10 : data star data trek : data data data data data .
in this movie , data will become preoccupied with learning to blow his nose , while crusher and troi watch silently from 500 yards away and laforge points his sinister gaze at the android in doubly robotic observation .
star trek : insurrection had one nice , eerie , silent moment that hints at a better , darker film .
i 'm not saying all of them should be star trek
ii : the wrath of khan , but this one boldly went where no movie should go again .

SOLUTION: N

PROBLEM: any remake of an alfred hitchcock film is at best an uncertain project , as a perfect murder illustrates .
frankly , dial m for murder is not one of the master director 's greatest efforts , so there is ample room for improvement .
unfortunately , instead of updating the script , ironing out some of the faults , and speeding up the pace a little , a perfect murder has inexplicably managed to eliminate almost everything that was worthwhile about dial m for murder , leaving behind the nearly- unwatchable wreckage of a would - be ' 90s thriller .
almost all suspense films are loaded with plot implausibilities .
the best thrillers keep viewers involved enough in what 's going on so that these flaws in logic do n't become apparent until long after the final credits have rolled .
unfortunately , in a perfect murder , the faults are often so overt that we become aware of them as they 're happening .
this is a very bad sign .
not only do such occurrences shatter any suspension of disbelief , but they have the astute viewer looking for the next such blunder .
of course , in the case of a perfect murder , at least that gives an audience member something to do besides concentrating on the inane plot and the lifeless , cardboard characters .
a perfect murder is n't a strict remake of dial m for murder , but it does borrow heavily from frederick knott 's play ( which was also the source material for hitchcock 's version , as well as a 1981 made - for - tv retelling ) .
emily hayes ( gwyneth paltrow ) is the wealthy wife of powerful wall street mover - and - shaker steven hayes ( michael douglas ) .
their marriage is n't going well -- emily resents steven 's controlling instincts , and , as a form of rebellion , she is having an affair with a penniless painter , david shaw ( viggo mortensen ) .
when steven learns of the relationship , he decides to confront david , but his approach is n't that of a typical cuckolded husband .
instead of yelling or threatening , steven offers david a proposal that 's too good to resist : for $ 500 , 000 in cash ( $ 100 , 000 before , the rest after ) , he is to break into steven 's new york apartment and kill emily .
( of course , after getting the first payment , david never bothers to ask how he 's supposed to get the rest . )
ultimately , i 'm not sure which of the three main characters we 're supposed to be sympathetic to : the cold - hearted husband , who wants his wife dead so he can get his hands on her fortune ; her mercenary lover , who is willing to do the deed for half - a - million ; or the woman , who is happily carrying on an extramarital affair .
not only are these individuals all profoundly dislikable , but they 're not interesting .
( it 's possible to make a good movie with detestable characters -- see reservoir dogs -- but there has to be something compelling about them , which , in this case , there is n't . )
steven , emily , and david are all lifted directly from the screenwriting 101 text book on stereotypes .
the actors in this film are obviously just on hand to get their paychecks .
michael douglas is playing the kind of heartless tycoon that he can do in his sleep -- he 's gordon gekko with an unfaithful wife .
gwyneth paltrow , who was recently delightful and appealing in sliding doors , is simply awful here .
she now has the dubious distinction of have starred in two of 1998 's worst thrillers ( the other being hush ) .
at least viggo mortensen ( g .
i .
jane ) has a little fun with his part , but then he usually does interesting things even in bad movies .
the thin supporting cast includes david suchet , the star of " poirot , " as a police inspector , and sarita choudhury ( kama sutra ) as emily 's best friend .
a perfect murder is a plodding production that generates almost no suspense from beginning to end .
there are n't many twists and turns in the unexpectedly linear script , which makes the ending inevitable almost from the start .
it 's surprising to see director andrew davis , the man behind the fugitive , involved in this mess
, but , like his stars , he too needs to earn a living .
it 's just that remaking hitchcock , and doing it so badly
, hardly seems to be an honorable way to go about getting the dough .

SOLUTION:
N