TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
PROBLEM: i can imagine how good krippendorf 's tribe must have looked on paper .
it does not surprise me in the least that a group of extremely talented actors , led by the great richard dreyfuss and a good director ( todd holland ) , all wanted to make this film .
in fact , it is only the expertise by which this excruciatingly bad script has been executed that keeps me from suggesting that you stay as far away from krippendorf 's tribe as possible .
in retrospect , i can imagine how bad this film could have been .
i shudder at the possibilities of awfulness
had it starred an actor less able than dreyfuss .
dreyfuss plays james krippendorf , an anthropologist who is granted $ 100 , 000 by his university to find an undiscovered tribe in new guinea .
halfway into his two - year expedition , his wife ( apparently ) dies .
i say apparently because when or how she dies is never truly established .
later , we find out that much of the grant money was spent on big - screen tvs and other such pleasures .
so , when krippendorf finds out what happens to professors who do not use their grant money wisely , he decides to construct an elaborate lie .
he makes his own tribe , using his three children as actors in a video .
he simply makes up certain incredible facts about this tribe ( which he calls the shelmickedmu ) .
audiences at krippendorf 's lectures are amazed by his findings that the shelmickedmu practice circumcision .
and proof that the typical family unit is led by a single father is truly amazing to the anthropological community .
like all films like this , the lie becomes more and more complex , and the suspense is generated with us wondering at what point it is all going to fall out from under our hero .
dreyfuss is a funny , talented man , and he is funny in this film .
he has lots of positive energy and , unlike most comical actors , really manages to play people like this realistically .
this film also requires a lot of physical humor that i 've never seen dreyfuss perform , and he does a great job .
jenna elfman , who plays veronica mecilli , a scientist who wants in on krippendorf 's work , is also very funny and appealing here .
and the kid actors are great , as well .
but we 're talking about the script from hell .
this is one of those stories that requires such extreme suspension of disbelief that they might as well have established that the story just takes place in an alternate universe where things like this can happen .
but the ridiculousness of the story is not really
what is so bad about it .
all the cliches and the irritating plot devices could have easily been overcome by dreyfuss and crew .
no , the script is plagued with so many clueless stereotypes and mean - spirited characters that i was in disbelief as i watched .
furthermore , the manor in which all of this material is covered up is truly shameless .
take , for instance , the scene in which krippendorf gets veronica drunk so he can tape them having sex .
they get all decked out in the tribe getup , complete with paint to darken their skin .
krippendorf does this because he needs footage of the mating rituals of his tribe .
now , i saw this scene coming from a mile away , but i said to myself , " no , that would be far too tasteless .
there 's no way they 'll do that . . .
oh god !
"
they did do it .
it 's there .
i was almost more appalled by the fact that this did n't bother the other audience members with whom i saw this film .
i found it deplorable .
and when krippendorf is forced to admit that he did it , he simply apologizes without the slightest hint of conviction in his voice .
the film is filled with scenes like these .
they not only insult the audience , but they insult the types of people that the film portrays .
it would take some truly professional work to create videos convincing enough to fool an entire community of scientists , yet krippendorf
does it easily in an afternoon .
and watching dreyfuss stumble over a completely unprepared speech is funny and entertaining , but i think that most members of the on - screen audience would be able to see that he is making everything up as he goes .
if i were an anthropologist , this film would insult me immensely .
moving right along , the film plays off every stereotype our culture has ever learned regarding african tribes .
sure , dreyfuss dressing up like a chief is really funny , and it allows for some entertaining scenes , but the heart of this material is deeply clueless as to the themes and thoughts that it provokes .
it is because of dreyfuss as an actor that i was able to watch this film .
his character here is not a good subject for a film because he is a shameless liar , and never once does he show any kind of penance for what he does .
i suppose it was interesting to see the formula defied in this case , but for the purposes of good taste , i would have expected something .
no , this man sets a terrible example for his kids and colleagues , and the writer of the film ( charlie peters ) did n't include a single scene in which krippendorf takes his kids aside and tells them that what he is doing is very bad .
in fact , it 's his eldest daughter that frequently tells him that he is doing the wrong thing , and he continually shrugs off her warnings .
i suppose it 's important to admit that this is a funny film .
dreyfuss and elfman , and many of the contrived and insulting scenes , add up to a picture that is anything but boring .
and if you 're less serious than i , you probably will enjoy it .
i , however , ca n't get past these elements .
krippendorf 's tribe is being marketed as a family comedy , but this is the kind of film that teaches the kids of our society faulty lessons that they should n't be learning .
with a little more insight into its story and themes , this could have been a good movie .

SOLUTION: N

PROBLEM: _ in brief : _ this film needs no introduction . if you have n't heard of it , then you must have been up in space on a sabbatical , and if you have n't seen it -- well , i suspect you 're in a small minority !
first thing 's first ?
is it all it 's hyped up to be ?
well , yes ?
and no .
it 's a good film , and there 's a lot to like about it , but it 's not without its problems .
when i saw the first trailer for " titanic " , it was when i went to see " bean " last summer , i think , my intial reaction was --
ai n't that downright sick to make a disaster movie out of such a dreadful , real - life tragedy ? !
i mean , what 's happened to hollywood 's script - writers , have they run entirely out of new ideas ?
gads ,
whatever next , i asked myself , how about an action film based on hiroshima starring jean claude van damme ?
i was not entirely filled with anticipation , but then i was n't alone in that respect .
it 's when it came out in the cinema , to rave reviews ( well , mostly ) and
anyone who 'd been to see it seemed disturbingly obsessed by it that i started to take notice !
i did n't see the film until several months after its release ( by which time my sister had seen it about four times ! ) , so i went with a slightly more open mind , but i still did n't think i 'd enjoy it much .
did i ?
yes
and no .
mainly yes , i 'm happy to say .
the first hour or so was beautifully done , not so much because of the scripting
( i 'll talk about that later ? ) but because the re - created ship and sets were stunning to look at , as was cameron 's directing , and the performances of the principal cast were so strong that the " human " aspect of the story , the romance between rose ( kate winslet ) and jack ( leonardo dicaprio ) , was enchanting
.
the film is told via flashback , with gloria stuart playing the elderly rose in the modern day ( you knew that , a ' course ! : - ) ) .
well , it 's an often effective device to use in storytelling -- though sometimes it can fall flat .
does it work here ?
in script form it does n't add all that much to the story .
what does add a lot to the story is gloria stuart , whose stunning performance is the strongest , most moving of the film .
her presence brings a much deeper level of passion , and depth to the story , and though her appearances are relatively brief , the film would have suffered without her . also impressive are dicaprio and winslet , who wholly succeed in rising above the often poor dialogue , and the bond they form is both heartfelt and moving
.
it 's an old story , you know -- forbidden love ala romeo and juliet -- but it works , and jack 's " rescuing " rose ( in both literal and figurative senses ) and teaching her to live life for what counts was pointed and touching .
in fact , i enjoyed the first half of the film a lot , largely because winslet and dicaprio bring such and charm , energy to the romance .
it 's engaging , touching and very enjoyable .
there 's more than a tinge of poignancy to it as well ,
simply because you know it 's not going to be a happy ending .
which leads us to the second half of the film .
we all knew it was coming .
i 'm sure director cameron was looking forward with eager anticipation to it , because as he 's stated in interviews , the real thrust of the story ( for him ) was the sinking , and the jack / rose romance was a merely a manipulative plot device to get you emotionally into the film .
i think that understates the importance of the romance , as i found it far more enjoyable than an hour of watching people die .
the iceberg arrives , and the captain announces that titanic will have sunk in about an hour .
and it is an hour .
my goodness , we do n't miss a second of that hour ?
gratuitous ?
well , perhaps not by today 's standards , i 'm sure there 's been far worse produced under the banner of " entertainment " in other films .
but i certainly was n't prepared for how shocking and graphic the last hour or so would be .
not that i 'd expect the word " understatement " to be part of cameron 's vocabulary ( he who brought us such , umm , vivid films as " terminator 2 " and " aliens " ) .
is it overdone ?
i thought so .
understatement can sometimes work wonders in conveying tragedy .
no , no one expected a happy ending , but i did n't quite expect the horrendously shocking and powerful scenes we were bombarded throughout the film 's second half .
still , whether it was overdone and heavy - handed or not , if it was the shock - factor cameron was after it worked , because i was shocked and moved , in fact i spent most of the last hour in tears !
you really could n't help but get emotionally involved ,
whether it was wishing someone would knock that dreadfully psychotic fiance of rose 's overboard or desperately hoping that rose would rescue jack , or that jack would rescue rose , or that they would both survive .
perhaps the most harrowing scene was when the ship has sunk , and those that sunk along with the ship freeze to death on the water surface .
the bit where rose lets go of jack 's hand , while promising she 'll never let go in her heart was particularly heart - wrenching , and the sight of rescue boats sailing amid the ocean of corpses was a pretty powerful image , to put no fine a point on it .
i loved the ending , however , which was both moving and slightly uplifting following the horror of the past hour and a half .
so , we 've established that the film is powerful and moving , if the last hour was rather excessive . have n't mentioned the script .
plot - wise
it 's ok , though the jack / rose relationship was beautifully developed
,
but i 've a feeling that 's to the actors
credit if anything .
as for the dialogue ?
well , titanic is set in 1912 .
it 's a period drama .
but i saw very little indication of period in so far as the dialogue is concerned .
did they really use phrases like " goddamn it !
" back in the turn of the century ?
i doubt it .
would someone talk like this : " do ya love the guy or what ? " .
i doubt it .
is such dialogue as " i saw the iceberg , and i see it in your eyes now
" not just a bit ? clumsy ?
yes it is .
a little more attention to dialogue would not have gone astray , and cameron himself is to blame ( he wrote the script ) .
stick with directing , dude .
but its more than redeemed by the acting , with dicaprio and winslet on fine form , ably supported by a strong cast .
star of the show was gloria stuart , though --
why did n't she win that oscar ? !
after all , they were throwing oscars at " titanic " left , right and centre , but gloria was perhaps the most deserving nominee . directing - wise cameron does a spectacular job .
like i said , his vision was a bit excessive , but at least he directed it well .
i have n't even mentioned james horner 's beautiful score .
utterly heavenly , though when your dad and sister play the soundtrack a lot you do start to get a bit bored with it !
; - ) i 've finished my rant , which lasted a lot longer than i thought it would !
just leaves a couple of questions ; was it worth all those oscars ?
hell , do n't talk to me about oscars .
bloomin ' farce .
it was deserving in a number of departments , though .
last question ; is it , as some suggest , one of the best films of all - time ?
nope , i do n't think so .
it 's certainly one of the most powerful and memorable films i 've ever seen ,
but i do n't think it quite ranks as one of my all - time favourites .
and as for the fact they 're reportedly making a " titanic 2 " ?
well i guess that 's typical hollywood for you !

SOLUTION: P

PROBLEM: at first glance , three kings looks to be just another war movie , the 90s version of all those favourite war movies with names i can not remember .
the 90s version , it definitely is , just another war movie ? not in your dreams !
imagine pulp fiction approach to saving private ryan , tha 's three kings for you .
believe it or not , it bears the cool of the former and the stark humane meaning of the latter .
the story brings us to the twilight of the gulf war , with the allied troops victorious .
majpr archie gates ( clooney ) leads an enterprising bunch of grunts to a rather unorthodox post - war looting spree ; the millions in gold bars secretly stowed away by saddam in a desolate village in the desert .
as the rest of the troops are celebrating their victory and getting ready to be shipped home , this ' wild bunch ' goes awol on an armed hum - vee ( the vehicle of choice of the us army ) .
they soon find out that they have much resistance , as they get tangled with the local rebellion against saddam 's forces .
frequently switching their modes between looters and robin hood 's merry men , they become consciously attacked by their own morals .
as the film begins to roll , it seemed to have a rather ' light ' mood to it . ' special ' effects such as when gates describes to his men how a bullet can kill simply paves the way for a light - hearted funny action movie .
three kings is much smarter than that .
as the conflict becomes more and more complex , the audience will be trapped in a limbo , trying to stay focussed on that light - mood / serious - mood that the film seem to portray .
i personally found this analogous to the same feelings of the main characters involved in the film ; trapped between their initial plan paved by greed and their own sense of humanity .
this simply made the entire experience of watching three kings
truly brilliant .
action sequences are not shot as your old - fashioned war films nor anything like steven spielberg 's in - your - face war violence .
they are carefully built to generate tension with just the right tight close - ups and pauses , right before the action starts .
not john woo for sure but more of sergio leone 's spaghetti western style ( tons of them starring clint eastwood ) . great performances by clooney and wahlberg but
the brilliance have to lie in the conception of this film ;
the screenwriter and the director .
three kings ranks among the best films of the year ,
well , for me at least . highly recommended .

SOLUTION:
P