TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
PROBLEM: fritz lang 's first american film since leaving nazi germany , is an eye - opener about a lynch mob in a small town .
joe wilson ( spencer tracy ) is a regular joe , a hard - working stiff , a decent guy , who is living with his two brothers , tom ( walcott ) and charlie ( albertson ) , in chicago .
he is engaged to katherine grant ( sylvia sidney ) , but ca n't save up enough money to marry her .
she takes the train west for a better paying job as a teacher .
before she departs , she gives him the wedding ring her father gave to her mother , sews up his ripped trench coat , corrects him when he mistakingly says the wrong word for memento , and kisses him goodbye .
a year goes by and joe buys a car and tells katherine that he will meet her to get married in capitol city , that he has quit his job and hopes to open a gas station .
driving through the rural backroads and camping out at night while going to met her , he arrives at a near - by town called strand .
but the deputy sheriff " buggs " meyers ( walter brennan ) comes upon him waving a shotgun and arrests him .
he accuses him of the kidnapping of a little girl .
the sheriff ( ellis ) finds salted peanuts on him just like the kidnapper had in his pocket , he also has a five dollar bill on him that matches one of the numbers of the ransom money , and he fits the general description of the suspect .
locked in jail , he waits for the district attorney to look at his claim of innocence .
in the local bar , the town citizens go into a rage when learning that an arrest has been made in the kidnapping .
fueled by angry talk about getting back at the kidnapper and of having the deputy inadvertently telling them of the ransom money found on the suspect , a mob storms the jail , burns it down and dynamites it when they ca n't get through to the prisoner 's jail cell .
the sheriff called the governor for the national guard , but one of his political advisers countermanded that request , saying it would n't look right for the governor in an election year to call out troops for those he wants to vote for him .
somehow joe escapes , but his dog rainbow dies .
katherine hears what has happened on the radio and rushes to the neighboring town of strand only to see him engulfed by flames in his cell , and becomes convinced that he died .
the next day the newspapers announce that the guilty kidnapper confesses .
joe makes his way back to chicago and tells his brothers , who are startled to see him alive , that he wants revenge .
he thereby supplies his brothers with the names of the 22 leaders in the lynch mob .
an ambitious district attorney ( walter abel ) prosecutes the 22 for murder .
katherine , not knowing he 's alive , remains in a state of shock , but is asked to be a witness that she saw joe burning to death .
the defense claims that it ca n't be a charge of murder without a corpse .
the trial proves to be interesting , as the citizens in this close - knit , respectable community , lie under oath , providing alibis for each other to prove they could n't have been at the jail .
the sheriff also lies , saying he ca n't identify anyone in the mob .
but proof comes by way of a newsreel cameraman who caught the whole incident on film .
as for proof of the corpse , an anonymous letter is addressed to the judge enclosed with the wedding ring katherine gave joe .
in the note , memento is misspelled , which makes katherine realize that joe is alive .
when the sentence is announced , 20 of the accused are found guilty of murder , but joe marches into the courtroom and gives a pious speech about what happened .
katherine forgives him , and this very strong film ends on a weaker note than i think it should have .
but do n't blame lang for all the changes in the film , of trying to take the town off the hook by introducing this wild revenge motive .
mgm could n't bear to have it made the way lang wanted it , that is , by having tracy die in the lynching .
instead they wanted to stop short of condemning so many small american towns where lynchings actually do occur , and they thereby meddled throughout the entire script .
to lang 's credit , even if this film failed to be a masterpiece because of the interference , it still did not let the good citizens off the moral hook .
his portrayal of the attempted lynching was powerfully done and was not compromised .
you could n't help get the feeling that the citizens did n't care that much that they almost lynched an innocent man , but cared more about protecting the reputation of their town and would do anything to keep their 22 vigilantes from going to jail , even perjuring themselves .
their reaction to seeing joe alive was satisfying only in that it meant they were n't going to be convicted .
lang by no means implies that the town has learned its lesson from this incident .
he does imply that a dark side to joe wilson has been exposed , and the innocent , jovial good - guy , seen in the beginning of the film , has been largely altered forever by this traumatic experience .

SOLUTION: P

PROBLEM: i love this movie , and i 've just seen for the umptenth time .
unfortunately , it is also completly unknown and very few have seen it .
it 's my mission in life to spread the word : see this movie ! fred , george , doug and howie are reaching middleage .
three of them have a wife , kids and a house in the suburb with a mortgage to pay .
only fred is still a bachelor .
together they take the local train every morning to work in town .
on one of their organized thursday evenings at a bar , fred tells them of his boss and the arrangements he has made to keep a mistress .
he has gotten an apartment in downtown where he can meet her but has told his wife that he needs the apartment to spend the night after staff meetings every thursday night . since they always split everything four ways , they decide that they should get an apartment with a young woman as well , kathy .
however , kathy is n't completly honest to them .
in fact , she is a sociology student writing a thesis about the sex life of the suburban male .
with these four species she believes that she will make a very good paper .
ok , have one thing clear though .
the romantic rendezvous ' between kathy and each of the men are completly innocent .
the script stays above the waist - or to be precise , above the neck .
noboyd claims that kathy is their mistress
, the four guys call her their ' companion ' .
the censorship board here in sweden considered it to be suitable only for people above 15 years , but that only shows how long ago 1962 was .
small children could watch this without being corrupted .
kim novak is as lovely as always in this movie , even if she seems to be a bit too old for a student .
james garner is the playboy just like in many other movies .
i liked howard morris the best as howard the accountant who has to diet to support his wife .
tony randall is funny as always
.
1962 was more than 35 years ago .
how many accountants , copywriters or investment bankers can today afford to live in a house in the suburb with a lot of kids and a wife who does not work ?
this is the white middle class , i ca n't remember that i saw any blacks on the commuter train they use .
these are the people who can count on their kids to live an even better life than themselves .
perhaps this should also be a subject for a thesis in movie sociology ?

SOLUTION: P

PROBLEM: do film critics have morals ?
are there any unwritten laws an ethical movie critic would or should follow ?
naturally we do n't want to go into a film with any preconceived notions , which is pretty tough but something we all have to accomplish .
secondly , and along the same line , we ca n't prejudge a film because of it 's stars , director , etc .
the difference ?
well , in the first one , we 'd go into a film thinking it 's going to be dumb or
it 's going to be good , and that would affect our viewing ( that movie sounds and looks dumb , so i 'm not expecting much ) .
on the second hand , we 're simply assuming it will be bad or good because of a personal " grudge " against the film company ( it 's made by disney ?
oh , it 's just a merchandising ploy then ) , the actors ( jim carrey 's in it ?
it 's gon na stink ! ) , or the director ( who ? ca n't be that good ) .
this is more of a biased viewpoint as opposed to a first impression viewpoint .
make sense ?
ok ,
but what about comparing ?
is n't that kind of along the same lines ?
when we compare a certain actor or director or even composer 's credibility in one film to another they were involved in , is that really fair ?
sure , in sequels you can expect and accept comparisons a lot more , but what about jackie brown , for example ?
is it fair for me to take the review and turn it into a comparison of pulp fiction , just because quentin tarantino directed and wrote the screenplay for both ?
i think it is , and i 'll tell you why .
a good critic should be able to view the film from the " average joe ( or jane ) " viewpoint , while still taking into account the artistic integrity behind the film .
sometimes that can be tough .
"
the acting was superb , but i was bored " or " i loved it ! !
it was sooooo cheezy !
" might be used to describe a film .
these are contradictions , and a critic has to weigh both sides and come to a suitable balanced critique .
but which is more important ? and which is better ?
an extremely well shot and acted film that is boring , or a really amateurish film that you wanna go back to again and again ?
getting back to the point , my philosophy on comparing films being fair works because we 're reflecting what the public wants to know anyway .
every average person out there who 's interested in this film is likely to ask " how does it compare to pulp fiction ? " and so , as a critic , i 'm already responsible to ask that same question .
jackie brown stars pam grier , the " blaxploitation " heroine from the 1970 's , who is likely to make a big comeback thanks to her role as the title character .
tarantino 's pulp fiction is in big part responsible for john travolta 's sudden revival in the movie industry , and with talks of an oscar nomination , the same is likely to happen for grier .
( we 've made it thru comparison # 1 ! )
jackie is a 44-year - old airline stewardess who brings in extra cash , and probably her main revenue , by smuggling large sums of money into the united states for ordell robbie ( pulp fiction 's samuel l .
jackson and comparison # 2 ) .
ordell is in the illegal firearms business and has enlisted the aid of louis gara ( robert de niro ) , a bank robber who just got out of prison after serving four years , to help him accomplish a scheme worth a half- million dollars .
trouble arises when jackie is stopped by atf agent ray nicolet ( michael keaton ) and taken into custody for possession of narcotics , as well as having more money than is allowed in an airport without being claimed .
naturally this proves an obstacle to ordell 's plans and , not as friendly intended as we 'd hope , he posts jackie 's bail after she is put behind bars .
the thing is , ordell is in this for no one more than himself , and as we learn from his previous actions , he 's willing to kill anyone who stands in the way .
jackie finds herself in a tight squeeze .
ordell wo n't think twice about taking her out if she fails to help him as she 's always done , yet at the same time , a compromise with the authorities would be in order if evidence against ordell was provided .
it comes down to a simple question : would jackie rather face ordell or prison ?
what ensues is a rich and intriguing example of storytelling
as we question who jackie is really out to help : the law , ordell , or maybe just herself .
coming into play is another 70 's veteran , robert forster as jackie 's bail bondsmen max cherry .
max 's obvious fondness for jackie will become a major benefactor in her fight to beat both sides of the system , and forster plays him with subtle charm that adds depth to unbrewed romance .
also involved is ordell 's " surfer girl " girlfriend melanie ( bridget fonda ) , a ditzy sun- bleached babe who spends her time watching tv with a bong in hand .
fonda
does the best she can with an essentially thin role , but there 's nothing more to her , and therefore , she becomes a tossable addition to an otherwise flourishing bouquet of characters .
de niro is also wasted in his role as a quiet nobody crook out to score a few bucks for himself .
de niro is a brilliant actor , but a character who hardly ever speaks does n't need a de niro to play him .
compared to pulp fiction ( comparison # 3 ) , the characters in jackie brown and very thin and replaceable .
in pulp fiction , even the small , seemingly irrelevant characters were wonderful , complete , and lifelike , whereas jackie brown has such common figures that it would n't have suffered much with a lesser talented cast , the exception being grier .
tarantino wrote this script with grier specifically in mind , so to say that she is made for this role is a reversed truth .
sadly , grier too could have received a bit more attention , especially when the story is all about her newly - jarred perception of life .
jackson teams up with tarantino again , but the chemical reaction is n't as awesome as the first time .
jules was the rambling , bible - quoting hitman in pulp fiction , and jackson is the only person who could have pulled it off .
and although jackson is really , really good in jackie brown , i do n't think he 's quite as irreplaceable .
in fact , maybe a new face would have been better .
jackson could 've remained tarantino 's jules , and a new guy could have become ordell , forever to remain so in our memories .
sadly , these characters are too much the same , except ordell just is n't as impressive , and putting this in the hands of jackson once again is only going to deter from our fond recollections of jules .
another problem is that ordell is way too focused on in the beginning .
this is grier 's film , so why spend so long getting to know a man who will become more of a supporting character as the film progresses ?
it not only makes the movie feel a little too slanted , but it makes for a slow beginning because we have to take longer getting to the meat of the story .
it is likely that those pouring into the theater to see this film are going to be those anxious to partake of tarantino 's quirky dialogue and eccentric directing style , and not so much those interested in seeing a silver screen adaption of elmore leonard 's novel " rum punch " .
for those movie - goers , do n't expect another pulp fiction and
you 'll be satisfied , for the script oozes with the familiar brash qualities that has made tarantino an icon of 90 's film- making
.
the directing has toned down a bit , however , yet
we 're still reminded that this is tarantino 's movie thanks to odd split - screen story - telling devices and scenes being replayed multiple times from different viewpoints .
so getting back to the question that i began with , this is n't pulp fiction at all .
it 's good , but it is n't anything that made pulp fiction such a revolutionary effort in the first place .
this is a more conservative tarantino , but not one that wo n't satiate true fans . if you can realize that this is n't going to knock your socks off , then
you 'll be happy to at least let it massage your feet .
after all , we all know how much tarantino loves that particular part of the human anatomy .

SOLUTION:
P