TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
PROBLEM: in the past , tim burton has taken cinema by storm with the action packed batman , and the hilarious ed wood , but lately his films just do n't cut it .
sleepy hollow has some unique features , but the script is a terrible mess
.
for those who remember disney 's fantastic " adventures of ichabod crane " , it is actually superior to this .
disney 's version was at least interesting , while burton 's film drags on far too long , without any suspense or frights .
while the stories are similar , the new version adds too much to the once likable story , and throws in some weak dialogue to top it off .
ichabod crane ( johnny depp ) is now apparently a constable , who was sent to new york to investigate suspicious murders .
the victims are headless , and no traces of evidence were found , until the murderer reveals himself , hence the headless horseman .
now with the help of christina ricci and an orphaned boy , they must stop the headless horseman from a killing spree , that could destroy the whole town of sleepy hollow .
sure the headless horseman is an intriguing character , but the story has so many holes that even he nor depp can save this disaster
.
in the original , the headless horseman was meant to be unstoppable .
no one could stop him , not even ichabod .
by the end of the film , it had audiences in deep thought .
burton however concentrates far too much on the atmosphere , and how to make the main characters heroes .
he takes no risk what so ever , and this is where he fails .
another pathetic element of the film was the script .
like i said earlier , he just stuffed too much in at one time , and made it look real sloppy , kind of like the mess
the headless horseman made with his victims .
he completely butchered the story to pieces .
thankfully there are a few factors that i particularly liked .
the acting by depp was quite notable .
he took the nerdy character of the cartoon , and simply acted it out in a better manner .
if it was n't for his quirky one - liners , i doubt i could have remained awake , because quite frankly i was getting sleepy
.
just when i thought christina ricci was getting to be a good actress , she winds up doing this .
it just goes to show no actress or actor can pass up a big blockbuster .
it 's too tempting to let go , even if the script is mush .
the atmosphere too was quite involving .
i should have just gazed at the sets , and the eerie fog , rather than actually pay attention to what was going on .
at least burton 's films are eye candy , even if they are trash .
the only real scenes of value were the tree full of heads , and the fight between the horseman , depp and casper van dien .
other than that ,
i wish i could just fast forward through all the gaping holes in the film , and just sit back and stare at the scenery .
by the end , i can only think back and laugh at how bad sleepy hollow developed .
this is the biggest disappointment of the year , especially when such a talented director like burton handles a project like this .
do n't waste your time or money , because your head will feel hollow .

SOLUTION: N

PROBLEM: the most amazing thing about paul cox 's innocence is how unlike a movie it is .
i mean that as the highest compliment .
if most studios were to profile an elderly couple who rekindle a 40-year - old romance , i 'd want to run and hide .
the sex scenes would be handled as a farce , producers would shed 20 years off the characters ' ages ( so susan sarandon and harrison ford could star ) and true love would shine through any obstacle without explanation and consequence . along with a charming romantic story , the australian / belgian innocence shows how an increasing sense of mortality combined with revisiting the past while being entrenched in the present can make something that seems so right seem downright questionable .
the romance gets started when former musician andreas ( charles " bud " tingwell ) , learns that his true love , claire ( julia blake ) , lives nearby .
they decide to catch up on old times , but soon find themselves in a reinvigorating affair .
complicating matters is andreas ' frail health , and claire 's longtime husband ( terry norris ) , who ca n't understand why he 's suddenly become obsolete .
in my mind , the movie is less about the relationship between andreas and claire , than the feelings of everyone involved .
john , claire 's husband , endlessly questions what he did wrong .
claire initially insists she 's a grown - up , but admittedly behaves like a child , a prospect that thrills and disappoints her .
andreas , an agnostic , begins to question his fate , a message cox delivers in a memorable dream sequence .
cox litters the movie with flashbacks , including the repeated vision of a roaring train .
it 's a reminder of andreas and claire 's past love ( as young lovers , they met by train ) , but as it recurs , we get the feeling that the past and the present have clashed .
a pall is cast on the whole affair .
a master of the understated , cox strings together a series of memorable moments .
in andreas ' dream sequence , amidst the roar of the train and conversations , we get the whole picture of andreas and claire 's love .
we also get glimpses into john and claire 's relationship .
during a silent candlelit dinner shortly afterward , claire admits to john about her indiscretion , telling more than any monologue could .
all that 's heard is the scraping of forks against plates .
the characters are unlike anything i 've seen
-- they 're people .
so many times , movies and especially television portray senior citizens as gratingly spunky .
or they 're reduced to comedic buffoons .
ordinary people with a pile of emotions , claire and andreas are n't sure what the next step is .
they do want to be happy , which consists of an entirely different set of conditions than what they 've known throughout their adult lives .
bravo to cox , who wrote the script , for not making john a monster , so that claire 's affair is automatically justified .
norris is so effective
as john that he makes andreas and claire 's love difficult to accept .
we feel for him .
he 's a decent man .
sure , he may have become complacent , but he never expected this , especially now .
with so much presented to the audience , it 's only expected that the material gets a little drawn out and repetitive , which it does .
however , in bringing up tough questions and not offering easy answers , cox displays a skill and ?
lan is n't likely to be surpassed by anyone anytime soon .

SOLUTION: P

PROBLEM: the original babe gets my vote as the best family film since the princess bride , and it 's sequel has been getting rave reviews from most internet critics , both siskel and ebert sighting it more than a month ago as one of the year 's finest films .
so , naturally , when i entered the screening room that was to be showing the movie and there was nary another viewer to be found , this notion left me puzzled .
it is a rare thing for a children 's movie to be praised this highly , so would n't you think that every parent in the entire city would be flocking with their kids to see this supposedly " magical " piece of work ?
a tad bewildered , but pleased to not have to worry about screaming kids and other disruptions that commonly go along with family films , i sat back for 97 minutes and watched intently and with a very open mind , having great expectations for the film . looking back ,
i should have taken the hint and left right when i entered the theater .
believe me
; i wanted to like babe : pig in the city .
the plot seemed interesting enough ; after the events that took place in the original , babe the sheep - pig has become a legitimate national phenomenon .
but after a fateful encounter with a water well , arthur hogget ( james cromwell , who the movie could have used alot more of ) has been rendered bed - ridden for a number of weeks and the farm begins to go under financially .
the only solution that his wife ( magda szubanski , going from delightfully charming to downright annoying ) can come up with is to make an appearance with their new celebrity pet at a national fair ( i think ) and to use the money they earn to pay off the bank ( set aside for the moment the fact that they could get more than enough cash from donations if they just made their case known to the public ) .
problem is , the fair is being held in the middle of the dreaded " city " , a completely foreign place to both the pig and his companion .
setting the main plot in motion , mrs .
hogget and babe travel to the unnamed city and shack up with a sweet lady who just happens to love to help animals , despite the law that you can not keep them in hotels .
it is here that we meet an array of eccentric characters , the most memorable being the family of chimps led by steven wright .
here is where the film took a wrong turn
.
up until this point , i had being having a rather enjoyable experience .
the beginning featured some smart writing and funny situations involving the farm animals from the first one and even an inspired moment at the airport where mrs .
hogget is accused of smuggling drugs .
unfortunately , the story wears thin as we are introduced to a new set of animals that reside at the hotel , none of them being even one - tenth as interesting as the characters from the previous babe .
the main topic of discussion surrounding
babe : pig in the city is the question of whether or not it is to dark and disturbing for small children , and i believe it is .
at one point , a dog is hung from his neck and slowly starts to drown .
at other times , we are treated to surrealistic flash - backs to mrs .
hogget 's full cavity search at the airport .
in fact , the overall tone of the movie is rather bleak and depressing .
however , that is , as they say , neither here nor there because kids will probably not like the movie anyway .
the animal characters and their plights were simply not intriguing enough to sustain my interest for an hour and a half , let alone entertain a child .
another problem
i found with the film was it 's sudden change of pacing and tone near the end of the story .
if you 're going to make a darker and more sinister sequel , fine .
it may not be my cup of tea , but at least it is a noble ambition .
but to go from the downbeat feel of the rest of the movie and all of a sudden have slapstick finale with mrs .
hogget swinging from wall - to - wall of a ballroom in elastic overalls ?
it just did n't feel right and was more painful to watch than it was funny or entertaining , and the same goes for the rest of the movie .

SOLUTION:
N