TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
PROBLEM: the new austin powers film continues a movie tradition begun in the eighties .
produce something , anything , that will get the high school and junior high kids in the theater because they buy more soda and popcorn than senior citizens .
the usual hallmarks of this filmmaking tradition are all here .
gross humor , sex jokes , silly sight gags , more sex jokes .
and the film is a strong contender in the current race to be cruder , grosser and more outrageous than that last film .
what the film is not , however , is funny .
the plot centers around the return of dr .
evil , who goes back in time to steal austin powers ' mojo ( a liquid with red stuff in it extracted from austin 's pelvis ) which gives austin his sexual prowess and the charisma to defeat his enemies .
austin must go after him , and returns to the swinging sixties where free love and sexy secret agents had their heyday .
i almost avoided this film because i did not like the original .
but the films premise sounded like an excellent comic vehicle and the film received many good reviews .
i wish i had stuck to my first impression .
myers is trying to be the jerry lewis of this generation .
and he has the talent to do it , at least as an actor .
but the material he is working with here , much of it his own , falls short of anything resembling comic genius .
this movie tries to carry the day with sight gags about drinking distilled feces , a five - hundred - pound fat man 's butt crack , and a barrage of sex jokes aimed at the level of the average 15 year old .
after some of these scenes , one has to wonder how gross the next generation of films will have to go to get an audiences attention .
the direction also helps the film achieve a new low point in cinematic humor .
for the most part , i felt as if i was watching a saturday morning chalderns live action tv show .
there is no sense of comic timing or subtlety .
the director just throws the material at us , giving us nothing except the hope that anyone with a camera could be a film director .
i am sure the film will have appeal to many of the under 22 crowd , at least the one 's who have yet to discover literacy .
certainly the movie is directed towards the generation that prefers everything described as ' in your face , kick you in the teeth , take no prisoners ,
( action - verb + blah blah blah ) .
' if you see the film and you find you 're not laughing , there is nothing wrong with you .
it just means you grew up since seventh grade .

SOLUTION: N

PROBLEM: much ballyhoo has been made over this new version of " lolita , " made in a time when one would think that a faithful adaptation of the infamous novel could be made , over its use of pedophilia , and as such , it 's important to address it straight - forwardly , before any other ideals such as goodness and themes can be discussed , as this film has been in film limbo for a number of years , lying around in vaults san a distributor , and having critics waiting to either hail it
a masterpiece or call it anticlimactic horseshit .
when seeing this film , after all the hoopla , keeping in mind that there are people , namely me , who are fans of the novel , who have been eagerly awaiting this flick since its creation . . .
well , you just have to wonder why no one really picked it up for distribution .
what 's even worse is that seeing this " lolita , " especially the first time and if you 're familiar with anything " lolita , " is admittingly very anticlimactic .
this is a real pity because when you really sit down to watch this film , ignoring all the crap that has preceeded it , it 's really quite a film , perhaps the best film by director adrian lyne ( although , really , look at its competition : " flashdance , " " fatal attraction , " and " indecent proposal " ) , at least besides " jacob 's ladder .
"
i 've seen this " lolita " twice : the first time , i was n't so blown away .
it seemed overly dramatic and surprisingly unaffecting .
the second time , not really thinking about how i 've waited for what seems like forever to see it and how i 'm seeing it on a tv set on a premium cable channel and not a giant movie theatre ,
it really affected me emotionally .
the story itself is a surprisingly heartbreaking one , which is why it 's such a good novel , and why this is such a good film .
the story of a pedophile obsessed with a young 14-year old girl named dolores a .
k .
a . lolita is great because it 's not trash for the perverted
but because it 's about human obsession with things that are out of one 's reach .
its protagonist , the comically - named humbert humbert , is not your average pedophile , but a seriously wounded human being who embodies how we are all destroyed by our sick obsessions and idosyncrasies .
the character of lolita is almost a symbol of the forbidden apple in christian mythology , something that will destroy us but that we ca n't live without .
these ideas are all worked into this film nicely , but done in a way that is not heavy - handed at all , but instead lyrical and emotionally devastating .
the focus of this film , and the reason for making it , it seems , was to really penetrate the emotional depths of the novel and bring them to life on the screen in beautifully dramatic images , and scenes which are blatantly over - stylized .
the tone of the book is a comical one , but it 's also a tragic one , and humbert , telling the story from his perspective , blows every single thing out of perspective .
humbert exists in a fantsy world of his obsessions and desires , and this reflects the way the entire film has been designed .
we get a sense that perhaps it 's by doing this that humbert has really trapped himself into a fate that will ultimately leave him haggard and destroyed .
he weeps uncontrollably and never lets himself get over his original 14-year - old love , and allows himself to embody her as lolita .
he lets his feelings for her navigate all his decisions , and by the end , he has nothing but overly - dramatic feelings for her .
the story recognizes the extreme of this , almost out of a test , seeing if the readers will really sympathize with someone who is socially deemed a pervert , and one almost wonders while reading the book if the author , vladimir nabokov , wrote the book as a means to bring into focus his own sick obsessions , and perhaps bring them to peace .
the weirdest thing about this film is that by the end , when humbert has reached the finale of his obsessional journey , we can easily sympathize and even identify with him .
the opening and final images of the film are the same , and who has n't done a similar action , that is wandering about without any sense of reality or anything else but a deep sadness in us ?
this is the second time the novel has been adapted for the screen , the first time being filmed in - shock - 1962 , by stanley kubrick , who could n't possibly have brought the novel to the screen with as much faithfulness as lyne has been able to do , but did the next best thing : he economized for everything and came up with a droll black comedy about obsession in general .
in that film , he used the traps of society as benefits .
the studio demanded the final scene , that of a heinous murder , come first in the film so to portray humbert first as a murderer and second as a pedophile . . .
and when you see it , it gives the film depth of a man trapped by obsession .
the censors would n't allow anymore than a couple glances and subtle dialogue to show the , um , relationship between humbert and lolita , so kubrick decided to play it as comedy , but still allow the tragedy to seep through . looking at these two versions , especially after reading the novel ( and we all know that when we 've read a novel and see a film adaptation , we are bound to be angered by any size differences ) , it 's really impossible to compare them .
they both go for different things , and one has a lot more room to be as sexually frank as the novel was .
and although it 's true that several scenes are similar , and are thus up for comparison , overall it 's unfair to say which one is better and which one is worse .
i have never been one for saying the level of greatness of a film adaptation of a novel is deemed by how faithful it is , and i wo n't say that here . however ,
this film is pretty amazing , mostly because hey , i loved the book , and this film nearly reminded me of it .
it does n't have nearly as much wit ( a couple comical scenes , and even a lot of good chuckles , but just not totally witty ) , but it does have the same emotional toll that the novel had .
some of that is in the casting of the two leads .
jeremy irons , with his deep , soft british voice and gentle look , is an amazing humbert .
he 's droll in a very unique way , and , well , no one can look distraught the way he does .
he brings a wonderful sympathy to the role that goes beyond pathos and really comes up as being easy to identify with the audience .
and when he looks at lolita with love , and she looks at him with lust , you know that he 's her prisoner for as long as he lives .
and dominique swain , who plays the title character , is rather incredible .
she pulls off the tough role even better than sue lyon did in the original , wonderfully balancing the qualities of seduction , bratiness , and self - centeredness that marks the character .
it 's easy to see why she surrenders to humbert : she loves the attention , and knows that she can have her way with him at any time .
when he denies her something , she blackmails him effortlessly ( a scene involving a rocking chair and a little foot action is damn near classic ) , and when he stands up to her , she weeps and runs away , leaving humbert to follow her .
there are two other minor characters in the film , one who 's a road block in the beginning , and the other who 's a reappearing threat to the relationship .
the former is charlotte , lolita 's mother , played by melanie griffith .
in the book , charlotte is a monster of a woman : overbearing , constantly scolding her child , overly - religious , and ultimately selfish .
and she 's the one obstacle humbert
has to overcome to obtain his goal , at least in the beginning .
as played by shelly winters in the original , she represented all these qualities ; as played by griffith here , she 's about half of them .
it 's annoying to watch a film and play a game where you try to see who could have done the role way better than the one on screen without mentioning the actor who played them first .
and even though griffith is not really bad , persay , she 's nothing more .
the other is clare quilty , the writer who is also trying to seduce lolita , and succeeds , but at a price .
langella takes a totally different direction than the one peter sellars took in the original .
quilty was a comic character in the original :
a threat in the form of many forms , popping in states of rambling , german , proning , and eventually drunk .
langella takes the other route , allowing all of the creepiness to be unearthed , and the result is a character who exists in shadows and low shots , and who meets a wonderfully ironic ending , the exact opposite of what we thought of him .
as you can see , most of these are not improvements or mistakes done on the part of lyne and his screenwriter , stephen schiff , but just parts of a whole new look at the novel , at least cinema - wise .
this version is beautiful , and perpetually saddening .
the camera movements are stylized , and each shot is breathtakingly rich .
the acting is for the most part wonderful , and when we watch it , we really get a sense that for humbert , who is telling the story , the only two people on earth most of the time were humbert and lolita .
more importantly , it takes us right up the brink of emotion , then jumps right over it .
by the end , with humbert sadly driving recklessly in his car , following what he says is the only part of his life he does n't regret , we feel that we all lose to something we can never have .

SOLUTION: P

PROBLEM: most sequels do n't do what they 're supposed to do like " toy story 2 " does .
far too many of them end up re - hashing the original and adding very little .
is it any wonder that most sequels fail to live up to their predecessors ?
thankfully , " toy story 2 " is a wonderful exception .
i ca n't remember the last time i saw a sequel as consistently fun and inventive as this one .
it 's yet another sign that pixar , the acclaimed animation studio behind " toy story " and " a bug 's life , " is still at the top of its game .
woody and buzz are back in the sequel to the 1995 hit " toy story , " and things have changed a bit since the last one ended .
woody ( voiced by tom hanks ) is preparing to leave with his owner andy for cowboy camp .
in his absence , he has assigned buzz lightyear ( tim allen ) , now comfortable in his role as a toy , to take charge .
unfortunately , woody 's trip is ruined when he is accidentally put into the family garage sale , and is stolen by an over - zealous toy collector ( wayne knight ) .
off to save him are buzz and members of the old " toy gang , " including mr .
potato head ( don rickles ) , rex the nervous dinosaur ( wallace shawn ) , hamm the piggy bank ( john ratzenberger ) , and slinky dog ( jim varney ) .
while in captivity , woody makes a startling discovery : he is actually part of a collection of toys based on a 1950 's children 's show entitled " woody 's roundup .
"
he meets the show 's other characters , which include jesse ( joan cusack ) , his cowgirl sidekick , the wise old prospector ( kelsey grammer ) , and bullseye , his trusty horse .
they have all been anxiously awaiting woody 's arrival , as once their set is completed , they will be sold to a japanese toy museum , and finally escape storage forever .
this means woody now faces a difficult choice .
with his friends coming to rescue him , does he go with them and spend a few more years with andy , or does he go to japan and be immortalized forever ?
as in the original film , " toy story 2 " contains first - rate animation , and pixar studios has done a remarkable job improving on the impressive work they did there .
reportedly , the film was originally slated for a direct - to - video release , but after seeing the improvements that had been made , disney rightly decided to release it into theaters .
the film is well worth seeing on the big screen .
the colors are bright , the textures sharp , and even the human characters look more " human .
" the animation is consistently seamless , with the action fast and furious and the facial expressions believable .
there are so many impressive sequences that i 'd find it impossible to list them here , but i was particularly wowed by a scene where buzz and his cohorts must get across a busy intersection to get to al ' s
toy barn , the store owned by woody 's captor .
pixar 's rendition of the family dog is also nicely done , with fur so realistic you almost feel you could reach out and touch it .
the voice work is also perfectly complementary , and as with the first movie , does much to help further character development .
tom hanks and tim allen again disappear into their roles as woody and buzz , making you forget who is doing the voice .
it was woody and buzz up there , not tom and tim .
all the cast members from the original reprise their roles , and each is excellent .
several new voices have been added , with joan cusack , kelsey grammer , and wayne knight doing fine work .
"
toy story 2 " is strong in characterization , and is able to expand on what we saw in the first movie .
woody faces difficult choices , while buzz is confronted with a new buzz who has n't yet realized his status as a toy , forcing him to see what he used to be like .
the new characters are also developed quite well , especially jesse , who narrates a sarah mclachlan - aided flashback illustrating how she was loved , then forgotten by her owner .
it may be computer - animated , and it may have sappy music , but it 's downright touching .
the script , despite having a story and screenplay each credited to four different writers , is endlessly clever and inventive , especially considering that it 's a sequel .
the reason " toy story 2 " works where other movie sequels fail is that it refuses to just capitalize on the original 's success by re - doing the same story and using the same characters .
not this one .
we get character change , new characters , and new issues brought up .
"
toy story 2 " is also remarkable for the way in which it keeps reinventing itself .
there is always another clever idea waiting just around the corner here .
the humor is sharp and witty , with something to amuse both kids and adults .
there are funny asides to films such as " star wars " and " jurassic park , " among others ,
new takes on classic toys like barbie and rock 'em
sock 'em robots , and appearances from other pixar efforts " a bug 's life " and the 1997 short " geri 's game .
"
( geri himself makes an appearance as a toy repairman who fixes woody 's broken arm . )
the action is fast and furious , and the chases ( in the street , in a toy store , in an elevator , on a baggage carousel , and in an airplane ) keep getting bigger and better .
"
toy story 2 " never grows stagnant , because there is always something new to hold your interest .
the more you pay attention to it , the more rewarding it is .
it 's rare to see a film like " toy story 2 " come along , because it 's the kind of film that 's almost impossible to dislike .
it 's created purely to entertain , and though i enjoy a thought - provoking drama as much as the next person , it 's nice to see that films are still trying to do exactly what movies first tried to do : send us out with a smile .
it 's a fair bet that the whole family will have smiles on their collective faces after seeing " toy story 2 .
"
it 's the rare sequel that manages to expand on , and live up to , the original .

SOLUTION:
P