TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
PROBLEM: one of the 90s ' most unwelcome thriller trends returns from the grave : it 's the " _ _ _ from hell " movie !
starting in the early nineties , we were subjected to nearly every conceivable combination of relationships - from - hell !
there were boyfriends from hell , friendly neighborhood cops from hell , nannies from hell , and even secretaries from hell .
but hush has found an old standby that somehow was forgotten in the rush : the mother - in - law from hell ! ! ! ! !
the mother - in - law in question is martha , played by jessica lange .
she has been single - handedly running the family horse farm , kilronan .
her son , jackson ( johnathon schaech ) and his girlfriend , helen ( gwyneth paltrow ) , live in new york , and have no intention to move back down south to the rural kilronan .
but those intentions are about to change .
you see , martha lives by manipulation .
she has used it in years past to breed many championship horses .
now , she believes she can use it to breed herself a grandson .
though at first , helen finds martha charming , soon she is caught in the domineering martha 's web of deception .
it 's hard to understand why nobody ever wises up to martha ' schemes .
as written , most of the characters in the film must be very slow witted .
but then , the film even treats the audience like idiots .
it tries to get away with things ( like leaving a critical piece of evidence in a rather unlikely place ) without even batting an eye .
then again an audience which accepts characters as shallow as these is n't one that 's likely to question details .
jessica lange 's martha is the only semi - developed character in the film , and she applies her talents to redeem it as much as she can .
a character that could have been simply awful is merely groan - worthy .
gwyneth paltrow does n't have much to build upon , as helen 's only character trait seems to be " daughter - in - law " .
still , she fares better than johnathon schaech , whose character is so nonexistent , he 's inexplicably missing for much of the film .
still , there have been much worse
" _ _ _
_ from hell " films .
even with its paper - thin characters and ludicrous setups , hush manages to create a few thrills in a color - by - numbers fashion .
you know what 's coming , but occasionally the film will deliver a shock or two .
the old formulas are around for a reason , but that does n't mean they taste fresh .

SOLUTION: N

PROBLEM: us critic - type people are always shaking our heads and telling everyone that movies are n't thrill rides , but i think that " back to the future ii " is one of the few exceptions .
if the original film had the spirit of the 1950s , then this has the spirit of the 80s : full of fights ; chase scenes ; cliff hangers ; special effects ; some detective work ; and of course the vision of the high - tech future .
the film picks up exactly where the first film left off , with doc ( lloyd ) , marty ( fox ) , and jennifer ( elizabeth shue ) travelling 30 years into the future , because something bad is going to happen to marty and jennifer 's kids .
doc tells marty he must take his son 's place at an incident that will cause a chain reaction if marty mcfly jr .
says yes to griff ( wilson - in one of four different roles ) .
whoever said history tends to repeat itself was n't joking , especially when it comes to the movies .
essentially the same chase scene that marty endured in the 50s takes place again in the year 2015 , but it 's not as authentically exciting this time because it is so obviously a parody of itself .
at the end of the situation marty has changed the course of history for the better , and it seems like everything 's copasetic right ?
wrong .
since when do things go according to plan in the " back to the future " movies ?
there are so many minor conflicts and details that effect the plot and the direction of the story i wo n't even bother to list them all .
basically we get to see marty as an old man , his house , his family , etc .
we also go back to an alternate 1985 , and then back again to 1955 , with everything happening so fast the film never stops to catch a breath .
the films ' best aspect is the fact that it actually goes back to the first movie and shows a lot of the action that occurred from another angle .
it 's difficult to convey the sense of wild and zany fun without describing every little detail .
the only thing sacrificed in this film is the suspense .
instead of a grand finale , we get lots of little victories .
by the end everything is back to normal , but something happens that leads to yet another sequel , but it does n't seem gratuitous .
" back to the future part ii " is a really great adventure movie .
it certainly has more originality than other films but it lacks a certain charm that was dominate throughout its predecessor .

SOLUTION: P

PROBLEM: this movie stinks !
although it is professionally crafted and there are some decent performances
, the plot is so bad it drags the film into the abyss .
i knew i was in for trouble when
, during the opening establishment shots , we see a detailed close - up of warrant officer paul brenner 's ( john travolta ) military identification card and it is the wrong color .
this might seem like a minor detail , but anyone who has spent anytime with the military knows that active duty identification cards are green and dependant cards are yellow .
and what about the senior military officer whose uniform shirt is so wrinkled he looks like he is a recruit on his first day of training .
or what about when brenner tells a suspect that , because he is in the military , he does n't have the right not to answer his questions even though these rights were central to military law well before the miranda decision .
how hard is it to get someone familiar with the military to check these facts ?
now details like this could be overlooked if the underlying story held up , but this story is so full of holes it is painful to sit through .
for example , at the beginning of the film , paul brenner , an undercover army investigator , gets into a gun and knife battle at his off - post houseboat and winds - up killing an arms dealer he had been investigating .
the local police investigating the death are openly hostile to the military and they discover that brenner has been lying to them about the killing .
but instead of arresting him , or at least take him into custody for further questioning , they release him .
duh !
ultimately , brenner gets assigned to investigate the murder and possible rape of the commanding general 's daughter , a young captain also assigned to the post .
when brenner finds graphic sex tapes featuring the general 's daughter , does he use them to generate a suspect list and begin grilling suspects .
no , his instinct is to suppress them because they might be potentially embarrassing .
eventually , brenner discovers that this murder is related to a violent gang rape at west point eight years earlier .
i wo n't even go into the totally unbelievable rationale for the army 's suppression of this horrendous crime .
i will just mention one final flaw .
brenner is investigating a crime that occurred in georgia .
the rape occurred in west point , which is in new york .
he is under a very tight ( and totally implausible ) 36-hour deadline to solve this case .
he needs to discuss the rape with a psychiatrist at west point .
does he phone the doctor ?
no , he travels ( via some unexplained very fast transport ) to new york to question the psychiatrist in person , and then he returns to georgia ( again by the miracle transport ) , without once worrying about the impact any of this will have on his deadline .
you have been warned , stay away from this one .

SOLUTION:
N