TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
PROBLEM: every now and then , reviewers are faced with the films that are hard to be properly reviewed .
most of the time it happens with films that leave so overwhelming impact , either good or bad , that in the end reviewers must work hard to express his thoughts or feelings .
but , sometimes it can happen for rather trivial reasons .
i love trouble happened to be one of such occasions for the author of this review .
the impression left by the film was n't overwhelming - on the contrary , there were hardly any impression at all , since
i had real trouble keeping myself awake while watching it . which surprise me to this day , because the movie theatre was full , i was close to sound speakers , the show was n't late and i did n't lack sleep before the show .
such things happen very rarely to me , and , after many years , the closest thing to solution to this mystery is probably the quality of the film itself .
the plot revolves around two rival chicago reporters - old peter brackett ( nick nolte ) and young , aspiring sabrina peterson ( julia roberts ) .
two of them are assigned to cover the train collision . as soon as they meet , they start scooping each other , but during the process they both discover sinister plot involving cancerogenic milk , and also the romantic feelings they have for each other .
the plot in this film is rather secondary to its real raison d ' ?
tre - romantic pairing reminiscent of classical screwball comedies starring spencer tracy and katharine hepburn .
movie author , director and screenwriter charles shyer , who had some experiences with turning the screwball spirit into modern setting with father of the bride , tries again , this time pairing old nick nolte with young julia roberts .
however , although there is some chemistry between the two , soon it stops to arouse any interest .
it probably happens due to poorly executed genre mix , that collides light - hearted romantic comedy with
rather uninteresting plot suitable to pure action thrillers .
shyer as director fails to make the proper transition between the two , and fails in both areas , making the story cliched and predictable
.
the end result is rather forgettable effort , which convinced me not to watch movie again .
i 'll give it the benefit of the doubt , though .

SOLUTION: N

PROBLEM: usually when one is debating who the modern queen of the romantic comedy is they will bring up names like julia roberts or sandra bullock .
others will mention meg ryan .
but for me , it 's not even close .
janeane garofalo is not only the queen of the romantic comedy , she is the best comic actress in hollywood
right now .
and it 's a good thing she 's starring in the matchmaker , because without her presence the movie would be bland , unfunny , and dull .
garofalo stars as marcy tizard , a top aide to boston senator john mcglory , who is suffering in the polls .
in an attempt to capture the irish vote , he sends marcy on a mission to a small irish town called ballinagra in search of other mcglory 's that never moved to america .
unfortunately for marcy , her visit coincides with the town 's annual matchmaking festival .
things get off to a rocky start for marcy though .
she has no hotel reservations ( for no rational reason ) and the tiny confined room ( tired old cliche ' )
she has to stay in
has a visitor in her bathtub .
his name is sean , and marcy finds him repugnant at first , so you can obviously tell where this is headed .
the movie runs into a few roadblocks .
for instance , the story is very thin .
none of the characters ( except the old local matchmaker ) are nearly as interesting as garofalo .
some of the characters , like the political aide played by denis leary , have wandered in from a completely different movie .
i think the director realized this and decided to throw in numerous shots of the beautiful irish scenery , and
several close - ups of garofalo 's winning smile .
the strange thing is that it works .
garofalo 's charm and the irish scenery could carry the thinnest of stories , and it carries this one .

SOLUTION: P

PROBLEM: so what do you get when you mix together plot elements from various successful sci - fi films such as close encounters of the third kind , 2001 : a space odyssey , apollo 13 and contact ?
well , whatever it is , you 'd sure as hell hope that it would be a thousand times better than this shoddy attempt at such a melange , considering the disastrous results we 're left with here .
this is a film that takes a little bit of everything , but ultimately adds up to a lot of nothing !
it 's like i said . . .
this movie sucks .
plot : a rescue crew of astronauts is sent down to mars in the year 2020 , after an unknown energy force leads to a loss of contact with the previous gang of space aviators to visit the red planet .
critique : extremely underwhelming is the best way to describe this movie .
uneven
, would be another .
the trailer for this movie actually showed some promise , the buzz around it had been so - so , and even the film itself starts off with a decent first twenty minutes , all leading you to believe that it 's actually going to go " somewhere " .
but it is n't long before
the entire movie downshifts into neutral , features more space walks than anything interesting on the cherry - colored planet , tries too hard to get us into the " pain " of some its characters and unsuccessfully tosses some romance into the mix .
in a sci - fi movie ?
well , i do n't know , much of it just seemed like
a bunch of nerdies talking techie jargon for about an hour and a half , only to figure out some big secret in the end , a secret which practically had me yawning with excitement .
ultimately , this is a movie that starts off with a decent premise , joins the crew in their " misadventures in space " for the main crux of its journey , and eventually settles down for one of the most anti - climactic endings this side of contact .
mind you , if you enjoyed that film 's shrug - of - the - shoulders ending , you might just enjoy this frivolous ditty as well .
of course , i do n't remember contact having such obvious and painfully distracting computer generated effects at its end of story .
ugh .
what a friggin ' mess
.
films like this generally get me wondering about the brass in hollywood again .
did n't anybody recognize the crappiness in this script ?
did n't they read the bad dialogue , the cheezy lines , the obvious derivative nature of the work ( mind you , with a director like depalma at the helm , that ai n't saying much ! ) .
of course , you ca n't really blame the brass for the inclusion of jerry o'connell in this fine crew of thespians .
'nuff said .
neither can you blame them for depalma cranking up the juice on the film 's musical score during the last fifteen minutes , presumably in order to wake the audience up ( okay , we get it brian , this scene is supposed to be powerful . . .
wow . .
. yawn . . .
my ears hurt ! ) .
so is anything salvageable in this movie ?
sure .
gary sinise does another great job , as does cheadle , the film does n't completely bore you as much as it just moves along slowly without anything really interesting happening , and yes , the " sand - twister " effect that you see in the commercial is well done .
other than that ?
i guess i could say that i admire how filmmakers have become so much more devious in their product placement strategies .
. .
oops , did i say " admire "
, i meant " am disgusted " !
all in all , this movie delivers very little in actual substance , offers two - bit dialogue
masked in a lot of sci - fi mumbo - jumbo
, pretends to be deep when really
it 's just sappy , and eventually just settles into an ending which , other than presenting us with a pathetic computer graphic as a part of the story , gives us little more to think about than how we might be able to get our money back for sitting through this rehashed dreck
.
go see the ninth gate .
. .
now there 's a great movie !
and on a personal note , i think it 's time for depalma to stop worrying so much about his proverbial 12-minute uninterrupted film sequences , and start worrying more about
how crappy his movies are getting .

SOLUTION:
N