TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
PROBLEM: robin hood :
men in tights is another mel - brooks - produced film in the classic tradition of movies like blazing saddles and young frankenstein .
mel brooks is well known for his comic look at regular life , his fast paced dialogue and sharp wit .
unfortunately , robin hood :
men in tights has none of the easy going humor of blazing saddles , none of the fun acting of young frankenstein , is devoid of the charm of spaceballs , and is even lacking the good , solid dialogue of history of the world .
it is , in short , one of the worst movies i have seen mel brooks , or anybody else , produce .
the plot borrows heavily from the well - received kevin costner movie of last year , robin hood : prince of thieves .
this is not surprising in and of itself , and could have been used to great comic effect , mainly by parodying scenes from the orginal movie .
mel brooks does not take advantage of this , however , and uses the film to launch several ideas into the air , none of which connect and none of which are explained later on .
the movie 's scenes could be shuffled around in any order and one would be hard pressed to notice .
cary elwes , of princess bride fame , plays robin of loxley , a man who was captured in the crusades , fighting with king richard .
he escapes and , joining with a man named achoo
( i am sure you can see the obvious joke ) , fights in england to reclaim his name and the throne for richard , which has been captured by evil prince john , played by funny comic richard lewis .
he also tries for the love of maid marian and attempts to overthrow the evil " sheriff of rottingham " .
a good adventure plot that is sadly unused .
elwes and lewis are both excellent comics , but the dialogue in the movie is simply excruciating .
neither actor has any good words to work with , and the lines simply are n't funny , nor believable .
perhaps the worst example of this is when the group of merry men encounter a man playing a macaulay culkin clone from the hit movie home alone .
this particular scene is so out of place and so badly acted , and followed by so many other scenes of equal miserable ideas , that i really felt like leaving the theatre .
much of the audience continued to look at their watches throughout , and some left the theatre .
chuckles were few and far between , and they mostly dealt with visual jokes ( such as an old , beaten up horse from " rent - a - wreck " ) then from any dialogue whatsoever .
scenes that could have been classics , such as the archery contest , are ruined by poor acting .
perhaps the largest problem with the movie is that it is simply offensive .
the basic plot , that robin has received a key that will unlock the chastity belt of maid marian , is not witty nor funny .
mel brooks as a circumcision - giving rabbi is also offensive to me and others in the audience ( not all jewish , either ) .
the movie simply tries to hard trying to be funny and by and large fails .
the addition of a blind man who stumbles around , falling off cliffs , walking into ledges and being a general buffoon could have had some humorous potential , but is also made terribly offensive .
the only reason to see this movie is the surprise actor at the end who plays king richard .
he is well worth waiting for , if you can stand an hour and half of unfunny dialogue , excruciating visual humor , old puns , ancient jokes and bad acting .
if you ca n't , do n't even bother watching this miserable film .

SOLUTION: N

PROBLEM: you 've got mail is a timely romance for this impersonal , computer - driven decade .
two people who 've never met confide in each other via e - mail without revealing their true identities .
nora ephron 's contemporary update of the shop around the corner retains the basic plot : two people who despise each other unwittingly become enamored with each other through their anonymous correspondence .
ephron , who co - wrote the film with her sister , delia , as well as directed it , knew what she was doing by reteaming tom hanks and meg ryan as the at - odds couple .
ryan is kathleen kelly , owner of a small children 's bookstore , while hanks is joe fox , who heads up a chain of mega bookstores ( think barnes & noble ) .
their charm and chemistry are the glue that binds this film , even through some of the script 's rough spots .
for the ephrons invested so much effort in their protagonists that they give short shrift to the talented supporting cast , including parker posey , greg kinnear , jean stapleton and steve zahn .
yet no one is really going to complain because the ephrons know their audience - and what the paying public wants is hanks and ryan .
and the two are kept busy .
one , the other or both are in nearly every scene .
hanks has his decent guy routine down pat , yet each time he does it ,
it seems effortless , spontaneous and fresh .
ryan
smoothly moves between spunky and vulnerable , with a sexy touch of winsomeness added to the brew .
their scenes together sparkle , even though they lack the nostalgic romanticism of sleepless in seattle .
and the shadow of that earlier hit hangs over you 've got mail like dried - up mistletoe .
the sparks created by the earlier movie are , by necessity , not evident here .
true , these are two people seeking true love , but you 've got mail is more comic and less poignant than its predecessor .
the ephrons ' script is witty and sharp .
however , as a director nora ephron is a bit uneven .
some scenes drag , while others , especially when hanks and ryan are revealing their souls via e - mail , are crisp and tidy .
also , the script gets sloppy toward the end with characters merely disappearing from the story .
a nice , romantic soundtrack adds to this date - night special .
overall , you 've got mail is a lush and cute outing , taking advantage of the star appeal of its two leads .
it 's a nice holiday movie , one for holding hands and snuggling . committed to lifelong learning through effective communication

SOLUTION: P

PROBLEM: " mandingo " has traditionally been seen as one of two things : either a much - needed revisionist look at slavery in the south , or in the words of film critic leonard maltin , " a trashy potboiler " that " appeals only to the s&m crowd .
"
actually , i think " mandingo " is a strange combination of the two , although
it fails on both fronts .
it 's too trashy to be good drama , but too dramatic to be good trash .
the story takes place on a dilapidated louisiana plantation run by crotchety old warren maxwell ( james mason ) and his son , hammond ( perry king ) .
one day in new orleans , hammond comes across a slave trader selling a mandingo named mede ( heavyweight boxer ken norton ) .
although the movie never explains it , a mandingo is simply the name for africans who come from the region of the upper niger river valley .
according to the movie , mandingos were the rolls royce of african slaves .
hammond pays top price for mede and has to fight off others in order to get him .
hammond then spends his time training mede to be a fighter in money brawls with other slaves .
meanwhile , hammond has married his cousin , blanche ( susan george ) , because she wants to escape her family and he is under pressure from his father to produce a grandchild .
hammond , however , is happier spending nights with his " bed wench , " the derogatory name given to female slaves used by their masters for easy sex .
it is quickly apparent that hammond , despite his overt racism , is more in love with his bed wench , a sensitive slave girl named ellen ( brenda sykes ) , than he is with blanche .
hammond considers blanche tainted goods because he finds out on their wedding night that another man had " pleasured " her before he did .
of course , it 's fine that he 's slept with numerous slave girls , but the fact that his wife , a " white lady , " had been with another man out of wedlock destroys his capacity to care for her .
so blanche is usually left lonely and sex - starved while hammond is sleeping with ellen .
blanche gets back at hammond by seducing the studly mede and bearing his child .
hammond and his father can not stand the idea that blanche has given birth to a half - black child ( although it 's okay that ellen was pregnant by hammond ) , so warren kills the child by letting it bleed to death after birth , and hammond poisons blanche .
hammond then finds mede , shoots him twice in the shoulder , and pushes him into a giant cauldron of boiling water .
yes , you read right : the film ends with hammond getting his revenge by boiling mede alive .
judging only by the plot , " mandingo " is pure sexploitation .
the main purpose of the film seems to be getting as many blacks and whites into bed together as possible , with only the slightest commentary on what that would mean in 19th century southern society .
when " mandingo " was released in 1975 , it was still a bit of a shocker to see miscegenation on screen in such a graphic detail ; this way the movie could revise cinematic history while attracting large audiences of curious voyeurs .
dramatically , " mandingo " is weak and unfocused , and historically it 's mostly confused .
if one were to judge history by this film , it would be easy to walk away with the notion that the entire system of american slavery was based on sexuality , not economics .
not once in the film do we see any of the slaves working , except for a few house servants .
the men spend most of the time sitting around , while the sole purpose of a female slave seems to be free sex for the owner .
there is historical basis in the notion that slave owners often slept with their female slaves , but " mandingo 's " overwhelming emphasis on this aspect of slavery gives the movie the unpleasant taste of a cheap sex flick ( although there 's plenty of violence -- fights , vicious beatings , shootings , and the aforementioned human boiling sequence -- thrown in for good measure ) .
some tried to write off " mandingo " as a blaxploitation film , one of a number of quickly - made , low - budget films appealing to black sensibilities in the early seventies , but it 's not that easy .
" mandingo " was studio - financed by paramount pictures , and produced by dino de laurentiis , the grandiose italian producer behind such notorious productions as " the bible " ( 1966 ) , the remake of " king kong " ( 1976 ) , and the ill - fated " dune " ( 1984 ) .
the director was richard fleischer , a veteran who was best known for several special effects - laden action movies including " 20 , 000 leagues under the sea " ( 1954 ) and " fantastic voyage " ( 1966 ) , as well as such superior suspense films as " the narrow margin " ( 1952 ) .
the script , based on the supermarket best - seller by ken ostott ( and the subsequent play by jack kirkland ) , was penned by norman wexler , who had been nominated for an oscar two years earlier for his work on " serpico .
" james mason , perry king , and susan george were well - known and respected actors ( mason already had three oscar nominations under his belt ) , and ken norton appeared to have a promising film career .
so why is " mandingo " so bad ?
a number of reasons , including the fact that all those experienced filmmakers behind and in front of the camera did a lousy job .
wexler 's script is pure poor hokum bordering on the offensive
; it combines stereotyped slave - talk ( " yessuh , massuh " ) , stereotyped southern white trash talk ( " fer whut're you gittin ' outta bed ? " ) , and stereotyped contemporary militant black talk ( " if you see me hang , you gon na know you killed a black brother ! " ) .
fleischer 's direction is clumsy , especially during the fight scenes , and all the actors give weak performances , especially susan george whose constant shrieking finally becomes laughable .
nevertheless , credit should be given where credit is due .
despite its exploitative nature , " mandingo " was one of the first hollywood movies to take an alternative look at slavery .
until then , there had been a kind of underlying racism in all hollywood films dealing with slavery .
even classics such as " gone with the wind " ( 1939 ) can be seen as inherently racist by its glossing over the subject matter .
" mandingo " reassessed the south , and showed that it was n't all beautiful plantations , green fields , and pretty sunsets .
but all this is constantly undermined by the film 's negligible point - of - view
-- it claims to see things from the black perspective , but the entire narrative focus is on the soap opera tales of the white owners .
with a little more maturity and different handling , " mandingo " might have been an effective , worthwhile film .
while it portrays many sensitive aspects of slavery , it never deals with them .
the issues the movie brings up are worthwhile , but wexler 's script refuses to move them beyond a surface level of trashily vicarious viewing .
there is a great deal of potential in honestly exploring the nature of a sexual relationship between slave and owner , but " mandingo " never does it .
steven spielberg touched on that same topic in " schindler 's list " ( 1993 ) , by looking at a nazi officer writhing in inner turmoil because of his feelings for a jewish maid .
the difference between that film and " mandingo " is that spielberg dealt with the situation in a fair , unexploitive manner that focused on the inherent human dilemma .
" mandingo " is satisfied to simply show some skin , and because of that , its " trashy potboiler " nature overshadows any potential social good it might have accomplished .

SOLUTION:
N