In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.

seen may 2 , 1998 at 3
: 40 p .
m .
at the crossgates cinema 18 , theater # 13 , with chris wessell and sean o'shea for $ 5 .
[ theater rating :
*
* * 1/2 : very good sound , picture , and seats ] the big - budget , mega - hype " event " movie is becoming so trendy now it is becoming a weekly routine instead of a seasonal one .
gluttony is hollywood 's favorite sin , but it is the movie - goers who pay the price by being dealt the same things over and over on an ever - worsening basis .
" lost in space " is the latest such offering - a film
so poor it would be twice as good if it were mediocre
.
it 's made up of every element of science fiction , but at no time does it evoke the slightest amount of wonderment
the genre was meant for .
audiences ' attention spans are rapidly decreasing and as is the trend with such films , this one opens with a fast - paced space battle which serves not only as the most interesting scene in the film ( probably because it has " star wars " written all over it ) , but as the producers ' way of showing off their budget through the special effects .
battle scenes are worthless without tension , and since we have no idea what the setting is it 's impossible to care about anything that happens .
in essence , the entire segment works like a teaser for an arcade game , not a piece of filmmaking .
we meet the robinson family - a family of five that does not get along but has been chosen to act on earth 's behalf in effort to find another planet worthy of colonization due to the exhausting of our natural resources .
each member of the family has a special trait and personality , and yet none of them seem like actual people .
professor john robinson ( hurt ) is the intelligent , quiet leader who has devoted so much time to his work his family and marriage are suffering without his realizing it ( it 's obvious what role this aspect will play ) .
of course this is all established through extremely melodramatic scenes such as the children and parents arguing and bickering among themselves and with each other , while the necessary problems are " resolved " at the right moments .
the only thing worse than the screenplay is the fact it 's presented in a completely serious manner without a trace of satire , and is so pathetic it 's laughable
.
the first act is not a building of a story , but a juxtaposition of scenes that serve no purpose other than to plug in all the required elements ( such as plot , conflict , and characterization - god forbid ! ) .
we 're provided with the minimum amount possible of these elements to keep the film from being completely silent .
in fact , it might as well be since
the dialogue is virtually non - existent .
yes , the characters do speak , but they do not talk .
they say things that only relate to the conflict , but they never really interact ( unless it 's the cartoony flirting scenes between arrogant major don west ( leblanc ) and uptight , unemotional judy robinson ( graham ) ) .
it 's amazing that after an hour of trite dialogue and generic plot devices
that so little happens .
eventually the pacing rapidly increases , but the amount of genuine interest does not .
the story finally gains some prospective by living up to its title as the robinsons find themselves lost in space after narrowly managing to defeat dr .
smith ( oldman )
, the cartoony villain , and his plans for sabotage .
what ensues is a series upon series of completely unrelated conflicts .
the first such scene takes place on an abandoned spaceship and what ensues could best be described as " alien " -lite .
the story changes again when the robinsons crash land on an alien planet and must act quickly to escape it and survive .
but there 's never any real notion of suspense here because the script
constantly wanders aimlessly .
plotlines are developed , but each becomes totally irrelevant as the story changes from scenario to scenario .
the atmosphere attempts to be surreal by incorporating time travel and various time paradoxes , but it 's presented in such a ridiculous way it 's utterly boring
.
by the time the last act rolls around , there is no sense of a payoff building .
the ending does not go out on a high note with any kind of climax , instead , it seems to come to a sudden halt ( but at least it ends at all ) .
" lost in space " is major film production at its worst .
it 's frightening that a film so poorly written , directed , and acted might be considered mainstream entertainment .
N

i am starting to write this review before going to see strawberry and chocolate , cuba 's oscar nominee for best foreign film , directed by tomas gutierrez alea ( who also directed the sometimes and in some circles critically acclaimed memorias del subdesarrollo-- " memories of underdevelopment " .
i saw memorias as part of a cuban cinema class back in the late ' 70s ; it merged the politics of the cuban revolution with mundane elements of the human condition .
i knew then that memorias was probably a state - sanctioned political missive , and now expect strawberry will follow suit .
fellow internetters , primarily in the newsgroup dedicated to cuba ( soc . culture .
cuba ) , have mentioned that strawberry is a harsh criticism of the revolution and its current state of affairs .
i have jumped to the conclusion that strawberry is nothing more than a veiled attempt at espousing the party line -- it probably looks like political criticism , but it ai n't so .
having some first hand and extensive anecdotal knowledge of castro 's repressiveness , i ca n't conceive of his tolerating honest and adversarial criticism of the revolution , and i ca n't imagine his letting anyone even suggest his failure as a leader of a failed movement .
as kids say these days , duh ! , the revolution 's current state needs no criticism ; its physical and spiritual crumbling is self evident .
the proper questions to put relate to castro 's legitimacy .
i bet the film takes castro 's power for granted , and that this or any other movie , produced under cuba 's state control , can not question his right to run cuba 's political show ( ongoing now for more than 36 years ) .
that 's why i just ca n't believe strawberry is an honest criticism of the regime .
let 's see what happens after the room goes dark and the screen lights up .
i saw the film -- twice .
i was right ; castro remained intact .
strawberry negotiates the relationship between a young " dialectic materialist , " as he describes himself , and a homosexual photographer ( diego ) in 1979 cuba .
the young man ( david ) is the son of peasants ; a symbol of the revolution 's reason for being .
grateful to the revolution for the opportunity to receive a university education , he studies political science instead of literature , his avocation , because he perceives it is his duty .
therein lies a likely unintended irony , since cuba has no need for political theoreticians .
cuba 's government is castro .
diego 's lifestyle is the antithesis of revolutionary life .
he enjoys the finer things -- tea , opera , art .
he does not do " voluntary work " for the revolution .
his small apartment is a sensual oasis .
the moniker " bourgeois " figuratively hangs over his head during the early parts of the movie .
however , he is a " revolucionario " in his own way .
the supporting roles are filled by : an aging busybody with a heart of gold and a troubled psyche ; david 's roommate , who rally takes the communist party line to its expected extreme ;
david 's ex - girlfriend , who dumped him for another guy , yet wants to bed him before she leaves for italy with her husband ; german , a gay sculptor whose work diego is attempting to exhibit , and who strikes a faustian pact with the government .
gutierrez alea and co - director
juan carlos tabio
do a fine job at almost showing that homosexuals can be revolutionaries too .
heck , towards the end of the film you begin to think the guy deserves a medal for his patriotic fervor .
he really loves the revolution ( as supposedly does everybody else in cuba ) and wants to make it better by exposing and correcting some of its flaws .
real criticism is missing though .
this movie is political window dressing .
luis aguilar leon 's op .
ed .
piece on fresa in the miami herald ( 10 march 1995 , at 21a ) did not color my judgment ; it presaged my intuition .
aguilar leon expressed my sentiment about this film 's political angle best : like many artistic manifestations in cuba , strawberry and chocolate sprang from a totally manipulated environment .
as art critic ivan de la nuez well states in the latest issue of the magazine postmodern notes , the silenced artists are those who refuse to accept " the charade in which artists can provoke up to a point , while the institutions legitimize themselves by forbidding them to go beyond that point .
" although terrible propaganda , this is otherwise a fine film .
P

as feel - good formulaic as it may be in its own way , shall we dance ? also demonstrates a kind of charming restraint you do n't often find in american films .
this japanese import tells the story of a middle - aged accountant named sugiyama ( koji yakusho ) whose mundane life is shaken up one night when he spots beautiful mai kishikawa ( tamiyo kusakari ) in the window of a dance school .
intrigued by her melancholy demeanor ( and slightly infatuated with her ) , sugiyama signs up for weekly classes at the school -- and , much to his amazement , ends up as attracted to dancing itself as to his young sensei .
meanwhile , sugiyama 's wife ( hideko hara ) becomes suspicious of his late wednesday nights , and sets a private detective on her husband 's trail .
in a hollywood film , you can bet that sub - plot would be turned into a stream of slapstick comedy and crazy misunderstandings .
in shall we dance ? , writer / director masayuki suo dispenses with it in a matter of minutes , using it to set up later character interactions rather than letting it overwhelm the story with pratfalls .
neither does he make the climactic moment of victory a competition between the hero and some mean - spirited token rival .
suo gives his comedy the graceful movements of his subject matter , allowing the humor to flow from the characters rather than forcing it upon them .
an opening prologue in
shall we dance ?
goes to some effort to place the film in a sociological perspective , explaining how contrary ballroom dancing is to the japanese sense of propriety .
it 's a forced message in a story which does n't need such a culture - specific angle .
the dance school in
shall we dance ?
plays the role of a singles ' mixer , with everyone vaguely embarrassed to be there yet taking the opportunity to try on new personalities .
most amusing among these new personalities is the one adopted by sugiyama 's co - worker mr .
aoki ( naoto takenaka ) , a balding systems analyst who becomes a fiery latin lover when he dons a frizzy wig and begins to rumba .
sugiyama 's awakening is less overt , but koji yakusho does a wonderful job showing a transformation of small steps .
it 's a delicate performance with a huge heart .
shall we dance ?
is a fairly lightweight experience , which makes its final half hour rather a long sit .
suo crams a lot of exposition into very little time , including an unnecessarily detailed back - story for mai , resulting in a sluggish march towards the resolution .
it is here that shall we dance ?
feels most hollywood - conventional , attempting to blind - side the audience with a truckload of emotional catharsis .
suo might have been better advised to conclude with the small gem of a scene in which sugiyama and his wife take their first tentative dance steps together .
that 's the real joy of dance
shall we dance ?
conveys :
its ability to create an intoxicating mood of romance which can soften the stiffest shirt .

P