In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
--------
Question: i can imagine how good krippendorf 's tribe must have looked on paper .
it does not surprise me in the least that a group of extremely talented actors , led by the great richard dreyfuss and a good director ( todd holland ) , all wanted to make this film .
in fact , it is only the expertise by which this excruciatingly bad script has been executed that keeps me from suggesting that you stay as far away from krippendorf 's tribe as possible .
in retrospect , i can imagine how bad this film could have been .
i shudder at the possibilities of awfulness
had it starred an actor less able than dreyfuss .
dreyfuss plays james krippendorf , an anthropologist who is granted $ 100 , 000 by his university to find an undiscovered tribe in new guinea .
halfway into his two - year expedition , his wife ( apparently ) dies .
i say apparently because when or how she dies is never truly established .
later , we find out that much of the grant money was spent on big - screen tvs and other such pleasures .
so , when krippendorf finds out what happens to professors who do not use their grant money wisely , he decides to construct an elaborate lie .
he makes his own tribe , using his three children as actors in a video .
he simply makes up certain incredible facts about this tribe ( which he calls the shelmickedmu ) .
audiences at krippendorf 's lectures are amazed by his findings that the shelmickedmu practice circumcision .
and proof that the typical family unit is led by a single father is truly amazing to the anthropological community .
like all films like this , the lie becomes more and more complex , and the suspense is generated with us wondering at what point it is all going to fall out from under our hero .
dreyfuss is a funny , talented man , and he is funny in this film .
he has lots of positive energy and , unlike most comical actors , really manages to play people like this realistically .
this film also requires a lot of physical humor that i 've never seen dreyfuss perform , and he does a great job .
jenna elfman , who plays veronica mecilli , a scientist who wants in on krippendorf 's work , is also very funny and appealing here .
and the kid actors are great , as well .
but we 're talking about the script from hell .
this is one of those stories that requires such extreme suspension of disbelief that they might as well have established that the story just takes place in an alternate universe where things like this can happen .
but the ridiculousness of the story is not really
what is so bad about it .
all the cliches and the irritating plot devices could have easily been overcome by dreyfuss and crew .
no , the script is plagued with so many clueless stereotypes and mean - spirited characters that i was in disbelief as i watched .
furthermore , the manor in which all of this material is covered up is truly shameless .
take , for instance , the scene in which krippendorf gets veronica drunk so he can tape them having sex .
they get all decked out in the tribe getup , complete with paint to darken their skin .
krippendorf does this because he needs footage of the mating rituals of his tribe .
now , i saw this scene coming from a mile away , but i said to myself , " no , that would be far too tasteless .
there 's no way they 'll do that . . .
oh god !
"
they did do it .
it 's there .
i was almost more appalled by the fact that this did n't bother the other audience members with whom i saw this film .
i found it deplorable .
and when krippendorf is forced to admit that he did it , he simply apologizes without the slightest hint of conviction in his voice .
the film is filled with scenes like these .
they not only insult the audience , but they insult the types of people that the film portrays .
it would take some truly professional work to create videos convincing enough to fool an entire community of scientists , yet krippendorf
does it easily in an afternoon .
and watching dreyfuss stumble over a completely unprepared speech is funny and entertaining , but i think that most members of the on - screen audience would be able to see that he is making everything up as he goes .
if i were an anthropologist , this film would insult me immensely .
moving right along , the film plays off every stereotype our culture has ever learned regarding african tribes .
sure , dreyfuss dressing up like a chief is really funny , and it allows for some entertaining scenes , but the heart of this material is deeply clueless as to the themes and thoughts that it provokes .
it is because of dreyfuss as an actor that i was able to watch this film .
his character here is not a good subject for a film because he is a shameless liar , and never once does he show any kind of penance for what he does .
i suppose it was interesting to see the formula defied in this case , but for the purposes of good taste , i would have expected something .
no , this man sets a terrible example for his kids and colleagues , and the writer of the film ( charlie peters ) did n't include a single scene in which krippendorf takes his kids aside and tells them that what he is doing is very bad .
in fact , it 's his eldest daughter that frequently tells him that he is doing the wrong thing , and he continually shrugs off her warnings .
i suppose it 's important to admit that this is a funny film .
dreyfuss and elfman , and many of the contrived and insulting scenes , add up to a picture that is anything but boring .
and if you 're less serious than i , you probably will enjoy it .
i , however , ca n't get past these elements .
krippendorf 's tribe is being marketed as a family comedy , but this is the kind of film that teaches the kids of our society faulty lessons that they should n't be learning .
with a little more insight into its story and themes , this could have been a good movie .

Answer: N


Question: watching the movie , i vowed to subtract half a star from the review because the filmmakers included a saccharine syrup , cute ' n
cuddly , computer - generated monkey .
if the monkey died , the movie got an extra half star .
alas , the monkey showed up at the end , unharmed , to the wet sickly sound of gagging and rolling eyeballs .
what that means is that lost in space
actually deserved 2 stars .
that 's pretty generous , considering the movie 's camp lacked any hint of tongue in cheek
.
when will robinson ( jack johnson ) teaches his pet robot about friendship , you are actually supposed to buy it .
so why such a seemingly high rating ?
there are a few reasons that made me unable to throw away the experience with the garbage .
first , we saw the movie on opening night of the first day of operation of a brand new theater .
the sound and screen kicked ass .
nobody in the country enjoyed the movie as much as my audience did ( and i do n't necessarily mean that in a good way ) .
also , there were more than zero scenes where i found myself rooting for the robinsons , or getting caught up in the movie 's tension .
i even liked the computer - generated settings .
i usually prefer to see models or sets , but the cg was more detailed than i 've seen in a lot of movies ; it looks like someone spent a little overtime to render some of the futuristic cities .
also , gary oldman is never a bad actor , even though he is typecast as a villain .
william hurt is n't too bad either .
neither actor had a great role , but their performances were watchable .
and perhaps i should n't admit this , but something about the tone and outlook of the movie brought me back to my childhood .
there is very little swearing or blood ; there is a strong moral message , saccharine though it is ; there is a bit of romance ( whose culmination after 2 hours is a " real " kiss -- no sex ) .
it felt like one of those disney movies that i so looked forward to when i was six .
those movies were probably as bad as lost in space , but at the time , they were manna from heaven .
that type of moviemaking is a lost art .
now for the bad news .
worst and most unforgivable was the incredibly bad dialogue .
it 's squeaky - clean , family fun , trying hard to be as hip as pulp fiction .
"
you better hold on to your joystick , " is one such line .
and when a robinson is called upon to deliver a line about warp conduit thingamajigs , they inevitably stumble badly enough to embarrass even the lowliest star trek ensign .
second worst , and closely related , is the screenplay .
the story 's exposition takes place at a press conference , which allows the writers to explain what 's happening with the least amount of creativity , effort , or interest .
once the story gets going , i do concede a momentary burst of interest once in a while , but on the whole , the situations that arise are silly and contrived .
when gary oldman easily reprograms will 's pet robot to kill the robinsons , my friend summed it up perfectly : " he flipped the switch to ' evil . '
" then there 's the tone of the movie .
the colorado daily said the film would have been more interesting if the central character was will robinson and not his father john robinson .
then it could be an adventure movie .
they 're mostly right , except that johnson ( will ) was n't a good enough actor to carry it off .
still , that the film has the robinson patriarch as our hero shows a lack of imagination .
just because a movie is tame enough for kids does n't mean that we have to bow to a " promise keepers " notion of who 's the center of a family .
many quality family films have been made with a non - traditional family structure ( fly away home comes to mind ) to much better effect .
and the politics of the time seem a bit conservative and regressive for a futuristic movie .
in star wars , the rebels were the good guys .
we were rooting for those who were fighting against the system .
in lost in space , the rebels are the bad guys , a terrorist force that must be killed , crushed and silenced so that our children may live free .
that ominous excuse for violence almost makes me sympathize with the terrorists .
finally , a few specific details deserve criticism .
the movie tells us that the setting is the year 2056 .
why ?
why bother saying what year this is .
just tell us it 's the future .
i bring it up because the tv series was supposed to take place in 1997 .
setting a specific date only dates the movie and guarantees that it wo n't be timeless ( not that this movie was really in the running anyway . ) .
then there is a scene that shows john robinson checking one of his controls on a chair that rises about fifteen feet on a pole .
this silly waste of money reminded me of bugs bunny 's barber chair , and only shows that the future is a time when spaceship designers have n't learned a thing about ergonomics .
one vaguely redeeming quality is that the end credits succeed where the rest of the film failed : it made lost in space look cool .
the strong techno beat sampled the cheesiest dialogue and , out of context , made it sound hip .
this is overlaid on a cool jumpy credit sequence with interesting distorted clips from the movie .
but if that 's the best part of the movie , i ca n't in good conscience recommend it .
still , if you get stuck seeing it , as we did , you might be able to appreciate it if you keep your distance , think of liking bad movies as a child , and bring along your " bad movie bingo " cards .

Answer: N


Question: the first film produced by adam sandler 's happy madison production company ( clever title eh ? ) is essentially a one joke movie , much like the movies sandler stars in himself .
however the difference here is that this one joke just is n't very funny .
rob schneider stars as the title character , a scruffy fish tank cleaner who ends up becoming a " man - whore " to raise enough money to replace
a wealthy client 's custom made fish tank , which deuce destroyed while staying in his home .
deuce goes on numerous " dates " , and each woman he goes out with has a " humorous " quirk about herself .
one has narcolepsy , one has tourette 's syndrome , one is a man . . .
etc .
etc .
my problem is that we see all of these women in the film 's trailer , so why do i need to watch the movie ? seen the trailer . . .
seen the film .
only a quick cameo from norm macdonald ( and a follow up joke during the closing credits ) generates any chuckles .
deuce bigalow : male gigolo is available on dvd from touchstone home video ( a division of di$ney ) .
the disc includes the film in its original theatrical aspect ratio of 1 . 85 : 1 , and features the original theatrical trailer ( as well as trailers for mystery alaska , happy texas , and outside providence ) , an extremely brief production featurette ( which contains footage not used in the film ) , and storyboard - to - scene comparisons .
yep , you read that right . . .
there are storyboard comparisons on this dvd .
two scenes are storyboarded . . .
neither of which are particularly exciting .
there are fight scenes in this movie , so why are n't we seeing storyboards of those segments ( especially the parody moments from the matrix ) ?
i wonder what 's funnier :
the fact that any moment in this film required storyboards or that di$ney thought fans of this film would want to see them ? deleted scenes ?
sure .
audio commentary ?
you betcha .
but storyboards ?
come on .
[ r ]

Answer:
N