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

SOLUTION: N

PROBLEM: the event of events is upon us .
people have waited twenty - two years for the prequel to star wars and die - hard fans have been camping out at theaters for months to get tickets to see it .
i do n't think that america will ever actually recover from what this hurricane of a film has caused .
it is not a bit of an exaggeration to say that this is the most highly anticipated movie in history .
anyone who tells you " it 's just a movie " is either lying or clueless .
it is clearly obvious that after the waiting and the hype actually seeing the movie will be anticlimactic .
the second coming of the lord could not live up to the kind of buzz ( which is far too weak a word ) that star wars epsode i : the phantom menace so effortlessly generated .
but that does not mean that the film itself is bad .
in fact , it is terrific .
i strongly suspect that many of the people who were dissappointed by it have simply surrendered to the media machine and the inevitable backlash .
it is set some decades before the events of the original 1977 star wars took place .
the film focuses on the fledgling republic of planets and the conflict that is raging : the trade federation , angry at some tax raise that was recently put in place has invaded the small , peaceful planet of naboo .
the republic sent two jedi knights ( people that can actively communicate with what is affectionately known as " the force " ) , qui - gon jinn ( liam neeson ) and obi - wan kenobi ( ewan mcgregor )
to negotiate . unable to stop the tide of events that was about to occur , the jedi and the queen of naboo ( natalie portman ) escape naboo and head for coruscant to try and get the republic senate to intervene .
on the way they get sidetracked to a planet called tatooine , where they meet the movie 's real focal point , young anakin skywalker ( jake lloyd ) .
he is an innocent slave boy , but " the force is strong with him " so qui- gon is determined to take him with them to the jedi counsel and get him trained as a jedi .
as any self - respecting star wars fan should know , anakin will grow up to be darth vader and give birth to luke skywalker .
>
from the beginning it is evident that this is not an actor 's movie .
around 70 % of the characters , if not more , are computer generated in one form or another , and though the effects are seamless , the movie lacks soul .
i think that although the computer has played an incredibly instrumental part in moviemaking this decade , cinema should still be a human art and
the phantom menace nearly defies this .
this is the lightest installment in the star wars saga thus far , with plenty of broad comic relief to go around , much of it courtesy of an irritating knew character named jar - jar binks .
he 's essentially a computer - animated sidekick who says things like " exqueeze me ? " and " mesa go now , okeday ? " , and although it is often amusing
it is also inherently annoying .
the visual effects are astounding
( although director george lucas often chickens out by cutting away from them ) and the movie is a thrilling triumph . if it lacks in plot and in acting
it makes up for it through imagination and excitement .
the climactic lightsaber battle
( oh , come on , as if you did n't already know ) , among other things , is outrageously entertaining and defines the term " popcorn movie " .
what made me surrender and give this movie
*
*
* 1/2 stars was the score by john williams .
even though it does seem like the man scores every single movie that comes out these days ,
his work here is nothing short of brilliant .
his use of opera during the climax really does add a punch and his ingenious way of utilizing the imperial march as a sort of prophecy is chilling .
the phantom menace is probably most effective as pop nostalgia .
when you see " a long time ago , in a galaxy far , far away " , when the familiar music plays , when the words " star wars " appear on screen , you 'll feel a tingle even if you did n't see the movie when it first came out in ' 77 .
it feels oddly exciting to be introduced to young anakin , a boy whose innocence , we know , will be taken away and who will soon cross over to the dark side .
it is the perfect example of dramatic irony to see the jedi masters aspire to get him trained in the jedi arts ; we know that it will do more harm than good , but they do not .
we not only feel more involved in the story , but we feel like we 're seeing the beginning of a saga that we have cherished for years .
the phantom menace , although lacking in human aspects of the story , is a very worthy installment in the star wars .
it works as an action flick ,
visually eye - popping and often paralyzingly exciting ; it also works as an elicitor of memories , a piece of exquisite nostalgia . ?
1999 eugene novikov&#137 ;

SOLUTION: P

PROBLEM: in the continuation of warner brother 's franchise , joel schumacher has successfully killed this cash cow .
what makes this film such a grand disappointment is the tremendous line up of talented people involved with the film .
avika goldsman 's screenplay is such a cluttered mess that there is no suspense built from one scene to another .
this coming on the heals of such a marvelously written project as " the client " is such a shock that it gives rise to thoughts that the latter film was a fluke .
situations are developed and executed with no thought of reason other that to get the characters from one point to another .
this is most glaringly brought to point by the appearance of alicia silverstone 's batgirl , who just happens to be alfred 's niece .
the story of dr .
victor freeze is told almost completely in dialogue as an afterthought .
while working on a cure for a tragic decease contracted by his wife , dr . freeze is injured during a cryogenic procedure , and becomes a man who can only survive in a sub zero environment .
now of course he has become a terrorist intent on turning the world into a frozen planet where only he can live .
now the logic of that little sub - plot escapes me .
if mr .
freeze wanted to find a cure for his wife and bring her back from the brink of death , why would he want to have her live in a world with no warmth .
this is indeed a cold hearted man .
the development of poison ivy is no less contradictory .
she wants to breed a form of plant life that can defend itself like an animal .
she joins with mr .
freeze in his plan to start a new ice age , destroying all animal life , therefore giving her plant creations no reason to have the defense mechanism she had been trying to breed into them .
the characters have no logic .
batman of course is no longer the dark knight of the earlier films .
now that he has an adoptive son in burt ward / robin , bruce wayne is trying to be a father figure , constantly spouting out homilies about family and relationships , while at the same time not really having any .
george clooney tries in vain to keep from rolling his eyes while reciting the dialogue given him .
to say that his performance is workman - like is to be generous .
his best performances are still on " e. r. " .
bruce wayne has the most unromantic evening with his girlfriend ( played by elle macpherson ) , that it brings into question bruce 's latent homosexuality .
there is no spark and no passion ( as there was for nicole kidman 's psychologist in " batman forever " ) between bruce and anyone other than alfred .
and even that relationship is very reserved .
robin comes off less charismatic that in the last film in the series .
now he 's just a spoiled kid .
in " batman forever " , burt ward wanted to be batman 's partner and friend .
now , robin is suffering from ego deficiency .
robin 's attraction for poison ivy is not believable , except for a boy around the age of 15 .
his later flirtation with batgirl smacks of incest , even though they are not related in a traditional sense .
chris o'donnell , once considered a rising star , successfully burns up on reentry with this performance .
his robin needs nothing more than a good spanking .
the less said about alicia silverstone 's performance the better .
this talented young actress reads her lines with all the aplomb of a dubbing actor for a godzilla film .
she was cast strictly for her commercial value and she knew it .
this brings us to the villains .
arnold scharzenegger walks through his part with all the concern of someone waiting for payday .
the most rediculous scene is during mr .
freeze 's imprisonment .
the guards are at least a foot taller that arnold and yet fall at his hand in one of the most unbelievable fights scenes caught on film .
it 's almost as ludicrous as seeing michael jackson as a gang member .
umu thurman struts and coos her way through her part , showing a growing discomfort with her sex symbol status .
her poison ivy has all the come hither sex appeal of may west in " sextette " ( 1978 ) .
the only performances worthy of notice are pat hingle and michael gough .
these two seasoned veterans carry their scenes with a dignity sorely lacking from the rest of the film . without going through the intricacies of the plot , there is one question that always comes to mind with this series ( except for the first " batman " ) , and that is how do these super villains manage to hire so many thugs only to abandon them at the final reel .
mr .
freeze is introduced with a team of hockey playing hoodlums that seem to have stepped out of an old kiss music video .
every villain ( even the minor ones ) have to have a look , no one can be an individual with day glow paint on their face or some sort of elaborate costume .
with this film , warner brothers has succeeded in retrograding the series back to it 's tv incarnation .
the only thing missing from the action scenes are the superimposed titles detailing the pows ! , gwaaaa 's , and clang 's associated with the old series .
you almost wonder if william dozier , producer of the tv series is collecting royalties from this film .
the special effects ( by john dykstra ) and production design ( by barbara ling ) are the primary stars of this film .
and it is a case of extravagance in the pursuit of nothing .
every set , from ivy 's lair , the batcave , to freeze 's hideout is set with enough neon and fiberglass to keep the epa in paperwork for years to come .
there is no one realistic set or set piece in the film .
everything is set for maximum exposure .
the special effects have that strange cartoon look that most rushed cgi effects have .
there are homage thrown in by dykstra and his team to gene warren and his work on " the time machine " ( the growing plant scene ) but these scenes are so wroth with glaring color and art that they are almost obscured .
joel schumacher has directed the film with no flair .
camera angles are poorly chosen rehashing set ups from the old tv series .
master shots pepper the action scenes , destroying any flow of kinetic quality they may have had .
mr .
schumacher is a good director .
one just has to look back on the films " the lost boys " , " cousins " ( an underrated film ) and " the client " to know that .
but " batman and robin " comes off as a mated made for tv movie .
the film has no style of individuality .
it is the cinematic equivalent to jell - o , pretty to look at , but empty .
it is unfortunate that this film , even with it 's surprisingly strong box office has succeeded in doing what warner 's thought tim burton would do with the franchise .
kill it .
joel schumacher 's " batman & robin " is loud , colorful , action packed , and ultimately . .
boring .
stars .

SOLUTION:
N