TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
PROBLEM: at the outset of swordfish , john travolta 's gabriel shear is pontificating about the status of american cinema today .
basically , he says , it boils down to a lack of imagination among the majority of writers .
how ironic , as travolta seems to be describing his latest venture .
swordfish is loud , violent and amoral .
it has the audacity to justify murder and mayhem in the name of sustaining our way of life .
and how does travolta 's gabriel plan to do this ?
by robbing billions from his own government and using the funds to out - terrorize terrorists .
swordfish is a very cynical movie .
it relies on an audience 's perception of our leaders as ineffectual and duplicitous and on terrorists as non - human , faceless entities not worthy of compassion or consideration .
the movie 's plot is preposterous with enough illogical leaps that if the film ever slowed down , you 'd actually see how ridiculous it all is
.
this is a live - action road runner cartoon , moving so quickly that it 's over before you can catch your breath to ask any reasonable questions .
the storyline revolves around super hacker stanley jobson ( hugh jackman ) , recruited by gabriel to crack the government 's computer codes so gabriel can gather billions for his anti - terrorist campaign .
talk about whacked - out patriotism .
my objections to swordfish are many .
the body count is high , but that is expected in a movie of this sort .
it 's becoming a bore watching anonymous soldiers , police officers and government agents blown to bits .
another example is the family dynamics between stanley , his 10-year - old daughter and his ex - wife .
stanley , though having served time in prison for hacking , is shown as a loving and caring father , forbidden by his ex to see his little girl .
audience animosity is immediately created for his former spouse by showing her as a drinker and smoker who also sometimes stars in her new husband 's adult films .
thus when she is found murdered late in the movie , neither stanley nor his daughter are allowed any time to grieve .
in fact , subconsciously , many in the audience are probably glad she was killed .
then there is the sequence involving one of gabriel 's henchman holding a gun to the head of stanley 's daughter to coerce the hacker to download the key computer program for gabriel .
children as pawns have become a most unwelcome clich ?
in recent films .
there is enough violence in the real world involving children without having to make them on - screen victims as well .
yea
, it 's only make believe , but that does n't mean you have to tolerate it
.
travolta is cool , deadly charming and flamboyant as the near - crazy gabriel .
his character is reminiscent of his villainous characterizations in broken arrow and face / off .
jackman looks dour through most of the proceedings .
his only moment of any depth comes when he finally is able to create the worm to get inside the government database .
his sense of joy and accomplishment is one any computer whiz can appreciate .
halle berry is decorative and lovely as gabriel 's assistant , while don cheadle is given little to do as the head fbi agent hunting gabriel .
swordfish plays like a comic book with a larger - than - life character in gabriel .
viewers align themselves with him despite their uncertainty if he is hero or villain .
and maybe that is the movie 's underlying flaw : there is no real hero to speak of , only those doing their upmost to survive .
and that is not enough .
this is one swordfish that should have been thrown back in the water .

SOLUTION: N

PROBLEM: the camera zooms in incredibly close .
it focuses on the closed eyes of a person presumed dead .
all of a sudden , with a thunderous sound effect and an eerie sounding musical pulse , his eyelids open .
the camera zooms in incredibly close .
it focuses on one of the characters desperately running for her life .
then , with a thunderous sound effect and an eerie sounding musical pulse , she bumps into the killer .
the camera zooms in incredibly close .
it focuses on a door from where seemingly strange sounds emanate .
all of a sudden , with a thunderous sound effect and an eerie sounding musical pulse , the doors swing open to reveal what 's inside .
close - up thrill - shots such as these seemed to elicit more laughter from the audience rather than genuine fear , which is a pretty good sign that you 're not watching the thriller that the director had originally envisioned
.
rather , you adopt the opinion that the characters are so goofy and
so unaware of the trouble that they 're in , that you stop caring
about who lives , who dies and where the story goes .
instead , you become more interested in how the characters get killed off .
the four young teenagers who are the potential sacrificial lambs for this movie are helen and barry and julie and ray - two couples and dear friends to one another .
during the summer just after high school graduation , they take a fateful drive down a dark mountain highway .
suddenly , without warning , their car hits someone whom the teens presume was killed as a result of that collision . fearing jail time and possible manslaughter charges if they confess , they instead decide to dump the body into the ocean and make a pact never to discuss the episode again .
a year goes by and things among the four friends begin to change .
relationships fizzle , future dreams crumble , and attitudes change .
but , they can not forget what they did .
and apparently , neither can someone else .
someone begins to send letters to all four of the teens with the frightening message : " i know what you did last summer .
"
the letter - writer ( a figure in a rubber slicker wielding a large metal hook ) soon makes his presence known and begins to hunt down the four teens .
it 's now up to the four of them to try to figure out who the killer is before it 's too late .
while this movie has some nice visually eerie effects , too much of it 's impact had to be generated with extreme close - ups , while the level of suspense was choppy at best .
there is so much more that this movie could have been , but decided to give us nothing but cheap thrills .
it could have been a clever whodunit , but discovering who ultimately was the killer made me just shrug my shoulders .
it could have explored the changed friendships after a year of adulthood , but seemed to only include that aspect to add 15 more minutes to the film .
it could have given us smarter characters who knew that anytime you 're alone and you see shadowy figures moving about , you do n't walk towards them yelling " hello " .
once you yell " hello " , you can expect an extreme close - up , a thunderous sound effect and an eerie sounding musical pulse .
it 's difficult to be in suspense when you know what 's about to happen .
the only redeeming aspect of the movie is that i now have a neat idea for a halloween costume , but i 'm not sure if the local costume store sells rubber slickers and hooks .
the horror that i experienced from this film is realizing that i actually went to see it .

SOLUTION: N

PROBLEM: the working title for no looking back was long time , nothing new , and rarely has there been a more apt name for a motion picture .
even though this movie clocks in at a relatively skinny 96 minutes , it seems to run long enough to engulf two titanics .
writer / director edward burns has trotted out a hackneyed storyline , the trajectory of which will be instantly recognizable to anyone who has n't spent their life in seclusion .
instead of tweaking the formula a little to invigorate the proceedings , burns is content to allow the film to ramble aimlessly towards its irritatingly predictable conclusion , offering precious few momentary pleasures along the way .
no looking back is dominated by three very dislikable characters whose constant presence on the screen is painful .
the most appropriate ending would have been a triple suicide , and the sooner , the better .
alas
, that 's not the case , and those who stick with this film for its entire length will be forced to endure the prolonged company of this wretched trio .
and , to further depress audiences
, burns has shot the entire film on cold , rainy days in a gray new york state beach town .
peeks of sunshine are few and far between .
no wonder the characters are all so miserable .
first of all , we have charlie ( burns ) , a generation x slacker who abandoned his girlfriend three years ago after she had an abortion , then spent some time bumming around in california before deciding to come home .
that girlfriend is claudia ( lauren holly ) , and , after picking up the pieces of her life following charlie 's departure , she has moved on , shacking up with one of charlie 's old school buddies , mike ( jon bon jovi ) .
the two have a comfortable relationship , but it 's apparent to even a blind person that they 're not right for each other .
claudia years for some spice in her life ; mike wants to settle down and have children .
then charlie re - enters the mix .
so who , if anyone , will claudia end up with ? who cares ? ?
no looking back goes to extraordinary lengths to make sure that we 're not especially interested in the outcome of the romantic triangle .
so what if no one finds happiness -- these characters do n't deserve it anyway , especially after wasting 90 minutes of our time .
they are n't real people -- they 're a writer 's construct stumbling through a too - obvious storyline .
they should know the ending as well as we do .
and burns should have given his audience more credit and presented them with a plot that at least offered a surprise or two .
another frustrating thing about no looking back is that burns has populated the film with a group of potentially - interesting supporting characters .
blythe danner is solid as claudia 's housebound mother , connie britton is suitably high - strung as claudia 's neurotic sister , and jennifer esposito is eye - catching as a bartender in search of a little romance .
sadly , all we get is quick glimpses into their lives , although a movie about any of them would have been far more intriguing than the story burns has chosen to tell .
none of the lead performers are going to wow critics with their thespian attributes .
edward burns is pushing the edge of his limited range here .
jon bon jovi shows more acting ability than one might reasonably expect from a singer branching into a different career , but he could still use a little polish .
the worst case is lauren holly , who presents a completely bland claudia .
as portrayed here , she 's hardly the kind of woman who would inspire even a moment 's interest , not to mention undying love .
burns ' ex , the monumentally untalented maxine bahns , would have been hard - pressed to do a less inspired job .
when he released the brothers mcmullen , edward burns was revered as the wunderkind of the 1995 sundance film festival ( robert redford has apparently stuck with him -- the aging actor / director executive produced this mess ) .
two films and three short years later , the luster has faded .
some movie makers have only one good film in them . with back- to - back duds
like she 's the one and no looking back to follow the delightful brothers , burns is beginning to look like a member of that undistinguished club .

SOLUTION:
N