TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
PROBLEM: adam sandler is n't known for appearing in deep , thought - provoking films , but he 's still a really funny guy .
most of his movies are successful not because of the film making behind them , but because they let sandler do what he does best without a stupid plot to drown him out .
big daddy is the first film in which the story seems more important than sandler 's comic performance , and it 's a miserable failure
.
sandler plays a thirty - something loser who gets attached to an orphaned young boy ( played by cole and dylan sprouse ) .
as one might expect from the synopsis , director dennis dugan resorts to the usual bag of manipulative and sentimental sequences , including a repulsive courtroom battle and a lot of teary scenes in which characters say " good - bye " to one another ; in addition , there 's a ridiculous amount of disgusting toilet humor ( urine and vomit both get more screen time than sandler himself ) .
there 's a hilarious running joke featuring a female doctor who previously worked at hooters , and the film features passable performances from sandler , joey lauren adams ( as the love interest ) , and the two young boys , but the film on the whole is trite and disappointingly unfunny .

SOLUTION: N

PROBLEM: i like movies with albert brooks , and i really like movies directed and written by albert brooks .
lost in america and defending your life are two of my favorite comedies .
his humor is of a kind that is not very prevalent in movies today , inundated as we are with films which revel in their aim toward the lowest common denominator .
you will rarely see any slapstick in an albert brooks film , while the dialog will not be as oppressive as in some of the independent " talk films " which are finding their way into theaters .
the situations in which his characters find themselves are ones we can often identify with , but even if we ca n't , brooks has the talent to make them comfortable , and therefore we laugh .
teenagers and jim carrey fans probably wo n't find an albert brooks movie very funny , but people who look for more than what we could find on television probably will .
put simply , brooks ' comedy is intelligent .
mother is albert brooks ' latest film , and it does not disappoint .
brooks plays john henderson ,
a middle - aged science fiction writer just coming off his second divorce .
he makes an attempt at dating , but fails miserably .
he then has dinner with his brother jeff ( rob morrow ) , a successful sports agent who seems to live the ideal life .
jeff has a good job , a loving family , and most of all , a warm relationship with their mother beatrice ( debbie reynolds ) .
after dinner , john witnesses a telephone conversation between jeff and beatrice , and is at the same time amazed and sickened by how hunky - dory the dialog is .
in comparison , beatrice always hints at a fault in john and his career every time she talks with him , and john gives it right back to her .
at the end of one of their conversations where beatrice has just picked apart john 's life , she says , " i love you , " and john replies with , " i know you think you do .
"
the thing is , beatrice is not overt with her criticisms , but instead gives them in that mothering way which is tantamount to nit - picking and guilt loading .
it 's the kind that goes something like , "
yes , dear , i think you do that wonderfully , but .
.. .
"
it seems as though nothing he does makes her happy .
there 's always the big
but .
john believes that his mother is somehow connected to his failed relationships with women , either because of his flawed self - esteem caused by his need for validation , or perhaps because he tends to unconsciously seek out women who remind him of his mother in an oedipal manner .
he comes to the conclusion that since his problems are rooted in his boyhood home , he should move back in with his mother for a while just to see what kinds of feelings come out , and by that be able to sort out why his life is the way it is .
"
a great experiment " , he calls it .
brooks ' own brand of humor really shines in this film , especially in the interaction john has with his mother .
there 's a scene where john has just arrived at his mother 's house , and after having driven from los angeles to sausalito , and having explained to his mother about the " great experiment " , beatrice asks , " now explain to me again why you do n't want to stay at a hotel .
"
she still does n't get it , and it is absolutely hilarious .
in the same scene , we get little glances at the life his mother leads when she tries to feed him food that is no longer fresh .
she apparently buys in great quantities and refrigerates it until the lettuce is wilted and the sherbet is iced over .
when john points out the ice on the sherbet , beatrice tells him not to worry about the protective glaze .
"
you 've named the ice ? " asks john .
he 's also surprised at the variety of items
beatrice keeps in the refrigerator , such as a twenty - pound block of cheese .
"
the freezer was a good invention , " says john , " but it 's not supposed to be used for everything .
that 's why it 's smaller than the refrigerator .
"
it 's something most of us find strangely familiar .
brooks is also a master at employing the non sequitur .
for example , in defending your life , his and meryl streep 's characters are in a comedy club having a discussion .
when they 're finished and walk out , brooks cuts to the comic on stage who is just at the point of delivering his punch line , " and so the moral is , if you have to fart , go outside !
"
you do n't know what the joke was because you could n't hear him during the entire scene , but i must have laughed for the next five minutes , it seemed so out of context .
in this film , brooks uses the same trick a couple of times to open or close a scene .
i do n't want to give them away , but suffice it to
say they work just as well as they have in the past .
john 's purpose for staying with his mother is to learn , and we as the audience learn right along with him .
his mother is not the fascinating type to begin with , but as john spends more time with her , we learn things about her personality and her lifestyle that give her depth .
watching the character of beatrice unfold is every bit as enjoyable as the humor that accompanies it each step of the way .
on screen , brooks does an excellent job playing this kind of character
: you get the feeling he often believes he is the only sane person in an insane world .
in a way , he 's very much like yosarian of catch-22 , expect with something of an attitude .
casting debbie reynolds as beatrice is perfect .
she assumes the part with ease , even moving and speaking a little slowly , and is just so adorable it 's hard to get mad at her character .
this only helps the audience to share the frustration john feels when dealing with her .
as his first choice , brooks originally wanted to lure nancy reagan out from her acting retirement to play beatrice , but the former actress and first lady could not leave her husband , who was beginning to show symptoms of alzheimer 's disease .
that may be just as well , since reynolds lends a softness to the character which enhances it immensely .
rob morrow also does a good job at playing the younger brother who has always been mother 's favorite and , for all his success in his job and family , is slowly exposed as a mama 's boy .
the only things that hold this movie back from being better are a couple of plot holes .
a solid connection is not really made between john 's troubles and his reasons for living with his mother .
additionally , the end results of the experiment do not necessarily jibe with the stated goals , and although this may have been sloppy screenwriting , how can you be mad at the guy who also wrote this ?
: beatrice : you must think i 'm some kind of moron .
john
: no , i think your someone who thinks i 'm a moron .
beatrice : well , it takes one to know one .

SOLUTION: P

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