instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
for about twenty minutes into mission impossible 2 director john woo ( the killer , hard boiled , face off ) appears to have made an exciting , elegant , charming spy thriller , kind of a post millennium james bond adventure with a strapping american ( read : unsophisticated ) hero more willing to drop kick villains than out fox them .
sadly , as the picture progresses , the final product begins to bear a closer resemblance to a souped up , two - hour long episode of magyuver .
and not a particularly good one at that .
what went wrong ?
mi2 begins flashily enough , that initial flash leading us to believe that it 'll soon give way to something of a plot , but it only gives way to more flash , then digresses further into a presumably unintentional parody of itself with much slo mo posturing and countless action set pieces wherein bad guys seem to deliberately leap into the way of tom cruise 's firing gun just so they can die really cool .
early on , during a car chase between soon to be lovers ethan hunt ( tom cruise ) and nyah nordoff - hall ( thandie newton ) , woo works some of his trademark magic .
in one hypnotic , though completely inexplicable sequence , the director slows the action down to a languid semi - stall as cruise and his stunning opponent stare into one and other 's eyes with come hither sexuality ? ? ?
just as their respective cars smash and spin in accordance , coming ever so close to toppling over a neighboring cliff .
prior to this we see the famed trailer opener of cruise climbing a steep mountain , sans scaffolding , then leaping from one jagged rock formation to another .
why ?
i have n't the foggiest .
i doubt even john woo could provide you with a logical reply .
with mi2 woo has become a slave to the summer movie machine , the one that jettisons logic for gravity defying effects and story for more gravity defying effects .
it 's possible that these " spies " could be adrenaline junkies climbing mountains and crashing into each other as means to get off , though of course this is never explored .
the scenes i 've described are really only included to titillate , not to give any insight into character .
god forbid .
woo certainly knows how to make each set piece energetic , but they remain individual set pieces never connecting to form anything more than splices of beer commercial - like visuals .
still in terms of crackerjack eye candy , the opening has much to cherish .
cruise and newton first meet during a vigorous flamenco dance featuring several welcome woo devices ( the graceful slow mo artistry of synchronized movement juxtaposed against the stage 1 romance of two attractive individuals discovering how attractive the other is ) .
between the frantic dancing , woo trains his camera on cruise and newton as they make with some sensuous eye contact .
the scene is a little over the top in a bon jovi music video circa 1988 kind of way , yet it has style and something of soul , and woo casts a bit of a spell on us .
sure it 's all smoke and mirrors , but we can see that there happens to be a talented maestro behind this particular product .
thandie and cruise later meet in a bathtub in a scene that 's about half as playfully charming as the jennifer lopez \ george cloony trunk meeting in out of sight .
they flirt and exchange obvious double entendres .
newton bats her eyes flirtatiously .
cruise grins a little too slyly .
the cruise character , ethan hunt , has been drastically altered since the first film .
here cruise plays him more as a hip , sexual dynamo than the square jawed robot he impersonated in part 1 .
he 's cool and dashing , which is precisely the kind of role we want to see cruise in after watching him sleep walk through eyes wide shut ( which might just be the longest episode of red show diaries ever committed to film ) , and blustered his way through magnolia ( quite possibly the most overrated performance of the 90 's ) .
sadly as the film progresses we see less of cruise 's initial " i 'm the man !
" charm and more slo - mo close - ups of his preening mug .
mi2 falls apart on nearly every level during its repetitious third act , which is essentially one hour long action sequence that just wo n't stop .
the whole thing commences with an utterly generic gun battle ( the first gun fight in the film ) , which really should be unheard of in a john woo film , but alas this particular battle could 've been staged by anyone from renny harlin to joseph merhi ( of course excepting the " symbolic " pigeons who seem to find their way into every john woo picture ) .
we 've all seen guys slide across the floor in slo mo while firing a gun in each hand .
it is n't done any differently here .
the action is pure hard target \ broken arrow theatrics with nothing to propel it but the apparent need to see tom cruise drop kick face less villains while his hair whips stylishly in the wind .
he 's cool for sure but
he 's made to be as empty as the movie .
the actor is n't used so much for his boyish appeal as for his chiseled looks ; he smiles narcissistically into the camera at literally any moment , be it during a gunfight , before one or after one .
when he 's not beaming away , he 's staring into the lens with cold eyes trying to look mad as hell , but woo 's editing seriously undermines the effort .
he fetishizes cruise 's angular face with such glee that it turns into a naked gun style spoof .
i half expected cruise to peel off his facemask and reveal that he 's really austin powers .
in a classic woo action moment , ethan hunt struts past a fiery doorway glaring at the baddies within its frame like a pin - up boy angel of death .
the gunfight turns into a daring escape which turns into a reckless mission which turns into a motorcycle attack in which bad guys seem to angle directly for cruise to kill them like some kind of mass suicide ritual ( one dumb bastard even jumps his bike over the gun toting cruise , basically inviting our handsome hero to shoot him in mid air which he does ) .
the lead bad guy ( played by the appropriately british dougray scott ) and cruise face off in a mentally deficient game of chicken ? ? ? on motorcycles .
though instead of jumping off to the side at the last moment , the two grown men leap directly into the other giving each other a mid air bear hug , only to fly about a hundred feet ( still in bear hug position ) , land on a beach below and begin a mano - e - mano fist fight that ends with the bad guy pulling a " so you thought i was dead . . .
"
.
not to worry , cruise takes care of the problem without even breaking a sweat .
what a hero !
you may have noticed that i opted not to describe an iota of mi2 's plot .
my reasoning is simple : i 'm not sure of any good it would do .
the film itself has absolutely no concern with story , only with hurtling forth to the next " special " effect .
i was n't kidding when i told a friend of mine that mi2 has less plot than the average aerosmith video .
nobody will go to this for the plot , and if they do they 'll surely regret it .
as summer movies evolve ( or devolve ) character and plot have become increasingly whittled down to nearly nothing .
in mi , the plot seemed to be built around brian de palma 's ( that film 's director ) stylistic flourishes , while in mi2 the plot only serves to give us an intermittent breather from woo 's non - stop masturbatory pandemonium .
it 's irrelevant in every sense , as is character .
all that ultimately matters are those pesky smoke and mirrors .
answer:
N

question:
best remembered for his understated performance as dr .
hannibal lecter in michael mann 's forensics thriller , manhunter , scottish character actor brian cox brings something special to every movie he works on .
usually playing a bit role in some studio schlock ( he dies halfway through the long kiss goodnight ) , he 's only occasionally given something meaty and substantial to do .
if you want to see some brilliant acting , check out his work as a dogged police inspector opposite frances mcdormand in ken loach 's hidden agenda .
cox plays the role of big john harrigan in the disturbing new indie flick l .
i .
e . , which lot 47 picked up at sundance when other distributors were scared to budge .
big john feels the love that dares not speak its name , but he expresses it through seeking out adolescents and bringing them back to his pad .
what bothered some audience members was the presentation of big john in an oddly empathetic light .
he 's an even - tempered , funny , robust old man who actually listens to the kids ' problems ( as opposed to their parents and friends , both caught up in the high - wire act of their own confused lives . )
he 'll have sex - for - pay with them only after an elaborate courtship , charming them with temptations from the grown - up world .
l .
i .
e . stands for long island expressway , which slices through the strip malls and middle - class homes of suburbia .
filmmaker michael cuesta uses it as a ( pretty transparent ) metaphor of dangerous escape for his 15-year old protagonist , howie ( paul franklin dano ) .
in his opening voice - over , howie reveals a morbid preoccupation with death on the road , citing the l .
i .
e .
highway deaths of filmmaker alan
j .
pakula , songwriter harry chapin , and his own mother on exit 52 .
he 's both fascinated and disturbed by the l .
i .
e . , and those feelings are projected onto big john ( who follows howie around in his bright red car , but never makes a move to force the boy to do something he does n't want to do .
this makes him much more complex than the usual child molesters seen in movies -- he 's a beast , but ashamed of it . )
l .
i .
e . would have worked best as a half - hour short film about howie 's ill - advised foray into big john 's haven .
there is unnecessary padding with howie 's miserable dad ( bruce altman ) in the hot seat for a white - collar crime , degenerate youngsters who get their kicks from robbing middle - class houses , and some homoerotic shenanigans with wise - ass gary terrio ( billy kay ) , a handsome artful dodger . rather than add to the themes of suburban ennui ( not that we needed another movie on that subject ) , these awkward subplots pad out the running time to adequate feature length .
concurrently , the relationship between howie and big john is evenly paced and exceptionally well acted .
cox , sporting a baseball cap and a faded marine tattoo , is all bluff and bluster .
dano is quiet and at first glance seems so withdrawn as to be transparent .
we 're so used to child actors whose dramatic choices are broad and obvious ( calling haley joel ! ) , it 's surprising to see one who actually listens throughout any given scene .
the restraint is admirable .
but l . i .
e . 's
screenplay does n't always give them the best material .
when howie reads big john a walt whitman poem , the moment feels a bit too precious .
director michael cuesta lingers on an ecstatic reaction shot of big john , who may as well be hearing glenn gould performing bach 's goldberg variations .
it 's too much .
there are also some obvious dramatic contrivances involving big john 's other boy toy ( walter masterson ) , jealous over the newbie .
this plot thread predictably leads to violence .
not content to be a haunting , observational portrait of teen alienation in a royally screwed up world ( like terry zwigoff 's superb ghost world ) , cuesta lacks the confidence in his own work to end on an ambivalent note .
it 's typical of unimaginative cinema to wrap things up with a bullet , sparing the writers from actually having to come up with a complex , philosophical note .
in this regard
, l . i .
e .
( and countless other indie films ) share something in common with blockbuster action films : problems are solved when the obstacle is removed .
how often does real life work this way ? to extend the question : if a movie is striving for realism , do dramatic contrivances destroy the illusion ?
answer:
N

question:
it was a rainy friday afternoon in columbus when i persuaded a friend to see a matinee performance of mst3k : tm .
he had never seen any episodes of the show , and i have watched a scant few , due to its unsocial airtime on comedy central and the uneven nature of many of the episodes .
for those of you not familiar with the premise , dr clayton forrester ( beaulieu ) wishes to take over the world by finding the worst film ever made and unleashing it upon an unsuspecting public .
to achieve this , he ( in the words of the tv series ' theme , which is missing in the movie ) " bumped [ mike nelson ( nelson ) ] on the noggin and then shot him into space " , and is monitoring nelson 's reactions to the movies he is forced to endure . rather than succumb to the sheer awfulness of many of the movies , nelson spends his time making wisecracks with the help of his two robot companions , tom servo and crow t . robot .
the format of the show consists of nelson , servo and crow making their comments while silhouetted against the movie being watched , and breaks every 20 minutes or so for segments set on the satellite of love , the ship on which our heroes are marooned .
only two things are different in the movie : the absence of forrester 's sidekick , tv 's frank , and the slower pace of the jokes .
this latter change is presumably deliberate to avoid the viewing audience missing some of the best lines while laughing from the previous joke .
for their big screen outing , the producers have chosen " this island earth " , a 1954 classic , and one of the first sf films to have a special effects budget larger than the average grocery bill .
unfortunately for that film ( but making it ideal mst3k fodder ) , acting and dialogue appear to have taken a back seat to the effects which , by today 's standards , are less than impressive .
nelson & co .
make jokes about everything from japan 's dominance in the world market , to star trek , to the state of disrepair of seattle 's kingdome , and most of them work .
unfortunately , the segments set outside the satellite 's movie theater seem out of place and are n't particularly funny , but at least they 're fairly short .
the big question about this movie though is : why ?
i presume it was an attempt to gain a larger following to keep support behind the series ( rumours of its impending demise circulated for some time before the plug was eventually pulled a few months ago ) , but the format gains nothing from its transition to the big screen -- there are no special effects to dazzle you , no action sequences to keep you on the edge of your seat , and no use of digital surround sound .
so , it seems pointless to spend $ 8 per person to see this movie when in a few months it will be out on video and you can watch it for $ 3 , and not have to sit in a room full of popcorn addicts .
nevertheless , mst3k : tm provides more laugh - out - loud opportunities than any film you 're going to see this year , and i thoroughly recommend it to anyone with a pulse .
given its uniqueness
, i hesitate to grade it against other films , but it fulfils its claims and so in the class of " unsubtle comedy films whose laughs come at the expense of bad b - movies
" it does well .
answer:
P