TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
PROBLEM: a movie like mortal kombat : annihilation works ( and must be reviewed on ) multiple levels .
first , there 's the rampant usage of randian subtext that pervades the entire movie .
but occasionaly , almost as if making an ironic , self - depreciating remark , the movie tosses in clearly marxist imagery .
no no . . .
just kidding .
had you going there for a moment , did n't i ?
in all seriousness however , and to be fair to the movie , it * is * necessary to provide two viewpoints : that of a movie watcher unfamiliar ( or only marginally familiar ) with the whole mortal kombat phenomenon , and that of a fan of the first movie and/or a fan of the games .
the first movie ( mortal kombat ( 1995 ) ) concerned itself with a martial arts tournament that would decide the fate of earth ( and it 's 5 billion inhabitants ) .
the mortals won , and in theory this should have prevented the emperor shao khan from taking over the earth .
unfortunately , shao khan was a poor loser , and the very final scene in mortal kombat showed him arriving anyway , ready to take over the planet , as our heroes assumed a fighting stance .
the first movie was extraordinarily entertaining for those ( like myself ) who are fans of the game .
i 'd even go so far as to say that many folks who did n't know about the game probably enjoyed the movie .
the writers and directors knew the limitations of both their cast and of the basic story itself , and they did n't try to overachieve .
there were a lot of really cool fight scenes ( with really cool accompanying music ) , intersperesed with some distracting ( but ultimately non - intrusive ) bits of fluff passing itself off as a plot .
and , as we know , the movie was a smashing success at the box office .
mortal kombat :
annihilation picks up precisely where that movie left off , with some introductory exposition to clue in those who may not have seen the first movie .
shao khan has decided that he 's going to take over the earth
* anyways * , and to hell with some silly rule about mortals winning the tournament .
thereafter follows approximately 85 minutes of film that alternates between being confused , being trite , being silly , and being just plain stupid .
one gets the general impression that the producers of the movie thought " hey , that last movie was such a success that we can get more money and make a * real * movie now . " too bad they did n't simply stick with the formula from the first movie .
i could write volumes about the things that are wrong with this picture , but here are the high points :
* the acting is truly bad .
sandra hess ( playing the sonya blade character ) is particularly execrable , especially in scenes where she tries to convince us that she loved johnny cage ( a character from the first movie who gets greased at the beginning of this movie ) .
* in one of the worst pieces of mis - casting
i think i 've * ever * seen , james remar plays raiden , the god of thunder .
in the first movie , christopher lambert played raiden and played his character as though he was in on the joke :
a french actor playing a japanese thunder god being revered by chinese mystics .
i generally like it when actors are cast against type ( tim " tiny " lister , jr . being cast as the president of the u . s .
in the fifth element , for example ) , and remar has always been one of my favorite " utility " actors but he 's so totally wrong for this part that he does n't even have the luxury of amused self - awareness .
*
there are too many characters that are introduced as being potentially important , but then never seen again .
* there are a number of completely meaningless story sidetracks , including a muddled scene where liu kang ( robin shou ) seeks out nightwolf ( litefoot ) , has a mystical hallucination , and then wanders off with jade ( irina pantaeva ) .
for these reasons ( and many others ) , i can only give the movie a 2 . . . . . . unless you 're a huge fan of the games and/or the first movie .
in that case , the following critiques also apply : * sandra hess , while being an even worse actress than bridgette wilson ( who played sonya blade in the first movie ) , is much more convincing as a fighter .
wilson looked like she was simply mimicing some movements taught to her by the fight choreographer .
hess looks like she actually knows some martial arts , and puts together a much more believable fight scene .
* in the fights , each of the characters does at least * one * thing they do in the game ( and often more ) .
sonya does her " kiss of death , " jax does his " earthquake , " liu kang does his " animality , " and so on .
a big bonus for those of us who were looking for similar moves in the first movie and found them only rarely .
*
there are n't as many fight scenes in this movie as there were in the first , because the folks making the movie mistakenly try to hang a more robust plot in between .
silly , silly folks .
and the lamest fight involved two of the women in what turns into a mud - wrestling match .
lame and so obviously sexist
even i ( politically incorrect , for the most part ) noticed and remarked upon it .
* the special effects are generally better , except for the final fight scene between the emporer and liu kang in which both perform their " animalities .
" motaro and sheeva are both more convincing and lifelike than goro was in the first movie .
for folks like myself who loved the first movie and enjoy the games , i give this a 5 .
you 'll probably like it , but not nearly as much as you liked the first one .

SOLUTION: N

PROBLEM: i am a steven seagal fan .
i only say this now because " mufti splenetik " is n't my real name and because i probably need to explain why i went into this film expecting great things .
any proud seagal fan worth his beans will tell you that the seagal formula is something you can depend on .
seagal films can always be counted on for minimal dialogue , heaps of expendable baddies with extemely crunchable bones ( which we 'll always hear when seagal does his limb - twisting thing ) , rarely a female co - lead in sight ( unless it 's a real - life model - wife who has n't worked since weird science ) and , usually the worst possible titles you can imagine .
not to mention very straightforward plots , generally all - round bad dialogue and mr implacable leather - face himself in that same black outfit he 's been in since nico doing his " my hands are sharp , nimble knives " thing , seagal the stoic , sir petrified ponytail , duke of dull .
in the glimmer man , seagal breaks out of this formula : he gets a * sidekick *
, attempts to banter , and puts on a new vest .
he 's also put on quite a lot of weight .
small potatoes , you may say , a man should be able to accessorize and banter if he wants to , but damnit , if it ai n't broke , why fix it ?
( more on this disappointed person 's dashed expectations later ) .
as jack cole , seagal is a homicide detective with a questionable past .
while he and his partner ( played by keenen ivory wayans ) are investigating a series of ritual killings , cole himself becomes a suspect , especially when a background check run by campbell reveals practically nothing on cole .
it turns out that cole is a former trained government assassin ( you just ca n't trust these homicide detectives ) , someone whom victims used to catch just a glimpse of in the jungle before he pounced on them , and hence , well , you know , that " glimmer man " thing .
an increasingly fishy homicide investigation in the present soon leads to the gradual uncovering of a larger , more threatening conspiracy that involves a crooked businessman ( bob gunton ) , cole 's former cia boss ( brian cox ) and deals involving chemical weapons .
the glimmer man plot is pretty standard stuff , drawing ( as with his other films ) elements from the hotter films of the year ( eg , se7en ) .
it 's the other changes that disappoint .
for example , although there 's a fair amount of violence in this movie , there 's also the disastrous pairing of seagal with keenen ivory wayans , probably the best known of the wayans tribe ( how many are there , exactly ? ) from television 's " in living colour .
" wayans plays whiney straightman to seagal 's bead - adorned and brocade - draped cole , keeping up his " are you crazy " part of the dialogue with wasted zest .
as campbell , wayans confines himself to bemoaning his new partner 's eccentric habits , but the chemistry between the two is minimal , and seagal 's wooden comebacks make for painful watching .
a cook in under seige 2 , seagal is now a buddhist who speaks chinese and wears prayer beads and intricate silk jackets over his normal black ensemble .
he chants , refuses to fight unless truly provoked and introduces campbell to powdered deer penis to cure his allergies .
again , a benign ( if trite ) plot device except for the fact that these new character traits require seagal to speak more than usual .
heck , he has to deliver punchlines and carry a steady conversation with someone other than himself for a large part of the film .
is that a lot to ask of the seague ? too much .
seagal 's best characteristic used to be that he knew his purpose in this already complicated world of movies : to crunchily snap off bad guy appendages , and to do it silently , and alone .
not for seagal , the snappy one - liners of arnold and stallone , nor the attempts to show that he can act , much less think .
no kindergarten cop , no oscar , just simple , unadulterated deathblows .
that 's really how it must have started : like - minded fans who knew what they wanted streamed in to watch the seague do his thing , knowing that never in the seagal universe would they ever have to see him do anything else .
we trusted him .
we got to know him .
now , betrayal .
i do n't know if i can watch another seagal movie without that little niggling doubt that he 's going to try to be funny again .
i 'll try , but it wo n't be easy .
if you have n't watched the glimmer man yet ,
you might want to wait for the video to come out .
it 's easier to just fast forward the dialogue parts and linger on the action sequences .
after all , if we ca n't depend on our fantasies , what can we depend on ?
the flying inkpot rating system :
* wait for the tv2 broadcast .
*
* a little creaky , but still better than staying at home with gotcha !
*
* * pretty good , bring a friend .
*
*
* * amazing , potent stuff .
*
*
*
* * perfection .
see it twice .
mufti spelenetik is still a steven seagal fan .
everybody makes mistakes once in awhile .

SOLUTION: N

PROBLEM: while it was part of former yugoslavia , my country , croatia , used to be almost completely ignored by western films in general .
words " croatia " and " croatians " were unheard , even in movies whose plots actually took place on croatian locations .
the rare exception was the dogs of war , 1980 adaptation of frederick forsyth 's bestselling novel , yet that rare occasion only added insult to the injury , by mentioning croatians in most unflattering context .
in a single line they are referred as a bunch of mean people , probably terrorists , who happen to remove parts of arm dealers ' stomachs when they are unsatisfied with the quality of merchandise .
same line also illustrates the milieu where the movie takes place - dark and violent world of shady international deals with the blurred boundaries between business , politics and crime .
the movie protagonist , shannon ( christopher walken ) is a mercenary who spent the best years of his life fighting numerous little wars all over the globe .
his latest job is a intelligence mission for powerful mining corporation that demands information about political climate in west african nation of zangaro .
shannon arrives in that country only to find oppressive regime of president kimba , bloodthirsty madman whose brutality crushed any opposition and scared almost any westerners away .
after being arrested and tortured by kimba 's secret police , shannon leaves country with a help of british journalist north ( colin blakely ) .
upon return , he is approached by mining company again , but this time they want him to plan and execute the coup d'etat against kimba .
shannon reluctantly agrees and assembles small group of his surviving mercenary friends who begin meticulous preparation for another small war .
thing that separates the dogs of war from conventional action movies , especially those made in 1980s , is its authenticity , almost close to documentary .
it should n't surprise anyone , because the author of the novel , frederick forsyth , made reputation by blending fiction with real life , thus creating interesting , exciting yet very believable plots for his books .
those plots were also responsible for few very successful 1970s thrillers , and one of them , zinnemman 's the day of the jackal , is now considered a classic in that genre .
this one deals with soldiers of fortune , ancient tradition that was resurrected in great turmoil of 1960s and 1970s and filled the void left by vanishing colonial empires .
unlike wild geese , that used it as a pretext for conventional action adventure , script by george malko and gary de vore ( author whose death last year became real life mystery ) is serious , and instead of action puts emphasis on characters and prosaic details of their work .
the movie does n't try to romanticise the mercenary profession nor glorify mercenaries as some kind of superheroes ; they are simply shown as deadly yet expendable tool of powerful forces with questionable agenda .
christopher walken played in many movies , yet very rarely we can see him in a leading role .
his performance in this film perhaps is n't breathtaking , yet adequate .
his notoriously expressionless face is perfect illustration of the disillusioned , world- weary man whose alienation from the " normal " way of life becomes complete and only remaining ideal is loyalty to the shrinking circle of friends .
although the movie does n't lack capable actors , their roles are miniature compared with walken 's , and only colin blakely as cynical reporter has opportunity to portray his character .
however , those who look familiar faces would find them plenty in the dogs of war - tom berenger , paul freeman , jo beth williams , victoria tennant ( in brief cameo ) , and biggest surprise is ed o'neill ( of married with children fame ) as shannon 's reluctant colleague .
this was the first major production for john irvin , and it shows why he earned the reputation of capable , yet second class director .
with the good script he can make very good movie , with the bad script he can make real mess .
luckily , the dogs of war had a good script .
irvin 's direction was very ascetic and it gave the movie almost documentary feel .
the only distraction is dramatic music of geoffrey burgon , used on the wrong places .
in the final battle scene , where we can see mercenaries at work , irvin shows us that modern warfare means superior firepower and tactics , unlike 1980s ramboesque fantasies that rely on macho superheroes .
unfortunately , by making battle realistic irvin made it somewhat less attractive and his sloppy editing also did n't help .
but , despite those shortcomings , this movie remains interesting and rare combination of action thriller and gritty , realistic political drama .

SOLUTION:
P