TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
PROBLEM: seen may 2 , 1998 at 3
: 40 p .
m .
at the crossgates cinema 18 , theater # 13 , with chris wessell and sean o'shea for $ 5 .
[ theater rating :
*
* * 1/2 : very good sound , picture , and seats ] the big - budget , mega - hype " event " movie is becoming so trendy now it is becoming a weekly routine instead of a seasonal one .
gluttony is hollywood 's favorite sin , but it is the movie - goers who pay the price by being dealt the same things over and over on an ever - worsening basis .
" lost in space " is the latest such offering - a film
so poor it would be twice as good if it were mediocre
.
it 's made up of every element of science fiction , but at no time does it evoke the slightest amount of wonderment
the genre was meant for .
audiences ' attention spans are rapidly decreasing and as is the trend with such films , this one opens with a fast - paced space battle which serves not only as the most interesting scene in the film ( probably because it has " star wars " written all over it ) , but as the producers ' way of showing off their budget through the special effects .
battle scenes are worthless without tension , and since we have no idea what the setting is it 's impossible to care about anything that happens .
in essence , the entire segment works like a teaser for an arcade game , not a piece of filmmaking .
we meet the robinson family - a family of five that does not get along but has been chosen to act on earth 's behalf in effort to find another planet worthy of colonization due to the exhausting of our natural resources .
each member of the family has a special trait and personality , and yet none of them seem like actual people .
professor john robinson ( hurt ) is the intelligent , quiet leader who has devoted so much time to his work his family and marriage are suffering without his realizing it ( it 's obvious what role this aspect will play ) .
of course this is all established through extremely melodramatic scenes such as the children and parents arguing and bickering among themselves and with each other , while the necessary problems are " resolved " at the right moments .
the only thing worse than the screenplay is the fact it 's presented in a completely serious manner without a trace of satire , and is so pathetic it 's laughable
.
the first act is not a building of a story , but a juxtaposition of scenes that serve no purpose other than to plug in all the required elements ( such as plot , conflict , and characterization - god forbid ! ) .
we 're provided with the minimum amount possible of these elements to keep the film from being completely silent .
in fact , it might as well be since
the dialogue is virtually non - existent .
yes , the characters do speak , but they do not talk .
they say things that only relate to the conflict , but they never really interact ( unless it 's the cartoony flirting scenes between arrogant major don west ( leblanc ) and uptight , unemotional judy robinson ( graham ) ) .
it 's amazing that after an hour of trite dialogue and generic plot devices
that so little happens .
eventually the pacing rapidly increases , but the amount of genuine interest does not .
the story finally gains some prospective by living up to its title as the robinsons find themselves lost in space after narrowly managing to defeat dr .
smith ( oldman )
, the cartoony villain , and his plans for sabotage .
what ensues is a series upon series of completely unrelated conflicts .
the first such scene takes place on an abandoned spaceship and what ensues could best be described as " alien " -lite .
the story changes again when the robinsons crash land on an alien planet and must act quickly to escape it and survive .
but there 's never any real notion of suspense here because the script
constantly wanders aimlessly .
plotlines are developed , but each becomes totally irrelevant as the story changes from scenario to scenario .
the atmosphere attempts to be surreal by incorporating time travel and various time paradoxes , but it 's presented in such a ridiculous way it 's utterly boring
.
by the time the last act rolls around , there is no sense of a payoff building .
the ending does not go out on a high note with any kind of climax , instead , it seems to come to a sudden halt ( but at least it ends at all ) .
" lost in space " is major film production at its worst .
it 's frightening that a film so poorly written , directed , and acted might be considered mainstream entertainment .

SOLUTION: N

PROBLEM: as bad as " mimic " was , it definitly scared me .
" mimic " continued the frightening hollywood trend of taking a foreign director who shows a lot of creative ingenuity and style , and completely flushing it when he comes to america to make a movie .
director guillermo del toro was recently imported from mexico after he made the award winning and inventive horror film " cronos .
" that movie worked because it took an unconventional story , unique characters and well written plot and dialogue to create a truly scary movie .
in " mimic " , del toro does n't bother to give us anything original .
the plot is a stupid combination of " aliens " meets " species " meets " jurassic park .
"
the characters have been recycled from a few hundred other movies .
there 's nothing new in " mimic " .
it 's just a bunch of old tricks that rarely work .
at the end of the movie , you 're stuck wanting your money back .
maybe the worst thing about the movie is that del toro followed another annoying trend of recent movies
: he forgot to turn the lights on .
i do n't understand why suspense movies lately have to follow the " seven " trend and be set in dark , dank areas .
watching " mimic " i was tempted several times to yell at the screen " turn the lights on !
the switch is to your right !
use common sense !
just do it !
you 'll be able to see the monster in the corner !
"
there 's a scene where mira sorvino is standing in subway station while the lights are flickering on and off .
it looked like the light operator was having a seizure , and sorvino did n't even notice - she just stood there looking like she was having deep thoughts .
" hmmm . . . .
i think bean soup would be good for dinner tonight . "
" mimic " has a lot of incidental shock tactics ( boo !
just kidding ! ) and follows them up with the real scare , but nothing in this movie scares you .
the audience in the theater never jumped during suspenseful moments ; i think they were bored , too .
i should n't blame del toro .
he is n't the first successful foreign director to come to hollywood and make a bad movie .
hong kong director john woo made two of the best action films of all time , " the killer " and " hard boiled " then came to america to make the stupid " broken arrow .
" french directors luc besson ( " la femme nikita " ) and george sluizer ( " the vanishing " ) followed woo 's lead and made dumbed down versions of those movies .
robert rodriguez , who directed the terrific low budget
" el mariachi " came to hollywood and directed the horrible , high - budget " desperado .
"
i do n't know why a foreign director who shows such talent in his country ca n't make a good american movie .
woo finally broke through and made " face / off " , but it still is n't up to par with his earlier films .
i get the feeling a hollywood producer sits in his office , chews on a big smelly cigar and says to the director , " welcome to america !
i bet you must be tired after being on that boat for so long .
do you speak english ?
now , i know you think you 've made good movies in the past , but now you 're in america , so things are a little different here .
just remember what the american audience always wants , and you 'll be fine .
they want to see at least one big breasted woman , characters that they 've seen a thousand times before
( because change scares americans ) , and you always need a cheesy feel - good ending to wrap things up . if you do n't make that kind of movie , you 'll be shining my shoes in no time . "

SOLUTION: N

PROBLEM: a suave , cool , collected , rich , uptight bad guy = cliche .
a clumsy criminal oaf to add to the laughs = cliche .
a bad guy who owns a wild animal = cliche .
a crooked , chauvinistic law enforcer type = cliche .
at an intense moment , our main character tries to get away , but the car has trouble starting = cliche .
complaining about cliches = cliche .
ok , ok .
so we always hear about cliches .
but if there was ever to be a prime example , the real mccoy is it ! not one uttered word , not one frame of film , not one character in this whole movie is n't a cut and paste example of everything we 've ever seen .
they might as well use this as a training film : " how to make a bank robbery film in the 90 's " .
karen mccoy ( kim basinger ) is a bank robber who just got out on parole after a six - year stay at the state prison .
she wants to make things right and go straight , especially with the fact that she has a six - year old son out there who does n't even know she 's alive .
aware of mccoy 's bank robbing expertise , sniveling bad guy jack schmidt ( terence stamp ) uses the same six - year old to coerce mccoy into returning to her past .
he wants mccoy to pull off an elaborate heist of 18 + million dollars at the same bank she got caught trying to rob six years earlier , which , by the way , is somehow due to schmidt .
and if she refuses ? who knows what he 'll do to the kid .
( cue sinister laughter )
this movie is so pathetically pitiful
that it 's hard to know where to begin .
the aforementioned cliches are brutally abundant .
i ca n't stress enough how every single element , whether it be a character , the dialogue , a plot " twist " , etc . , is so damn generic that you 'll wonder if * anyone * is working behind the scenes , let alone in front of the camera .
basinger is absolutely vacant .
and where do they get off trying to make us emotionally attached to her ?
here 's someone that spent their time robbing banks , and now as she heads onto the street , we 're supposed to feel sorry for her .
as she confronts her son , who does n't even know who she is , are we supposed to break into tears ? ?
especially when neither basinger nor zach english , who plays the kid , has any depth or emotional - radiance whatsoever .
i suppose i should mention val kilmer .
yeah ,
that 's right
- he 's in it !
quite sadly too , seeing as how i can discuss everything about the movie and never mention his name .
and he got second billing !
to be fair , i will admit that kilmer had potential in his role as the bumbling criminal wannabe j .
t . barker .
unfortunately the script does n't allow much room for improvement , and when his character is used like bookends ( he never shows up in the middle of the film ! ) , we have no time to appreciate what he might have brought to this project .
the real mccoy
just ca n't keep it
's head above water
,
and soon , * very * soon , sinks into a cliched mess of movie .
the actors are like dummies being moved about by an unenthusiastic puppeteer , and the dialogue , particularly schmidt 's trite dialogue , falls like the niagra .
this is definitely one to avoid , folks .
the real mccoy is anything but !

SOLUTION:
N