TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
PROBLEM: notice : this is a review and analysis of exotica .
the first part of this piece is the review , the second part contains some analysis of the movie which might be construed as spoilers . if you have not seen the movie and after reading the first part you intend to do so , then save the second part for the discussion afterwards .
starring : bruce greenwood , mia kirshner , elias kosteas , don mckellar , arsinee khanijian , sarah polley director : atom egoyan screenplay : atom egoyan exotica is a film that grows on retrospection .
exotica keeps the viewer guessing about the relationship between the various characters in the film .
all of the people know each other , but apart from that , there seems to be no other reason why to select such set and follow them in this fictional account .
the director hints for possible solutions , using a multi - line plot , so popular with critics in mystery train , and used to good advantage by quentin tarantino in pulp fiction .
exotica reaches a whole new dimension using this technique .
at the end it is surprising to see how well the pieces of the puzzle fit together , in spite their apparent unconnectedness and even misleading features .
the out - of - chronological - order technique has become ever so popular ,
perhaps even de rigueur , for biographical films .
similarly , we can now expect to see more movies in the future which will use , to varying extent , converging multiplots .
on a first glance , once the multi - plot puzzle in exotica is solved , there seems to be little left to look at . but perceptive minds which take the time to dig further will be rewarded with interesting views on life or rather , commentaries on views of life .
exotica is very much worth seeing .
it opened to critic 's praise worldwide ( i first saw it in mexico city , last december ) .
in canada , it broke records for a movie of its kind , which prompted the american distributor to go for a wide release .
apart from a strong plot , acting is very convincing , and the soundtrack seems as if made for the movie .
the spoon - fed - entertainment crowd may not appreciate this movie , and thus it might last little on screen .
but if you want to try a movie a cut above the crowd , with an originality that is ever so rare , by all means see exotica .
analysis
( * * spoilers
*
* ahead ) what is behind the complex plot in exotica ?
first , a common theme of the quest for gratification by monetary means .
the lone tax - auditor , the repressed homosexual pet shop owner , the pregnant woman which runs the nightclub , the rich man which has the club remodeled , the audience at the movie theatre , all use personal wealth to buy palliative relief for the penuries of the soul .
.. .
then we have the quest for gratification through visual means by most of the same people , including those who sit watching exotica .
.. . in that regard exotica stands for onlookers at a nightclub , for the rich man looking through silver mirrors , and poor - rich people looking at other 's people lives through a silver screen .
exotica also stands for unwanted society attention into the lives of other people , such as the tax auditor and the pet shop owner .
exotica is the customer agent looking at the pet shop owner , which in turn is looking at the core of the problems between the strip dancer and the tax auditor through the detached eye of a gay person ( no attraction to the strip dancer ) , and only interested on avoiding jail ( no personal relationship with the tax auditor ) .
in exotica everybody is watching , and what is worse , everybody knows .
second , exotica is about isolated people holding back their feelings ; about people which by voluntary or involuntary means transfer their view of reality to other characters .
the strip dancer becomes the proverbial daughter , the dj becomes the proverbial killer by means of breaking the relationship between the father and the proverbial daughter .
the niece becomes the baby sitter , the baby sitter becomes the dancer , and the dancer becomes the proverbial daughter .
the pet shop owner becomes the proverbial dj , by finding the proverbial daughter .
a chain made of real and imagined links coming around full circle , just as everything comes around to a fitting whole at the end of the movie .

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

PROBLEM: i 'm going to start this review off with a hypothetical question .
let 's say you 've just been in a car accident , and the driver of the other vehicle is unconscious .
your friends have left to go get help , and you 're waiting to see if the victim wakes up .
a tow - truck comes along , and the driver hops out of the truck to see what 's going on .
he then proceeds to kill the unconscious victim by snapping his neck .
do you : a ) run away screaming for your life , staying away from the main road , b )
run away ( but not too fast ) and stay on the main road even when the madman in the truck starts following you ,
* stop * to catch your breath , try to negotiate with the psycho , and when that fails , start running away again , all the while * staying on the main road * ? if you answered " a " , you are far more intelligent than the screenwriter of " texas chainsaw massacre : the next generation " and will likely hate this movie . however , if you answered " b " , prepare to enjoy a film made with idiots like you in mind !
" texas chainsaw massacre :
the next generation " is being called a sequel , but it 's really more of a remake of the original .
there 's a few changes here and there , but it 's essentially the same ( even the infamous " meathook " scene has been re - created . )
the story opens with four teenagers hitting the road on the night of their prom , and somehow ending up in the middle of nowhere .
needless to say , they soon encounter leatherface and his nutty family .
much carnage ensues .
to call this movie inept would be putting it mildly .
in addition to the laughably idiotic situation i mentioned in my hypothetical question , there is a moment towards the end of the film where one of the baddies is killed by an airplane that literally comes out of nowhere .
it just swoops down and kills him with its wheel .
no explantion is given as to who was flying it or why he / she is going around killing people with the planes wheel .
the dialogue is even more atrocious .
zellwegger , who is kidnapped by " the family " early on , keeps trying to have normal conversations with these people .
when you 're surrounded by maniacs wielding chainsaws and dead corpses , i would think that rationality would go out the window .
speaking of going out the window , there is a scene in which zellwegger jumps out a window .
apparently , the stunt double had a little trouble , because she visibly gets stuck in the window .
the director quickly cuts to a wide shot where the stunt double * does n't * get caught in the window .
this was one of many glaring inconsistencies .
there are so many , in fact , that if i were to name them all , this review would be several pages long .
the only reason i am giving this movie one star instead of no stars is because of matthew mcconaughey .
he plays a member of " the family " with a hydraulic leg ( home - made , i might add ) and is so completely over - the - top , you ca n't help but be amazed by his performance .
he obviously had a lot of fun with this part , and it really shows .
he makes jack nicholson 's portrayal of the psychotic inn keeper in " the shining " look restrained in comparison .
for a horror movie , " texas chainsaw massacre : the next generation " contains surprisingly little gore .
in fact , in contains none .
there 's a little blood here and there , but that 's as far as it goes .
which leads me to believe that the budget must have been * astonishingly * low , and it shows .
everything about the movie looks cheap , from the sets to the costumes .
especially leatherface .
once frightening and nightmare inducing , he 's now as terrifying as dame edna .
do yourself a favor and take a pass at this remake . check out the far superior original instead .

SOLUTION:
N