instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
nicolas cage comes up with an ingenious survival mechanism for his role in the wink - and - a - concussive - nudge bombast - o - rama con air .
the opening credits sequence introduces us to cage as cameron poe , a gulf war veteran convicted of manslaughter and serving eight years in prison after an ill - fated bar - room brawl .
the prison scenes are accompanied by voice - overs in which poe , in a languid southern drawl , describes prison life to his wife back home and offers simple homilies for the daughter he has never met .
if the scene gives you a tickle of familiarity , it probably should .
cage appears to realize that con air is going to be utterly dim - witted and ridiculous , and that he 's going to have to do something to keep himself entertained .
and thus he slips into a familiar , surreal role as his own commentary on the proceedings -- cage plays cameron poe as a buffed - up version of raising arizona 's h .
i .
mcdonnough .
cage should have known what he was getting himself into .
he got a paycheck from jerry bruckheimer last year for the rock , and if there 's one thing you can count on from a bruckheimer production ( even without his late partner don simpson ) , it 's that you can count on seeing everything you saw in the _ last _ bruckheimer production .
the critical difference between the rock and con air is cage 's performance .
in the rock , cage appeared to be having the time of his life jumping into the action fray for the first time .
that sense of discovery has been replaced by a wry self - awareness .
while the plot of con air finds poe a parolee on board a hijacked prison transport plane whose goal is just to get home , cage 's goal is different but just as simple : to get out of the film with some measure of dignity intact .
audiences , too , should know what they 're getting themselves into with a bruckheimer production .
in fact , the marketing people are counting on it .
no one who loathed the rock for its swear - grunt - blast repetitiveness will be converted by con air ; no one who loved the rock for exactly the same reasons will be dissuaded .
director simon west ( yet another tv commercial auteur plucked by bruckheimer from the advertising equivalent of the schwab 's soda fountain )
delivers exactly the kind of adrenaline / testosterone cocktail which could launch an endocrinology lecture
( it 's perversely appropriate that one sympathetic con spends most of the flight nearing a diabetic coma ; like insulin , con air does the work of a gland ) .
what he does n't deliver is a moment of suspense .
a bruckheimer film has no use for hitchcock 's notion that showing you the bomb under the desk creates a more interesting scene than just blowing up the desk ; a really , _ really _ big desk and a really , _ really _ big bomb will serve the purpose nicely .
if either west or bruckheimer were interested in genuine tension , they might have done something with con air 's creepiest set - up .
at a desert stop for the plane - load of convicts , serial killer garland greene ( steve buscemi )
wanders of into a trailer park where he meets a little girl having a tea party in a drained swimming pool .
their tete - a - tete is eerie and menacing , providing a welcome shift in tone and giving buscemi a chance to stand out in a cast with too many villains ( danny trejo , ving rhames and a characteristically reptilian john malkovich among them ) .
in fact , con air usually opts for too much of something when the tiniest measure of restraint would have been an improvement -- too many characters , too much editing , too many dopey punch lines , too much of the cheap , ugly appeals to machismo which characterize too many bruckheimer efforts .
it is that kind of exhausting excess to which cage is responding with his detached performance .
while malkovich goes for the outrageous and john cusack ( as a u . s . marshal )
goes for
earnest , cage looks like he just wants to go to sleep .
his recycled raising arizona performance is a means of escape , his chase after a stuffed bunny a continuation of his pursuit of that big box of huggies .
it does n't bode well for cage 's appearance in face / off later this month ; perhaps he already realizes that all he can do in action films is more of the same over and over .
there 's a word for people like you , nicolas .
that word is called recidivist . . .
repeat offender .
answer:
N


question:
there is n't much good about this movie .
not much i can say about the acting , directing , or writing that would make you consider seeing this movie .
so i 'll get my one good comment out of the way , at least joel schuemacher ( batman & robin )
did n't direct it or it would be titled " technicolor city " .
in fact there is nothing colorful about this movie , its dark and depressingly gloomy right down to the bitter end .
the plot has a tendency to be interesting , but all that passes while your laughing at the ridiculous things thrown into what could have been a fascinating movie .
the plot is impossible to explain due to how senseless it gets , so i will just touch on the bare minimum .
john murdoch ( rufus sewell ) awakes in the bathtub of a cheap hotel , only to find out he has forgotten everything .
john must find out who he is before the " strangers " ( a .
k .
a . mind erasing aliens ) find him and use him for their own evil conspiracy .
during the film some interesting points are raised about human individuality , and the existence of inherently evil people .
any of these points however are completely " erased " from your mind as you watch the actors stumble through the dreadful script .
as i mentioned earlier , nothing but the atmosphere is right in this film .
the acting is bland , and since there is virtually no character development
no one seems to care .
the special effects are low budget and some even hilariously fake , a sign of a true " b - movie " . the direction is poor and there is little continuity , not that you would expect it in a movie switching realities constantly .
lastly the script is weak and has no concept of reality , and does n't deserve to have the word " science " in science - fiction .
if i have n't got my point across , i 'll say it more plainly : this is a bad movie .
lets hope the next movie by alex
" i wish i was tim burton " proyas is at least tolerable .
answer:
N


question:
the jekyll and hyde story told from his maid 's point of view is , in a word , " dark " .
you would n't expect something bright and cheery based on robert louis stevenson 's novel , but the film is surprisingly dreary and dismal .
jekyll / hyde ( john malkovich ) is terminally depressed and desperate .
mary reilly ( julia roberts ) is a victim of monstrous child abuse and the anti - woman sentiment of the times .
director stephen fears ' version of the london slums makes us marvel that anyone survived them .
the lighting level is exceedingly low throughout the movie : it almost appears to be filmed in black and white .
the direction and cinematography are brilliant and liquid
. scenes flow into the next scene like honey oozing off a strawberry .
( except there 's no red , of course . )
the look is so moody and melodramatic that you 'll be shocked when you leave the theater .
i saw it at a matinee and took quite a while to adjust to the sunny skies afterward .
often the jekyll and hyde archetypes are viewed as splitting a whole person into components of good and evil or perhaps cerebral and emotional parts .
here the doctor is intellectual and perhaps good , but certainly powerless .
his alter ego is forceful and totally without conscience .
two parts that make up a whole .
neither are capable of functioning without the other and once separated , disaster is inevitable .
the differences between the two characters would be more effective if it were accomplished by demeanor and attitude .
when we finally see the transformation , the special effects thrust the story into the realm of science fiction , not the psychological horror that the tale demands .
roberts and malkovich are skillful in their roles .
both are suitably melancholy , fitting in with the rest of the film .
the only flash of life and color comes from glenn close ( and her lips ) as the madam of a whorehouse where hyde lives , and surprisingly , jekyll apparently frequents .
life and color maybe , but this is not close 's best role .
she seems little more than a cardboard cutout character .
a beautiful film in its own dreary way .
you 'll appreciate the filmmaking craft , but do n't expect to leave in an upbeat mood .
answer:

P