instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
the only two really good things that i can say about tarzan and the lost city are as follows : jane march was very cute as jane , and the movie was thankfully under 90 minutes in length .
if you have n't already figured it out , i did n't like this movie very much .
the plot was boring and contrived to the extreme .
tarzan ( casper van dien ) has now left the jungle and living in civilized society .
he is just days away from his impending marriage to jane , played by the aptly named jane march .
back in his former home of africa , a group of looters has found the key to locating a lost city .
( mind you
i never really figured out why they actually wanted to find this city . )
anyway , tarzan 's old jungle friend appears to him in a vision .
tarzan realizes that he must return to africa to help stop the bad guys from finding the lost city .
he leaves jane ( his first mistake , in my opinion ) and travels to africa .
of course , jane is hot on her ape man 's heals .
the two of them are reunited in africa where they do battle with the bad guys .
sound like a dumb explanation of the plot ?
it 's actually an improvement over the real thing .
the acting is just plain awful .
i 'm not quite sure what casper van dien was doing in this film , but it was n't acting .
jane march was n't a heck of a lot better , but at least she is easy on the eyes .
compounding the bad acting was the fact that in many places the dialogue had obviously been re - recorded , and i 've seen better dubbing in some old bruce lee movies . added to the sound problems was the cinematography .
this film was filled with beautiful african scenery .
but the panoramic scenery shots looked overexposed to me .
quite frankly , i think you could probably do a better job capturing the beauty of africa with a camcorder than this bunch did with professional film equipment .
then we have the special effects .
" special effects in a tarzan movie ?
"
you are no doubt asking yourself ?
yes friends , the writers injected some very out of place supernatural elements into the story .
probably for the sake of using cgi , since it did nothing but hurt the story .
in most parts , they were n't bad , just nothing special .
but , they were more than a little on the hokey side .
except of course , when we got to the ridiculous climax of this movie .
the grand finale 's special effects went right into the toilet at that point .
it almost looked like they had run out of money .
these effects were of noticeably lower quality than those in the rest of the film and looked like something in an amateur video production .
i took one lesson away from watching tarzan and the lost city -- ape men and bones that morph into skeletal warriors do n't mix . stay far away from this version of tarzan .
answer:
N


question:
disillusioned and trying to find the spice of life , richard ( leonardo dicaprio ) sets off for thailand .
there he a meets crazed man by the name of daffy ( robert carlyle ) who gives him a map to a beach , a secret utopia , then commits suicide .
richard sets off for this beach with his neighbors from this hotel , ? tienne ( guillaume canet ) and fran ?
oise ( virginie ledoyen ) .
once they get there the three discover a secret society existing on this beach , there richard falls for fran ?
oise .
this covers about half to two thirds of the movie and aside from the romantic element , which is solely a creation of hollywood , seems to hold to the original novel .
the cinematography and general beauty of this part of the movie is breathtaking .
i do n't think anyone can argue that this movie is visually stunning .
but that is were many things go wrong
, darius khondji has totally outdone himself in doing the cinematography .
though the script and the interpretation of the novel are quite lacking .
the plot of the movie moves along at a decent pace for about half of the movie or there abouts .
this is where the movie has some great potential , then the three travelers get the island and there is a turn for the better , yes folks i said better .
now up to about two thirds of this movie its actually pretty good , nothing spectacular aside from the cinematography
but it still has promise .
this is where things start to degenerate to something that becomes almost un - watchable .
there is even a ' video game ' style sequence that borders on the disgusting , it does n't make sense for the movie and just looks dumb in my opinion ( and i am hoping many other peoples ) .
i am hoping that in my little rant i 've made it abundantly clear that the movie is lacking quite seriously in plot and uneven pacing , so if you go see it and you do n't like it because of this do n't blame me .
the character development was not up to par either ; i found the character of richard to be nothing more than a spoiled child .
although there is a feeble attempt to make this whole story profound it fails and richard ( leo 's character ) comes off as a wannabe philosopher .
the character seems to be underdeveloped from the get go and seems to just do things for no apparent reason , granted some people are like this ( myself included ) but i nor anyone i know that is fairly random would ever do things of the sort this character does .
the next point is that some of the really interesting characters are simply not developed enough .
richard is obviously obsessed by fran ?
oise at the early stages of the story , yet there is actually very little development along this story line .
this
i am sure contributes to the movie 's lack of core plot and being unfocused .
now , i shall move onto something a little better about the movie ( for all you cynics out there the movie did have a few good things about it ) .
the cast and acting was passable at the very least , and i think that leonardo dicaprio actually did pretty well in the role of richard .
mind you
i think the rest of the cast that had some which had reasonably sized roles did equally well if not better .
which begs the question why is leonardo paid so much ?
( i think this is a topic all on its own so i wo n't get into it ) .
but i like the fact that there was an international cast used ,
had only and american cast been used i can see this movie being horrible .
the international flavor added a more global feel to the movie that made it that much more bearable .
not to mention the movie is set in thailand and a global cast makes more sense .
when all is said and done i liked the movie for the most part but the gaping inadequacies of the plot are unforgivable .
i would not recommend this movie to anyone , the fact that i liked it has a lot to do with the cinematography and the sheer beauty of the movie not its plot or story .
as it is the story tries to be much too philosophical and fails at its attempt . if you do end up going to see this movie be forewarned about its shortcomings .
answer:
N


question:
it was once said that in order to truly enjoy some of today 's movies or novels , you must ' suspend disbelief . '
however , there is a distinct separation between opening your mind to ridiculous situations and believing a bunch of flat lies .
it came as no surprise to me to learn that huntingburg , indiana ( where the film is set ) , does not have a mcdonald 's , a sears store , a statue of a man on a horse , nor even a dam close by .
even if you can ignore these somewhat ' white ' lies ( even though the dam is crucial to hard rain 's plot ) ; there is still a bunch of things that just do n't gel .
firstly , morgan freeman , possibly the greatest actor alive ( after such films as driving miss daisy , the shawshank redemption and se7en ) , was cast as a shifty goon intent on stealing enough money for a healthy retirement .
he _ should _ have played the town sheriff , an experienced and somewhat intriguing policeman .
as a massive flood started by a dam accident overwhelms huntingburg , its residents presumably flee as the water level steadily increases .
i say presumably simply because we never know what happened to them ; and it seems a tad strange that an entire town ( with the exception of some folk who get introduced along the way ) can vanish before the flood has actually started .
but nether the less , armored guard couriers tom ( christian slater ) and his uncle are carrying three million dollars in the back of their van .
with a heavy rainstorm causing depressing conditions and slippery roads , it does n't take long for the van to end up stuck amongst mud and water off the side of the road .
jim ( morgan freeman ) and a small gang of thieves locate the van and attempt to steal the three million dollars .
but of course tom is more than willing to save the day , so he takes the money and hides it elsewhere in town .
the local sheriff ( randy quaid , whom most will remember as the drunken pilot in id4 ) and a couple of police men investigate the situation , but their morals are soon overpowered by greediness as each character contemplates what he / she would do with their share of the three million dollars .
director mikael salomon has made sure that hard rain ends up turning everything topsy - turvy , and whilst the film may at first appear to be a definite ' goodies versus baddies , ' there are numerous twists in it 's plot that make this a slightly more enjoyable experience .
but by the time these interesting changes occur , it 's far too late in the film for them to have much affect .
hard rain 's continuos corniness and lack of originality washes out whatever hope the script may have had ; and although it 's cast is somewhat appealing most of its stars
act well below par .
not at one stage capturing what could have been a fabulous on screen battle between slater and freeman , we are left to reminisce on films that dared to do something different and achieved more than what was expected .
such titles as broken arrow ( slater and john travolta ) and face / off ( nicholas cage and john travolta ) come to mind as films that have mastered silver screen confrontations .
strangely enough , they were both directed by john woo and both star john travolta .
we can forgive morgan freeman for giving a slightly disappointing performance since he is newish to the action genre , but christian slater could have achieved so much more had the amount of crummy one liners been reduced and some personality added to his character . if you had asked me whether slater could perform well enough to substantially boost a movie prior to the release of broken arrow , my answer would have been a definite no .
i now know that he has no excuse , and _ can _ do better ( if you do n't believe me rent a copy of broken arrow from your local video store ) .
although hard rain never really works from the start , i somehow felt feelings of missed opportunity when the credits filled the screen .
the addition of an enticing sub - plot would have given the film time to breathe , rather than try to cram 96 minutes of action and disaster into a story that ca n't handle anything else .
despite the fact that hard rain fails on almost every account , if your standards are low enough you may find this to be a mildly enjoyable film .
no creative flair and no inventive scenes means that hard rain does not stand up well against its many competitors , but it does n't really matter since the last thing you would want to do after shelling about $ 8 .
50 is compare this to other films .
answer:

N