In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
--------
Question: plot : a young man who loves heavy metal music and especially the band steel dragon , to whom he 's devoted a tribute band in which he sings , gets launched into stardom when the real group get rid of their lead singer and call on him to take his place .
critique : i 'm a sucker for movies like this .
a young man with a humble background and lofty dreams , works hard , devotes the time , the energy and the patience , and ultimately hits it big - time .
in the case of this film , our boy loves a certain heavy metal band and as luck would have it ( yup , luck always finds its way into these types of equations , although generally tied very closely to hard work ) , they need a new singer .
his entry and adaptation to the whole " rock ' n roll " lifestyle fills the rest of the film and is really fun to watch .
although i will preface this by saying that one thing that would definitely enhance your appreciation for this film is your own love ( or past love ) of heavy metal music and the whole scene around it .
metal was one of my first loves as a teen and even though the genre of music is n't that prominent anymore , i still check out my motley crue , twisted sister and anthrax cds every now and again .
that 's not to say that you wo n't like this film if you do n't like the music , but the music and live performances from the band , play a big part in the movie , and i for one , had a blast watching and listening to it all .
but the even greater draw in this film is the standout performance given here by mark wahlberg .
wow , hand this fella some major props , as he totally becomes this heavy metal geek / god ( incidentally , metal god was the film 's original title , and a much better one if you ask me ) .
he is this movie and
i was quite taken by his character pretty much the whole way through .
he came off like a regular guy with extremely passionate goals and work ethic , who was willing to do anything in order to fulfill his dreams .
aniston was also surprisingly good as the girlfriend ( and the romance angle between them was sweet ) , but she did n't pull me in hard enough during their emotional scenes .
i was also impressed by some of the " real " musicians who played in the film ( zakk wylde from ozzy osbourne , jeff pilson from dokken , stephan jenkins from third eye blind , blas elias from slaughter ) , but actor dominic west as kirk cuddy made the biggest impression among the band members .
it 's to note that this film was based on a real - life tale of a young man who used to sing in a judas priest cover band and then went on to become their actual singer ( their original singer also admitted to being gay , as in this film ) .
just for the record , i 'm certainly not recommending this film for its originality or surprise elements , since most of this stuff has already been covered in some way or another in other movies , but because it 's a fun , uplifting , well - paced movie with a solid central showing by wahlberg and energetic live performances .
oh yeah ,
and for those who dig the " heavier " side of music , the soundtrack also rocks ! !
you see . . .
dreams can come true .
. .
where 's joblo coming from ? almost famous ( 8/10 ) - blow ( 8/10 ) - boogie nights ( 9/10 ) - detroit rock city ( 8/10 ) - girlfight ( 6/10 ) - goodfellas ( 10/10 )

Answer: P


Question: miramax " disinvited " on - line media from press screenings of scream 3 .
they ostensibly feared that folks like me would write spoiler - filled reviews and post them prior to the film 's february 4th release date - unsound reasoning .
you see , ' net critics established enough to be on any sort of vip list are
professionals - miramax surely knows the difference between a member of the on - line film critics society ( ofcs ) and the type of fanboy who posts spy reports at ai n't it cool news .
no , the ? mini major ' was afraid we 'd let a bigger cat out of the bag than whodunit , that scream 3 is a dismal conclusion to the beloved ( by this writer , at least ) franchise .
something smells rotten in the state of california right from the get - go
:
cotton weary ( liev schrieber ) , the former lover and would - be killer of maureen prescott , sidney 's mother , is juggling phone calls in his luxury car .
( once considered a danger to society , weary now hosts his own talk show , " 100 % cotton " , a clever , if dated , jab at american pop culture . )
of course , a new ghostface dials him up , and , with memories of scream 's unbearably suspenseful prologue in mind , we immediately wonder , where is the killer ?
the backseat ?
the next car ?
thrilling prospects , to be sure , but actually , ghostface is at the weary residence , waiting for cotton 's girlfriend ( kelly rutheford ) to finishing showering .
what 's missing from this sequence , and indeed scream 3 's remaining frights ( most disappointingly , the moment when an ingenue is forced to hide in a wardrobe room filled with ghostface costumes , one of which might spring to life ) , is an elaborate and attenuated payoff .
our other surviving regulars have become estranged .
sidney ( campbell ) is living a paranoid existence of electronic gates and password - protected locks , while dewey ( arquette ) acts as technical advisor on the second sequel to scream 2 's movie - within - a - movie , " stab 3 " , and gale weathers ( cox arquette ) headlines a gossipy news program .
murder reunites them , as knife - wielding ghostface stalks the set of " stab 3 " , imitating its sadistic screenplay - and his / her / their own personal draft climaxes with sidney 's death .
the appeal of ghostface 's villainy is that he /
she
/ they could be your boyfriend , your classmate , your next door neighbour . . . or a combination of people .
scream was the first of its kind : a slasher mystery , with the guessing game not only entailing who will be next , but also who is /
are the perpetrator ( s ) and
what is / are his / her / their motive .
ironic self - reflection aside
, parts one and two stand out in a crowd that includes umpteen friday the 13th and halloween flicks because there 's at last articulate human beings behind the iconic costume .
with scream 3 , the novelty of ghostface 's ever - mutating identity has worn off some , but the character remains conceptually potent .
conceptually .
the execution of ghostface 's master plan this time around is creaky , because screenwriter ehren kruger has invented a new mythology for the world of sidney prescott far afield from what we 'd come to understand in scream and scream 2 .
the movie gets in the silly habit of saying " all bets are off ! " in reference to the " rules " of a trilogy 's third act , but there 's a difference between rule breaking and cheating .
with the departure of kevin williamson , who authored the previous screams as well as a tidy outline for scream 3 ( that , for reasons incomprehensible to me , was ignored , save the notion of " stab 3 " ) , kruger needed to be reined in tighter , and by wes craven .
craven 's direction of scream 3 is lazy in most respects .
how else to explain the jay and silent bob cameo ( the slacker duo of kevin smith movies ) , akin to seeing mickey mouse pop up in mulan and more distracting than funny .
it pains me to write this , but scream 3 's comedy is generally laughless , with the exception of well - timed performances by josh pais ( as a police detective possessed of the same personality he had as a persnickety teacher in craven 's music of the heart ) , jamie kennedy ( resurrecting film geek randy for the sendoff he was denied in scream 2 ) , and parker posey ( through sheer force of will as a b - actress ) .
the visuals are much weaker in part three , as well - the occasional sweeping gesture of peter deming 's camera is a pale imitation of the stalking steadicam craven gave us twice before .
( aside : in the wake of columbine , craven toned down the violence significantly for scream 3-why the sanctimony , when scream and scream 2 are still readily available on video store shelves ? )
finally , marco beltrami 's music cues the suspense too blatantly
- do you recall the tense chase at the college radio station in scream 2 ?
it 's mostly silent .
sting notes are a whole lot more effective if they spring from nowhere ; here ,
they act as the crescendos of an incessantly nerve - jangling score .
i look at scream 3 as coming from an alternative universe , the same place that birthed the godfather part iii and superman
iii - woefully out of synch with its prequels , scream 3 is a nightmare instead of nightmarish , and will likely put the horror genre back in mothballs .
the film unintentionally follows the unspoken rule of a trilogy to a t : ?
part three must disappoint ' .

Answer: N


Question: while watching loser , it occurred to me that amy heckerling 's true genius as a film - maker is casting .
in fast times at ridgemont high , she gave us sean penn 's jeff spicoli ; in look who 's talking , she turned bruce willis into a wise - cracking baby and provided john travolta with is first career revival ; in clueless , she found a star vehicle for the adorableness that is ( or was ) alicia silverstone .
she seems to understand instinctively how to find performers the audience will like in spite of their flaws .
unfortunately , she may also be starting to understand that she understands .
giving appealing actors an appealing script creates likeable movies .
giving appealing actors a script in which their appeal _ is _ the movie makes for unexpectedly awful films like loser .
naturally , heckerling makes her protagonist an all - around swell guy .
paul tannek ( jason biggs ) is a small - town boy who gets a scholarship to nyu , then instantly finds himself an island of compassion and diligence in the cold - hearted big city .
paul is the kind of guy who gives up his seat on the subway to an elderly woman ; his roommates adam ( zak orth ) , chris ( tom sadoski ) and noah ( jimmi simpson ) are the kind of guys who blast their music and let their waterbeds leak all over paul .
paul is also the kind of guy who adores girls from afar , in this case the lovely dora diamond ( mena suvari ) .
dora has problems of her own , including a shortage of funds to pay her tuition and a relationship with a professor , edward alcott ( greg kinnear ) , that 's more than slightly one - sided .
they 're two conscientious kids who love animals and homeless people , so clearly they belong together , even if paul is a loser .
i must confess that , for a while , i was suckered in by heckerling 's casting .
jason biggs is an engaging performer whose unconventional looks make him even easier to embrace ; suvari is a coquette with an undercurrent of intelligence .
they 're pleasant enough to watch , and heckerling gives us plenty of scenes establishing how nice they are and how nice their respective antagonists are n't .
then it gradually becomes clear that there 's virtually nothing to loser but scenes of that sort .
in theory , loser is a romantic comedy , but there is scarcely a laugh to be found in the entire film ( notable exception : a cameo by a scene - stealing comic actor as a video store clerk ) .
instead of taking any time to make the characters ' situations funny , heckerling spends 98 minutes making her characters ' situations pathetic .
she shows none of the ear for quirky dialogue that sparked clueless , nor any of that film 's interest in lively plotting ( not surprisingly , since clueless 's plot came via jane austen 's emma ) .
she simply turns the film into a pity party .
since loser is a film composed almost entirely of establishing character , you might think that those characters would be interesting , or at least slightly complicated .
instead , you have people either so perfect or so unredeemable that there 's no reason to watch them .
paul is n't just a nice guy
, he 's flawless ; consequently , he 's a central character who does absolutely no growing .
his roommates are n't just inconsiderate , they 're actively evil - blackmailing professor alcott , drugging women with rohypnol and generally giving humanity a bad name . and professor alcott is n't just manipulative , he turns dora into his house slave .
dora 's unthinking devotion to alcott is the only whiff of basic human frailty to be found in loser , and even that is n't explored in sufficient detail .
there 's more ambiguity in the 30-second snippet from alan cumming 's broadway performance as the emcee in cabaret
then there is in the rest of loser
it 's one thing to turn supporting characters into comic exaggerations ; it 's another to flatten your leads into easily digestible mush .
and it would help if those comic exaggerations were somehow .
..
i do n't know .
.. comic .
still , i spent much of the film holding out the ridiculous hope that heckerling would somehow salvage loser from its tedium and justify my desire to like paul and dora .
that hope dissolved the moment heckerling underscored a sequence of paul in the throes of unrequited love to simon and garfunkel 's " scarborough fair / canticle .
" instead of giving the sequence a knowing wink - a reference to the graduate , a hint that paul is becoming an overly - sensitive clich - heckerling plays it deadly straight .
even in the scenes that scream for a light comic touch and a bit of a poke at her protagonist 's foibles , she finds it impossible to stray from the gospel of paul as saint .
clueless 's cher had her self - absorption and manipulative tendencies to balance her cuteness .
in loser , amy heckerling shows a leaden hand with material that demands friskiness ( her one show of wit involves naming paul 's dorm " hunt 's hall " after erstwhile bowery boy huntz hall ) .
her gift with casting proved to be her curse .
loser may be a crashing bore , but gee , are n't those two kids swell ?

Answer:
N