instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
synopsis : blond criminal psychologist sarah chooses to copulate with greasy tony the mysterious puerto rican rather than bearded cliff the wisecracking neighbor upstairs .
in the meantime , someone sends sarah rotting flowers , puts her name in the newspaper 's obituary column , and kills her cat .
comments : never talk to strangers ,
a colossal waste of time , moves slower than molasses in winter to arrive at a conclusion which should be obvious to the audience 20 minutes into the film .
one would n't think that two genuine movie stars , antonio banderas ( evita ) and rebecca de mornay ( hand that rocks the cradle ) , and the acerbic comic genius dennis miller ( " saturday night live " ) would be involved in such a celluloid backfire as this turkey .
not only are they in it , however , but de mornay executive produced it .
what was she thinking ?
never talk to strangers centers upon sarah , a psychologist examining the ill - tempered max , a murderer soon to stand trial .
she receives a sudden visit from her father which elicits flashbacks of some tragedy in her early childhood .
two men woo her ; tony the " security consultant " wins her over ( so they have passionate sex replete with cheesy saxophone music ) .
a lot of psychobabble is thrown around about multiple personality disorder , but the movie asks its audience not to derive the obvious conclusion between mpd and sarah , and instead offers several male characters as red herrings .
86 minutes , the running time of this cinematic mess , thus , seem like 86 hours .
a good chunk of never talk to strangers is spent upon sarah and tony .
why would the career - minded , professional sarah feel attracted to the walking steroid with a black hat called tony ?
that 's one of the film 's mysteries which are never answered .
regardless of motive , de mornay and banderas strip down and have sex several times in what passes for eroticism .
they also manage to go out before copulating occasionally -- in one of the stupidest scenes of the film , tony takes sarah to a carnival that 's * right outside *
his dingy apartment (
that way , they can hurry back and have sex quickly ) .
also , apparently , the weather changes quickly in their locale : they 're at this outdoor carnival one day before having sex ;
the next day , they 're out playing in the snow before having sex .
the filmmakers attempt to produce a suspenseful plot interspersed with tony and sarah 's " character development .
"
someone is out to get poor sarah ( though most of the audience should have figured out who before any of this starts ) . rotting flowers , a writeup in the obituary , and a beaten neighbor are just a few of the bad things which happen to her .
suspense cliche number one also occurs : whenever someone is stalked in thrillers , by any means , if the stalked has a pet , that pet will die . oftentimes , to even further the cliche
, the murdered pet is a cat ( suspense filmmakers , for some reason , just do n't like cats ) .
sarah
, in never talk to strangers , receives a package and , lo and behold , discovers her mutilated cat within .
suspense at its very derivative !
as stated before , never talk to strangers is a poor excuse for a film whose sole purpose seems to be exploiting banderas and de mornay 's bodies as often as possible .
comedian dennis miller is completely wasted here
( he 's not given lines that are suitable for his persona ) and does n't even appear all that much .
maybe , in a way , he 's lucky for that .
early on in the movie , sarah tells tony , after meeting him in a supermarket , that she had been advised to never talk to strangers .
allow me to advise that you never watch this stinker .
answer:
N


question:
you know , i never really wondered what the tarzan films would have been like had tarzan been an old man .
while watching instinct , i could n't help but acknowledge the way the film carelessly rehashes the well - explored themes of those earlier movies .
even beside the tarzan comparison , instinct just is n't a very good film .
it 's painfully idealistic , manipulative , and silly .
i did n't hate it -- it 's simply impossible for me to hate any film starring anthony hopkins ; furthermore , most of the acting is quite good .
but i can recognize instinct for what it is beyond my subjective admiration for the actors involved .
i can also recognize reasons for wanting to make instinct , and it 's pretty clear that this could have been a good film with a massive script overhaul and a director less interested in imitating movies like patch adams .
things start off in the predictable way , as director jon turtletaub introduces us to our hero , theo caulder ( cuba gooding , jr . ) , an ambitious , young psychiatrist under the supervision of an experienced , old psychiatrist ( donald sutherland ) .
caulder soon finds himself involved in the case of his life , the one he thinks will make him famous .
the subject is ethan powell ( hopkins ) , an anthropologist who has been living among gorillas in africa for the past two years .
powell has been charged with the brutal murders of several men in africa , and it 's now caulder 's job to find out of he 's mentally competent enough to stand trial .
through a series of short sessions , caulder tries to put together the complex psyche of powell .
even though it really is an old man version of tarzan , much of this central idea is rather interesting .
as i said , hopkins is captivating for every second he 's on screen ; he has a way of convincing us that he 's not acting , that he 's actually a man who has just spent two years of his life living with a family of wild gorillas .
the character himself is n't very interesting -- he 's just an anthropologist who really likes gorillas -- but hopkins makes him interesting with subtleties both in speech and action .
gooding jr .
does strong work opposite hopkins , playing caulder as an intelligent and flawed individual .
the screenplay , written by gerald di pego and " suggested by " a novel by daniel quinn , gives us no background information on caulder , but that seems to be the point
( he has no time for friends because he 's obsessed with his work ) .
nonetheless , these two actors are essentially the entire list of things that are good about instinct .
unfortunately , filmmaking this inept can mangle the effect of even the best acting .
turtletaub and di pego are both guilty of instinct 's artistic failure , for they work together to make the dumbest , most cliche - ridden environment in which their characters are to live , and they do so by means of brainless subplots .
first , we have the prison warden subplot .
the prison warden is evil and wants to stop caulder 's progress at any cost ; if this means taking caulder off the powell case , then that 's fine .
there 's also the prison guard subplot .
the prison guard is played by john ashton ; the prison guard seems to enjoy mercilessly beating upon the psychotics under his supervision , and he 's instrumental in helping the story along to its obvious conclusion .
then there 's the daughter subplot , in which maura tierney ( playing the daughter ) must look very upset a lot of the time ; after all , she is the daughter of a deranged man .
if some of this stuff sounds familiar , that 's because they 're all devices that have been used and reused in countless other films .
the evil doctor in patch adams is not unlike the evil warden here .
the offensive caricatures of mental patients lack the depth that the similar portrayals in one flew over the cuckoo 's nest had .
ashton 's evil prison guard pales in comparison to clancy brown 's in the shawshank redemption .
hopkins ' performance will undoubtedly remind audiences of his turn in the silence of the lambs .
and then there 's the whole tarzan thing , which is more than a little bit obvious through the entire film .
perhaps what irritates me most about instinct is the half - hearted attempt at philosophical depth .
the message powell brings back from the wild is not a subtle one : he thinks that humans are " takers , " that they expand and kill and that we should all just live like gorillas .
i can sympathize with that , but only when it 's in a compelling film .
this is the kind of stupid movie -- just like patch adams -- in which a big group of characters ( psychotic inmates , in this case ) rise against the evil forces oppressing them by tearing up playing cards .
what does any of this have to do with a man who has just spent two years of his life with gorillas ?
if all the subplots of instinct had been left on the cutting room floor , we would have had a thirty - minute movie far superior to the two - hour one that i watched today .
if the central idea had been developed beyond the old man tarzan premise , then we would really have had something interesting -- a movie that does n't rely on the strength of its actors .
answer:
N


question:
this was the last carry on movie ( if you discount ' carry on columbus ' as a carry on movie ) and was made by a new production company .
based in central london , this movie is about the attempts by emmanuelle prevert ( suzanne danielle ) to bed her husband emile the french ambassador ( kenneth williams ) .
when he seems unwilling , she is given his permission to bed anyone she likes , such as the prime minister and the u . s . ambassador .
her antics get her into trouble and the british press spread these rumours all over their front pages .
she is invited to talk on television to set the record straight but only confirms the rumours instead .
meanwhile , theodore valentine ( larry dann ) is in love with emmannuelle after a chance encounter in the toilet of the concorde and is determined to marry her .
however , she is only interested in restoring her husband 's ardour which seems a little difficult after emile 's accident with a church spire !
this film is the second worst carry on movie , the worst being ' carry on england ' .
it is embarassing to see some of the remaining regulars struggle through this diabolical script by lance peters and try to pull off some of the crude and tasteless jokes that he has written .
newcomers suzanne danielle and beryl reid ( as mrs .
valentine ) are mildly funny , but larry dann as theodore is excruciatingly bad .
kenneth williams only appears in a few scenes and his lacklustre performance is warranted , given the script .
the small parts for jack douglas as lyons the butler , joan sims as mrs .
dangle , kenneth connor as leyland the chauffeur , and peter butterworth as richmond , are worthless and embarassing
.
in fact , all four parts are surplus to requirements .
however , the only humourous scene in the film is when the four of them and emmannuelle talk about their most amourous escapades .
an awful script , a terrible collection of jokes , very poor production values ( especially the scene where emmannuelle takes her clothes off at st .
james palace ) , a ludicrous and cringeworthy musical score , and a non - existent plot or storyline .
its just a succession of awful set pieces about who emmannuelle will bed next !
jack douglas is not so annoying but is more boring , joan sims and peter butterworth are wasted , and kenneth connor and kenneth williams put in some poor performances as leyland and emile .
a complete waste of time
, this movie was trying to catch up with the new sexually permissive seventies .
it was a certificate 15 film but by 1978 , there was little interest in this kind of film and it flopped at the box office and was only given its premiere on uk terrestrial television in april 1998 ! avoid at all costs !
answer:

N