instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
as bad as " mimic " was , it definitly scared me .
" mimic " continued the frightening hollywood trend of taking a foreign director who shows a lot of creative ingenuity and style , and completely flushing it when he comes to america to make a movie .
director guillermo del toro was recently imported from mexico after he made the award winning and inventive horror film " cronos .
" that movie worked because it took an unconventional story , unique characters and well written plot and dialogue to create a truly scary movie .
in " mimic " , del toro does n't bother to give us anything original .
the plot is a stupid combination of " aliens " meets " species " meets " jurassic park .
"
the characters have been recycled from a few hundred other movies .
there 's nothing new in " mimic " .
it 's just a bunch of old tricks that rarely work .
at the end of the movie , you 're stuck wanting your money back .
maybe the worst thing about the movie is that del toro followed another annoying trend of recent movies
: he forgot to turn the lights on .
i do n't understand why suspense movies lately have to follow the " seven " trend and be set in dark , dank areas .
watching " mimic " i was tempted several times to yell at the screen " turn the lights on !
the switch is to your right !
use common sense !
just do it !
you 'll be able to see the monster in the corner !
"
there 's a scene where mira sorvino is standing in subway station while the lights are flickering on and off .
it looked like the light operator was having a seizure , and sorvino did n't even notice - she just stood there looking like she was having deep thoughts .
" hmmm . . . .
i think bean soup would be good for dinner tonight . "
" mimic " has a lot of incidental shock tactics ( boo !
just kidding ! ) and follows them up with the real scare , but nothing in this movie scares you .
the audience in the theater never jumped during suspenseful moments ; i think they were bored , too .
i should n't blame del toro .
he is n't the first successful foreign director to come to hollywood and make a bad movie .
hong kong director john woo made two of the best action films of all time , " the killer " and " hard boiled " then came to america to make the stupid " broken arrow .
" french directors luc besson ( " la femme nikita " ) and george sluizer ( " the vanishing " ) followed woo 's lead and made dumbed down versions of those movies .
robert rodriguez , who directed the terrific low budget
" el mariachi " came to hollywood and directed the horrible , high - budget " desperado .
"
i do n't know why a foreign director who shows such talent in his country ca n't make a good american movie .
woo finally broke through and made " face / off " , but it still is n't up to par with his earlier films .
i get the feeling a hollywood producer sits in his office , chews on a big smelly cigar and says to the director , " welcome to america !
i bet you must be tired after being on that boat for so long .
do you speak english ?
now , i know you think you 've made good movies in the past , but now you 're in america , so things are a little different here .
just remember what the american audience always wants , and you 'll be fine .
they want to see at least one big breasted woman , characters that they 've seen a thousand times before
( because change scares americans ) , and you always need a cheesy feel - good ending to wrap things up . if you do n't make that kind of movie , you 'll be shining my shoes in no time . "
answer:
N


question:
here i sit at my computer about to write my review of the recent action comedy " bait " starring jamie foxx and david morse .
this is a review i do n't even want to write because i 'd just be laying the same criticisms on it that i would with any other so - generic - and - predictable - it's - beyond - ridiculous piece of hollywood fluff
.
if they 're not going to give us , the audience , just a little credit and put something together with half a brain , why should i waste my time and mental energy criticising it ?
last summer i took this same approach with my review of " the mummy , " in that review i just quoted phrases my reviews of other sub - par movies .
i think i shall do the same thing here but with a few less quotes ( not all are applicable ) .
i hope this goes to show you what i think of " bait " and why you can find out all you need to know about it without having to take a wild guess .
it 's genuinely unfunny
( i , and the other audience members only laughed once during the entire two hours ) , unoriginal and unthrilling .
it 's not so bad to the point where it 's fun to watch because of its badness
and it 's no so bad you absolute
loathe it and are pained by watching it
, it 's just such a cliche in and of itself , that , uhh . . .
lost my train of thought .
anyways , here 's those quotes , enjoy !
" getting an audience 's attention right from the beginning plays a major role in how today 's films work .
we want to have something exciting to watch , not a slow build - up of a story ( god forbid ! ) , and this film plays right into the mainstream 's hands . . .
" - review of " armageddon .
"
" it 's clear the film does n't want to waste time on reality and thus the attempt to establish plausability ( the most minimal amount necessary ) comes across as a half - assed effort
.
supporting characters and shady sup - plots are introduced , but as is the case with films made up of a large cast of characters , only a handful have any real significance . . .
there 's a fine line separating homage from plagiarism . . . , " - review of " godzilla " ( 1998 )
" unfortunately , as is the case with most modern thrillers , once the film showed potential for authenticity and intelligence , the cliches and action sequences take over , " - review of " the jackal .
" chad'z movie page is back after heavy renovation .
reviews of nearly all mainstream movies playing today !
get my reviews of everything playing at your local cineplex so you can better make an informed decision on what to see .
do n't forget to vote on my poll and sign the guestbook !
answer:
N


question:
among multitude of erotic thrillers , that had been released in the early 1990s , woman of desire is interesting only because it was directed by robert ginty , star of the b - grade action films of the previous decade .
those who tend not to be nostalgic about 1980s can find very good reason in the type of movies that made ginty the star .
as director , ginty did very little to improve that impression .
the protagonist of the movie is jack ( played by jeff fahey ) , yacht skipper that falls madly in love with christina ford ( played by bo derek ) .
however , she has relationship with rich and powerful jonathan ashby ( steven bauer ) .
one stormy night , the tragedy occurs and jack is accused of rape and murder .
however , his good friend walter j . hill ( robert mitchum ) happens to be very good lawyer , so jack might even prove his innocence in the end . belonging more to the genre of courtroom drama than erotic thriller , woman of desire distinguishes itself from similar films by having almost all characters behaving like total idiots .
unfortunately , this film is n't comedy and any laugh is unintentional .
the characters are totally antipathetic and irritating and soon we stop caring what would happen to them .
the actors that play them do n't help either .
that is especially the case with jeff fahey , whose jack is so stupid that even the character played by fahey in lawnmower man looks like a genius in comparison .
his partner bo derek , on the other hand , shows that she did n't age enough to cease being the sex goddess , but that is small compensation for her apparent lack of acting talents .
ginty , on the other hand , tries to bring some life in the movie by using many flashbacks and strange angles of shooting , but in the end it gets only irritating to the already bored and dissatisfied viewer .
answer:

N