In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.

[Q]: seen august 8 , 1998 at 6 p .
m .
at rotterdam square cinemas ( rotterdam , ny ) , theater # 6 , by myself for free using my sony / loews critic 's pass .
[ theater rating :
*
*
* : good seats , sound , and picture ] war is a topic that ca n't help but be glorified any way it is portrayed by the media .
movies , documentaries , and even history books have a way of making the darker side of humanity exciting since the most general aspects are focused on , such as strategy , politics , and victory .
it 's easy to forget war , in its most basic form , is a battle of armies out to slaughter each other .
forgotten more easily is the fact that each soldier , no matter what his rank or importance , is a real flesh - and - blood person and not just a number . " saving private ryan " is one of the few films that dares play up this aspect , especially in its unapologetic , realistic delivery .
it proves there 's a huge difference between battling and killing .
the film opens with one of the most graphic , disturbing scenes in recent memory .
it 's world war
ii , d - day to be exact , and the u . s .
military is invading omaha beach where the nazis are more than ready for them .
spielberg uses many techniques to create for a total sense of reality . instead of positioned cameras , the footage here seems to have been shot by camera operators running alongside soldiers as if they were just as scared .
there is no sense of stability , but of constant , anxious , and confusing motion , giving us the feeling of being in the middle of the battle , and just a vulnerable as the poor troops .
" poor " is a proper word to describe how pathetic and yet innocent the men fighting are .
there is little to no dialogue throughout the loud battle and no prologue to define any characters .
we do n't get the feeling these are handsome actors playing heroic roles , but that these are men about to kill and be killed for reasons beyond their understanding .
the nazis are not portrayed as enemies to be hated , but as people that must be destroyed because they 're there .
in the movies , the good guys can run through a firestorm of bullets and bombs and not get a scratch , but in reality that would n't happen .
the men have nothing to shield or protect them besides some metal flanks and dead bodies .
they are sitting ducks and we realize this through the perspective of the well - secured germans who can actually see who , what , and where they 're shooting , unlike the americans who must fire in a general direction to avoid getting their heads blown off .
perhaps the film is flawed by not providing any backstory on the war itself and who the men really are , but that seems to be part of the theme .
the film seems to rely on the audience 's sense of patriotism , that the american military is " right " and good and that the nazis are " inherently evil .
"
the battle scene eventually focuses on a group of men who have miraculously survived and made their way close to the enemy stronghold ( a whole 50-foot progression ) , and begin to inflict some damage .
i have to admit that once the first glimpse of victory over the nazis sprang up , i could n't help but feel some sense of joy and relief .
to triumph against all odds is a cliche to be sure , but there 's nothing cliche about the graphic , detailed , atmosphere here because it really happened .
one of the most surprising aspects of the film is how little story construction there is , and yet the events that take place make sense and are interesting
.
the plot is practically irrelevant since the film is more concerned with the reality of the war and the soldiers we meet .
tom hanks stars as captain miller , a relatively average man who happens to be the leader of a platoon .
he 's never obsessive or any such generic , cartoonish characteristic that might dominate a character like this .
he does n't want to be there any more than his men , but when he is given a mission he intends to carry it out .
the mission the film is concerned with is , as the title states , saving private ryan .
through a series of command started by an ordinary clerical worker , it is brought to a general 's attention that three brothers from iowa have been killed in action and their mother will receive notices of each 's death simultaneously .
when they learn a fourth brother is stationed somewhere in europe , they make it a top priority to have him returned safely to his mother .
it 's easy to sympathize with this situation , after all , no one should have to lose all their children at once .
but finding one man in this war is , as miller puts it , " like trying to find a needle in a stack of needles .
"
the saving of private ryan is n't just a dramatic device , but a thematic one .
his salvation represents the sense of innocence the country , the world even , was trying to convince itself it still had .
when miller 's company hears of the mission , they scoff at the idea assuming he is dead , but miller is n't so quick to shrug it off .
he knows the only thing that can really save soldiers from death is hope , and now he has the opportunity to make someone 's sense of hope a reality .
the mission to find ryan gives miller 's group a destination , but not direction .
along the way many things happen to them , both good and bad .
a few battles are fought , not to be major accomplishments for the war , but because they encounter german soldiers and have no other choice .
the act of killing itself becomes one of the film 's major philosophical metaphors .
the soldiers do n't mind killing other soldiers in blind battle , but when they come across a lone survivor who begs them to let him go , they can barely stop themselves from killing him in cold blood as some kind of vengeance for their losses .
unfortunately , death is a fact of war , and most films try to avoid it when it comes to the main characters , but here spielberg does n't want us to think these men are invincible .
in fact , only a small amount of color and personality is sketched into each man , and the performances are good enough to make this method work .
although the characters are somewhat typical , the actors maintain control over the material at all time . whether they 're arguing with each other , telling stories of back home , or fighting the germans ,
they never go overboard and always seem believable
.
sure , there 's a zinger here and there , but war does n't change the fact boys will be boys .
if and when one dies we too can feel the loss , even though we hardly knew them .
the final act brings the story full circle with another tremendous , violent battle sequence .
private ryan has been found , but facing four to one odds , can the americans defeat the germans and keep ryan alive ?
that 's not a premise for thrills , it 's symbolic of everything the film has worked for .
it would be wrong to say the film has either a happy or sad ending , it ends the way it must end .
i remember reading a " calvin & hobbes " comic strip where calvin asked his dad something like , " dad , how do armies of men killing each other solve problems ? "
" saving private ryan " is the adult version of that question .
[A]: P


[Q]: it may seem weird to begin a film about glam rock with a sequence that includes a spaceship , a green ovular pin , and the birth of oscar wilde , but if one really strains , they can see that perhaps maybe these connections are not half off .
wilde 's philosophy was that everyone should be true to their own human nature , and the result of his following this philosophy was that he was imprisoned , loosing his family and his career .
the glam rock movement in the early 70s in england had a similar take and came to a similar demise .
the main difference was by placing makeup on their face and acting out on their deepest fantasies and inquiries about life ( mostly dealing with androgony and sexuality ) , they became less and less like themselves and more and more like everyone else .
and that 's why the movement seemed to end as soon as it began .
it 's been said that todd haynes ' " velvet goldmine , " the film that chronicles what it was like to be a part of the movement , not only from those who experienced it but by those who created it , steals a lot from " citizen kane , " and that 's true .
in the film , a british journalist in the 80s , arthur stuart ( christian bale ) , is asked to go back and find out what happened to 70s glam rock star brian slade , a fictitious rock star , who faked his own death on stage , bringing the end not only to his career but to the entire glam rock movement .
structure - wise
, this totally steals from " kane , " not only from the set - up ( he interviews three people , and the story is a result of their flashbacks ) , but in other things , like the beginning ( death , then newsreel ) , and smaller details , like the bitter ex - friend in a wheelchair and the bitter ex - wife as a washed - up lounge singer , found in a bar after hours .
this is no " kane , " and it really does n't aspire to be : it does n't attempt to be the deep outlook of something gone like " kane " did , and it does n't really uncover anything poignant about humanity .
instead , it uses the flashbacks as a form of contrast between the magic that was the glam rock era and the boredom that was life after glam rock for those who were participants .
the 80s scenes are dry and deliriously melancholy , equipped with a performance by bale that is perhaps appropriately dull and unengaging .
but the 70s scenes are engaging , though , not to mention addictively campy .
they radiate with gorgeous cinematography
that nicely accentuates all the vibrant colors of the era , and a feel that 's so eerily lighthearted that when combined with the then - footage , they become not only a symbol of decadence , but of times when everything seemed so simple .
instead of creating the world the way it was , haynes paints their own world as if it were a narcotic fairy tale : the glam rock movement was full of so much freedom and liberation that after you 've experienced it , everything else seems so mundane .
there 's no outside world to speak of , secluding these people inside a protective globe that will eventually crack .
haynes focuses his story on the tale of blade and the other fictitious rock hero , curt wild , and their relationship that created , molded , and then brought down the movement , reducing everyone else who contributed to it as merely that - contributors .
blade - played with reserve by the pouty jonathan
rhys meyers - and wild - played with anarchic wildness by ewan mcgregor - are little more than thinly disguised recreations of david bowie and iggy pop , respectively , complete with the creation of a ziggy stardust persona named maxwell demon and the confirmation that the two rock stars may have
very well not only have been one - time partners in music , but also partners in bed .
through discussions with slade 's ex - manager cecil ( michael feast ) , ex - wife mandy ( toni collette , reinventing herself as an american blonde dish who fakes a british accent when with slade ) , and finally ex - partner wild , journalist stuart begins to remember his own experiences in the era , like his discovery of his rebelliousness cum conformity , including the moment when he began questioning his own sexuality ( when he opens up his first slade record , he finds a naked and green slade lying on a crimson blanket ) , and finally running away from home to be part of the london scene , finally resulting in leading a boring job in america .
haynes demonstrates that he 's quite the visual auteur , molding scenes that are like long heald breaths , such as a seemingly long sequence juxtaposing a slade / wild concert of them performing a brian eno cover , " baby 's on fire , " with scenes from a decadent drug party ; and the film 's most wow - inspiring sequence , the first concert scene of wild with his band , the ratttz , where mcgregor lets loose so much anarchic steam that his wild iggy - esuqe movements ( including stripping naked ) and screams that the film captures that perfect moment when one discovers a major talent , and another ( slade ) discovers his idle .
even the brief music videos , spoofs of bowie 's , have a rare visual flair that 's pure camp , and which would cause ken russell to drool .
the best sequence , though , may be the beginning , following the prelude , a sequence which acts as the middle ground for both the actual being of the movement and the post - movement era .
in it , stuart and his mates are going to the infamous slade concert where he fakes his own death , where he kills off his alter ego maxwell demon in what appears to be a real assasination , which brought about the end of the era in one swift fake bullet .
with brian eno 's famous " needle in the camel 's eye " playing in the background , the scene has a detached exhileration - the song does n't seem to be played in quite the same way the other songs are .
it has a distance that 's hard to put a finger on , and it seems to represent that all this is coming to a quick and sad ending , and when one sees slade in the dressing room before the show , docked in a silver frock with wings and blue hair , depressingly staring into the mirror , it comes off as a none - too - obvious prophecy of the finale in the beginning of the film .
this movie 's not so much about plot , but more about the way it is presented , making this one of those films which is classified as being " style over substance , " a statement which prompts many critics to line up for attack .
however , for the most part , the engaging part of this film is not the story but rather the way in which haynes creates this world , by using his sets , costumes , cinematography , and especially the music to play as characters in his film .
the music is especially notable .
the soundtrack , which is wall to wall , consists of old school glam rock tunes by the likes of brian eno , t - rex , and roxy music , as well as covers by slade 's band ( with vocals by thom yorke , and occasionally rhys meyers himself ) , and even newer music by shudder to think that sounds uncannily bowie - like .
the cast is rather impressive , but no one really walks away with the film , and no performances are extremely good .
although eddie izzard , as slade 's manager ( who challenges slade 's first manager to an arm - wrestling match to see who gets control of his career ) and michael feast as the first and tragic manager come off greatly , and collette and mcgregor have their moments , rhys meyers and bale are noticably sub - par , neither putting a lot of effort into their respective roles .
some of it is at fault with the actual construction of the film by haynes .
rhys meyers ' brian slade remains merely a metaphor for the glam rock era , dying when he turned into a retro - garbo , resorting to a life of salinger - ism , and found in the mid-70s to be lying around , sniffing coke off the ass of a party girl .
in fact , no one in this film is really seen as a person , rather than just as a symbol or composite of a type who thrived during the era .
bale 's character is an especially tough sell : bitter and depressed by flashbacks to his young adulthood , he 's not an extremely personal character , and his cliched experiences ( being hounded by the record store guys for buying a record put out by a " poof " ) never help us communicate with him .
nevertheless , rhys meyers and mcgregor have the excuses that their characters are not really characters but rather the results of an era that has left them , and others , bitter , part of which helps the film work , since this is a major piece of eye candy .
at the prime of the movie , they at least look the role of fashionable leaders - slade with his perpetually - changing , androgonys persona , and wild with his topless and unpredictable image , which clash and fuse into an unstable union .
their story - of how slade was so influenced by wild that he adapted it into a similar who - cares attitude crossed with camp - is engaging , without the personal background .
the story of stuart , though , is a tougher sell because he 's the everyman , and when you ca n't totally identify with the everyman , your story 's in slight trouble .
as a cultural rock piece , " velvet goldmine " is rather good , but it is merely good .
it never totally takes off , although it has moments where it absolutely flies
,
but then comes back down .
it 's really nothing more than
a bunch of really great moments , surrounded by material that could really be much better .
the beginning is captivating but slow , the middle is fantastic , and the ending is not only shallow but worse than that
, it drags ( the final half hour not only does it not bring the story to any real conclusion , it could probably stop at any point ) .
and did anyone really figure out what the mystery is that arthur unearths ?
it almost seems like there was no point in the entire investigation other than to unearth the past , which is commendable but
not totally so .
still , it does what the oliver stone pic " the doors " did n't do right , becoming very insightful to what happened , using the visual style to hit most of the right notes of contrast between what made the era so great to those who lived during it and
why after living through such an era that everything else seems half - assed ( i suppose the message is : " live life , but after you 've lived it , what else is the point when you 'll be forced to live with regretful memories ? " ) .
the really superb achievement of this film is that during its flashbacks , it successfully creates for the audience what it must have felt like to be in that era , but with the added perk of knowing the result of all that goes down .
[A]: P


[Q]: there 's a moment in schindler 's list when a number of jews are trudging through snow , clean and crisp , dark edges and frost on the ground .
one girl waltzes through , wearing a red dress that stings the eyes .
it is probably the finest moment through out the film .
when i first saw it i began to cry , though i could not say why .
this landscape is the setting of many small moments that add up to one big whole .
when one man is shot in the head we see blood oozing out onto the ground -- so black and murky , its almost pomegranate red .
at another time we follow a young boy as he runs , searching for a hiding spot before finally squeezing into a toilet -- which is already occupied .
like so ( citizen kane , fargo , the godfather , the godfather part ii , greed , ) many of the greatest american films , schindler 's list plays with the concepts of money , power , and soul .
but this is a movie about a man who does the right thing .
starkly emotional , and brutally powerful , schindler 's list strips away everything on the outset and leaves us ony feelings .
the following that it has gained is not suprising -- this is probably , thus far , the best film of the decade .
steven spielberg has always been a skilfull filmmaker -- his assured hand churned out both jurassic parks , jaws , the indiana jones films , and e .
t .
-- but it was n't until 1993 that we saw what a brilliant man he can be .
the product of his genuis is really something to see -- it can bring tears to your eyes just as it uplifts you .
throughout , we sense the deep control which he so masterfully spreads .
we watch oskar schindler ( liam neeson ) grow from an arrogant , self important man who hires jews only to save money into a moving figure , with a deep sense of pride and accomplishment .
the film requires much work , and can be a harrowing experience -- go expecting a quick entertainment
and you 'll be bitterly dissapointed .
it does reward the patient viewer .
this is a mature spielberg , and his deft hands shape an absoloute masterpiece .
this eqsuisite , beautiful film is a rare gem .
it does a good job of summarizing why i love movies .
it leaves one breathless , uplifted , and with much to think about .
afterwards you can reflect on individual images , visions , and people .
laconic , removed , schindler strides through the film a detached prescence who watches all , does much , and leaves feeling as if he could , should , have done more
then he did and was able to .
the change seems natural -- in the hands of a lesser filmmaker , it would be crude and would cheat the audience .
instead we are told a tale , told a story .
the film is punishing to watch , yes .
but anyone who allows themselves to get involved will experience a miracle , and a genuine masterpiece of a movie .
[A]:
P