instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
the spy game is up .
you can thank charlie 's angels -- the movie -- for that .
when did banality and pandering become okay ?
just steal from hong kong , the matrix , and a kitschy tv show from the mid-1970s and that 's a movie ?
charlie 's angels is one of the worst examples of action film homogeneity and shameless duplicity in any film i 've seen in ages .
charlie 's angels is dumb .
just plain dumb .
as we all know , three of the hottest females on the planet -- drew barrymore , cameron diaz , and lucy liu -- are three super - agents working for the mysterious millionaire named charlie .
they all drive fast cars , look oh - so - fabulous even in the morning , and do n't seem to get a scratch even when fighting armed men , having buildings explode ten feet in front of them , or flying through the air in matrix slow - motion . and while the entourage spends 90 minutes romping around in cleavage - busting wetsuits , cleavage - busting waitress uniforms , and cleavage - busting wet t - shirts , they scarcely succeed in resembling so much as a group of annoying , drunk sorority girls , the kind who hit on everybody at a party .
the actual plot revolves around the ridiculous story of a millionaire computer engineer -- the great sam rockwell -- who gets kidnapped by a mysterious rival computer company .
of course , the rival wants control of his new personal identification system , which involves such latter - day buzzwords as gps , cellular tracking , and even mainframe .
the amazing crispin glover lends his acting chops as a crazed henchmen involved in all the nasty things that happen to the angels -- like battling each of them in many round - robin matrix rip - off ( again ) fight sequences and harboring a strange attraction to sliced - off locks of the angels ' hair .
the coup de grace is bill murray as bosley , serving as charlie 's manservant , or , more to the point , the angels ' pimp .
the rest of the movie comprises a revenge arc , enough costume changes to fill three productions of les miserables , carbon - copy fight sequences
that would lend credible evidence to a jackie chan and the wachowski brothers lawsuit for intellectual property theft , and the strange transformation of sam rockwell into mickey rourke 's long - lost brother .
charlie 's angels starts off with a bang and ends up being a soggy burrito left out overnight
.
nothing is difficult , plausible , or believable in any of the angels ' actions .
it feels like the matrix , mission : impossible 2 , and cleopatra jones and the casino of gold all rolled into one .
diaz is a knucklehead .
barrymore is the " dangerous one , " mean and tough and about as believable as katie holmes in the role .
liu is just . . .
lucy liu , looking good in a skin - tight black leather suit .
the list of movies from which charlie 's angels is directly lifted is equally astonishing .
the writers apparently ran the copier all night stealing scenes from armageddon , lethal weapon ii , all of jackie chan 's movies , the great escape , saturday night fever , revenge of the nerds , payback , darkman , dr .
no , the matrix ( as mentioned ) , and even tv 's friends .
it 's a shame , too , because one of the many screenwriters , john august , was at the helm of last year 's favorite , go .
then again , what can you expect from a director known solely as " mcg .
" there is no camp value in the film , no interesting main characters , no invigorating action scenes , no reason at all to waste your time
except to ogle the hot chicks and enjoy the performances of a few supporting players .
note to hollywood :
next time , let 's leave the tv shows on the tv .
answer:
N


question:
ironically , one of the themes of 200 cigarettes is that you should try to make the best of every moment in life .
unfortunately i will no longer be able to say that i lived every moment of my life to the fullest , because i spent 95 otherwise perfectly good minutes , watching this sad excuse for a movie .
actually smoking 200 cigarettes in the same 95 minutes could n't be any worse for you than it is to watch the movie .
not only is it a pathetically bad film overall , but 200 cigarettes actually has no redeeming qualities whatsoever .
the plot is scattered , thin and predictable ; the acting is monumentally bad ; and the style of film making resembles a home video .
it is december 31 , 1981 and the big party is at monica 's ( martha plimpton ) house .
but no one has arrived yet .
her 8 invited guests and several people that they have picked throughout the evening are wandering the streets of new york city in various groups .
some of them know each other through their common bond of having slept with monica , and some are total strangers .
but they all are to face their own personal neuroses before night 's end .
those who are invited are the ones that have the issues .
it is up to those who are n't to help them come to terms .
first there is eric ( brian mccardie ) who is a former boyfriend of monica 's and is just getting over the heartbreak of their relationship terminating prematurely because of his sexual performance , or lack thereof .
he is one of the most bland characters , in a film full of dullness , because he is so utterly predictable and stereotypical , a common trait of this poor production .
bridget ( nicole parker ) and caitlyn ( angela featherstone ) who are both extremely sensuous young women looking for someone to handle their desires on new year 's eve and tag along to the party with them .
they stumble across a nameless bartender ( ben affleck ) who is the one truly perfect character in a film of imperfections .
he is nether sexually deprived , nor uncertain about his future , as he is in law school .
his lack of flaws is both boring , unrealistic and painful to watch .
as bridget and caitlyn make passes at him you are neither entertained nor humored by the sub - standard comedy .
moving on , there is val ( christina ricci ) and stephie , ( gabby hoffman ) 2 teenage girls with fake identification and very different thoughts .
val is monica 's cousin and a true fan of the new york scene .
on the other hand , stephie is convinced that she is vulnerable to crime when the two venture out of their usual locations in search of the party that they just ca n't find .
paradoxically , it is 2 punks that they meet at a bar ( actually they attempt to flee from their presence , but are n't successful ) who guide them through their fears and force a level of relaxation upon their warped minds .
of all the insanely dull and uninteresting couples
, only one approaches a level of decency in both acting and plot .
wisely , the movie 's creators have put heavy emphasis on lucy ( courtney love ) and kevin ( paul rudd ) who are best friends and share the common bond of being dateless .
paul has just broken up with long time steady ellie ( janeane garofalo ) and is starting to come to terms with his loss when lucy informs him that ellie had been sleeping around during their relationship .
however , the only complexity to these two characters is that they seem to want to be more than friends , and that is reiterated when they attempt sexual intercourse in a bathroom stall on more than one occasion during this strange evening .
finally , there are the two worst performances and worst sub - plot of the film .
jack ( jay mohr ) and cindy ( kate hudson ) have been going out for a short period of time and jack
just learned that he took cindy 's virginity the night before .
while she attempts to play this down and be her usual self , he is a predictably self loathing male as he attempts to deal with a string of one night stands that includes the recently deflowered cindy .
very often , when a film is as putrid as this production , there will at least be a decent quality of film making to reveal an occasional moment of glory . however ,
this film has neither the quality of cinematography nor the moments of glory to be highlighted .
instead , what you get is a collection of rough and inconsistent cuts , bad continuity and inaccuracies .
first , and most noticeable is that as the film goes from one subplot to another , there is no apparent order that it follows , and it is also weekened by unnecessarily edgy edits from scene to scene and shot to shot .
at other times , objects seem to get up and move and hairstyles and costumes change from shot to shot .
there are also at least 4 scenes in a taxi cab that go from start to finish .
not in a single one of them does anybody pay the driver .
and yet , no matter how miserable this film may be , and no matter how poor the acting is all around , there was a ray of a hope for these many bad plots .
perhaps , if the makers had just decided to concentrate on one or two or , perhaps , even three , there might have been the time and opportunity for some character development , or quality acting , or even a decent plot payoff at the end .
but it did n't happen that way .
the cast of quality name actors was forced into roles that not even one of them could convert into a mediocre performance , and every story line crashed and burned quicker than it takes for the ball to drop at midnight .
answer:
N


question:
it 's a curious thing - i 've found that when willis is not called on to carry the whole movie , he 's much better and so is the movie .
even though , in the sixth sense he is the " name " , he does n't have the pivotal role .
that honour goes to haley osment who plays cole sear ( cute pun , seer ) a 9 year old boy who can see ghosts .
if osment was cute or precious , the director going for the maudlin , this would be nothing more than a movie - of - the - week , thankfully , osment is not only better than that , but in some instances , blows everyone else off the screen in a bravura performance .
we get to see his fears , vulnerabilities , strengths and intelligence which makes the sixth sense one of the best movies i 've seen this year .
the whole cast matches him in quality , with willis giving a fairly low key performance that matches the subject matter .
one thing about this movie , its target .
this is n't a sfxfest like the haunting or a gorefest , this is more what i 'd call a supernatural drama , more interested in characters than in dazzling you with makeup .
one caveat :
there 's a lovely twist in the movie , something like the usual suspects , where you end up replaying the movie in your head rethinking what you have just seen .
i was extremely lucky to see it as a sneak preview in toronto , before any hype or critical reviews were out , so i went in with no biases .
if anyone want to talk to about the movie before you see it , do n't let them .
let the director explain on his own pace and you 'll enjoy the movie vastly more .
answer:

P