instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
after the terminally bleak reservoir dogs and the brutally violent pulp fiction , jackie brown seems like something of a light - hearted departure for quentin tarantino .
it 's more of a ho - hum heist story with characters that speak the tarantino language .
luckily , his showcase of actors convert every morsel of possible enjoyment onto the screen , and jackie brown has no trouble entertaining the average viewer .
the story introduces us to a street - wise black woman named jackie brown ( pam grier ) , a flight attendant who smuggles money and drugs from one destination to another .
she works for a bottom - of - the - barrel airline and receives a minimal salary .
but one day , she is picked up by a pair of federal officials ( including michael keaton as the tough - nosed ray nicolet ) , and found with a handsome load of cash and a small bag of smuggled dope .
jackie is working for a weapons dealer named ordell ( samuel l . jackson ) , who pays her bail money but suspects her of tipping off the feds about their operation .
soon jackie and ordell are plotting a way to smuggle $ 500 , 000 through to them under nicolet 's nose , with the help of ordell 's oaf of a partner ( robert de niro ) and drugged - out lady friend ( bridget fonda ) .
also entering the picture is a bail - bondsman named max cherry ( robert forster ) , who takes a liking to jackie and agrees at one point to make the situation even more complicated ( how i wo n't say ) .
the big drop - off is undoubtedly the high point of jackie brown , in which numerous double - crosses take place and many clothing store bags ( filled with cash ) switch hands .
it 's unfortunate that tarantino takes his sweet time getting there , and does n't offer anything extremely compelling while doing so .
there are , as always , amusing exchanges between characters .
the funniest repartee is between de niro and fonda , as he becomes annoyed with her constant bickering while making fun of his iq , or lack thereof .
the most interesting relationship is between max and jackie .
a 56-year old white bail bondsman and a 44-year old black flight attendant with believable chemistry ?
you 've got to commend the acting .
jackie brown is a seriously dragged - out exercise enlivened by such fine acting .
the film clocks in at a lengthy 2 hours , 35 minutes .
tarantino 's talky style manages to hold your attention heavily , but there are more than a few dramatic lapses and crucial lulls in the storyline .
also , fans of the director should be prepared for a lighter side to appear .
jackie brown has four major shootings , and two of those take place mostly off - screen , so do n't be expecting a typical tarantino bloodbath .
you can expect frequent foul language , mostly coming way of ordell , who ( much to the dismay of spike lee ) uses the ` n ' word as part of his regular vocabulary .
the acting is the glue that holds everything together .
grier , making a sudden comeback from her reign in the 1970 's , is more than adequate for the title character .
in fact , she 's flat - out great . another comeback comes from former tv star robert forster , who does a grand job as max cherry , and is perfectly cast in doing so .
michael keaton makes his presence felt , albeit in small but dignified moments , and de niro is ideal in playing the lug - head who goes over the edge .
speaking of that , bridget fonda has relatively little to do as ordell 's bikini - clad beach babe , and yet she manages to look fairly occupied .
there 's not a single sign of misplaced dialogue or snubbed line throughout the entire movie .
which is a life - saver for mr .
tarantino .
the story barely holds together in the meantime , and we merely get a small tremor whenever there should be a defeaning earthquake .
but oh well .
jackie brown manages to be an enjoyable detour from quentin tarantino , even if it is lacking the glaring and original bite of his previous work .
let 's just hope that the director has n't gone soft on us .
answer:
P


question:
you always have to be careful with the first official studio release out of the gate each year .
they 're obviously films for which the studios have no great hopes ( having missed both the deadline for academy award eligibility and the big box - office holiday season ) .
combine that with howie long 's first starring action role , and
you 've got a doozy of a movie
that , while not as bad as it could have been , is n't a very good film .
howie stars as an ace smokejumper ( a firefighter who parachutes into forest fires unreachable from the ground ) .
in the slightly contrived opening scenes , we witness his heroism in action , as he , and his mentor ( played by scott glenn ) attempt to rescue a small girl and her dog from an oncoming forest fire .
william forsythe plays the bad guy , a mass murderer who has several million dollars tucked away to help fund his jailbreak .
he ( and five convict cohorts ) manages to get selected for firefighting duty when a woodland blaze just happens to ignite nearby .
his escape plan bets a lot on the laxity of the guards , but ( since there must be a movie )
luck is with him .
soon the now - escaped convicts are masquerading as canadian firefighters .
why canadian ? who knows , eh ? along the way they pick up a pretty birdwatcher ( suzy amis ) to be their hostage .
enter howie long .
he 's called in to help fight the blaze , and when he spots the group of " ground pounders " , apparently lost , he parachutes in to help .
when he discovers their true identity , he is the only thing standing between them and escape , and the only hope of help for the hostage .
long 's acting talents are above those of , say , steven seagal , but not by much .
although his delivery is mostly flat and wooden
, he 's a likeable hero , and there are some hints here and there that he may get better .
the script does n't help him out any , however .
all too often , it veers into the realm of the unintentionally funny .
the dialogue is strictly b - movie material , and the plotting relies too heavily on coincidences to be believable .
long 's co - stars are a mixed bag .
at least they 're all comfortable in their respective roles .
forsythe has the scenery - chewing villain down cold , down cold , and scott glenn is always enjoyable to watch , even when he does n't seem to be stretching his talents ( as is definitely the case here ) .
suzy amis plays peril pretty well , but is n't given much more to do .
some of the nature and wildfire shots are interesting , but many are rather bland .
you 'd think that the director , dean semler , a former cinematographer , would at least produce a film with interesting visuals .
that 's not the case .
there 's a lack of originality to nearly all the sequences .
. .
we 've seen this stuff before .
it 's not the most auspicious start to 1998 , but it could have been worse ( just think back to 1996 's debut , bio - dome ) .
however , after a month of oscar - caliber pictures , a movie like firestorm at least gives you some perspective on how good those movies really were .
in fact , there 's a good chance that some of them are still playing near you . . .
answer:
N


question:
mulholland drive did very well at the cannes film festival .
as you can see from the rating it did not do very well from me at the toronto international film festival .
it may not be clear to the viewer why i am so negative on this film for most of the running time
.
in fact it is an interesting mystery story told on the backdrop of the hollywood film industry .
toward the end of the film i think everything that has been built falls apart .
the film was to be a pilot for a tv series but writer and director david lynch did not sell his tv pilot
and i think he decided that he wanted to do something else with it .
something else is what he did .
the film opens with a woman ( played by laura harring ) about to be killed in a car when a car crash saves her life .
she crawls away from the accident with a concussion and finds herself a bungalow with an unlocked door to sleep .
meanwhile young vivacious betty ( naomi watts ) arrives in hollywood from canada .
she wants to build a career as an actress .
betty is a little surprised to find a woman sleeping in the borrowed bungalow .
she does not know who the woman is .
she is even more surprised when the woman awakes and does not herself know who she is .
they fix on a name rita for her , but are not sure if this right or not .
meanwhile local director adam kesher ( justin theroux ) has problems of his own .
he is trying to cast one actress for his new film and is getting pressure from the producers and from crime figures to cast someone else , cammie rhodes ( melissa george ) .
these two threads are joined by a third one in which there is a strange and comic murder that goes terribly wrong .
there is also a strange character called the cowboy ( monty montgomery ) adding to the confusion .
in what was probably intended for the television pilot the film opens with a great vibrancy showing dancing 60s style under the credits .
a lot of mulholland drive starts out fun .
lynch wants you to know he could make an enjoyable stylish film .
he just chooses not to .
as with any david lynch film there is strange material added for little reason .
there are no earthworms , but there are some decidedly strange david lynch touches .
the film is a little long for the subject matter .
toward the end it gets into some heavier violence and sex scenes , clearly not intended for the tv pilot .
unfortunately some of the most important comments to make about this film would be spoilers .
i will not mention them in the main body of the review but i give mulholland drive a 4 on the 0 to 10 scale and a low 0 on the -4 to +4 scale .
mulholland drive spoiler warning .
i have rated this film fairly low .
you should read this only after seeing the film or deciding that you will not see the film .
david lynch is in large part a dark satirist .
most of his work is done in familiar genres but in some way shows their underside .
in mulholland drive i think he is having a laugh at the expense of the crime film genre .
what he does with this film is
( are you sure you want to read this ? ) playing off the audience expectations that there will be a simple explanation for what is going on .
the first 80 % of the film he tells a simple multi - thread crime story with clues sprinkled throughout .
then suddenly at the end he turns the story on its ear with a large number of clues that appear that they should add up to something .
the audience expectation is that they will add up .
but he has given clues that are self - contradictory .
lynch wants the audience to argue about what they have seen afterward and come up with theories .
in fact , the pointers are noticeably contradictory and until i hear a better explanation , i think lynch is merely playing a joke .
there is a visual curiosity that was popular in the sixties .
mad magazine called it a poiuyt .
other sources called it a tri- pronged u - bar .
look at small portions of it and makes sense .
look at the whole figure and it does not .
this film is , in my estimation , the cinematic equivalent of a tri - pronged u - bar .
answer:

N