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

[Q]: there 's a thin line between satire and controversy , and mike nichols ( the birdcage , wolf ) has directed a sharp and very honest look at a us presidential election .
based on the book written by " anonymous " ( actually former " newsweek " writer joe klein ) , john travolta plays governor jack stanton .
but he does n't actually play stanton .
he plays bill clinton ; just the same as emma thompson no doubt plays the first lady and billy bob thorton is the campaign manipulator james carville ( although the credits will of course say otherwise ) .
the film is taken from the perspective of henry burton ( adrian lester ) , a morally correct and somewhat hesitant new advisor to stanton .
he searches for justice and dignity in the ugliest possible situations , and whether it be keeping the history of his boss ' pants under wraps or contemplating digging up dirt on another politician , he approaches his work with a keen desire to skillfully serve his country and his fellow workers .
richard jemmons ( billy bob thorton ) and daisy green ( maura tierney ) team up with henry as the would - be president 's advisors , and hire lesbian veteran libby holden ( kathy bates ) as the campaign 's eccentric " tougher than dirt " incriminator .
together they face all sorts of sexual allegations , the irritatingly discourteous media and other witty politicians in the election race .
in its satire and controversy , primary colors is a similar film to wag the dog : they both are not afraid to wipe their noses in the nitty - gritty and take a bold look at something that will never has honesty as a virtue .
but whereas wag showed us how much affect a few people can have on the media , primary colors is much more concerned with fleshing out it 's characters , letting us understand what they want and why , and making us truly appreciate the humanity and rectitude that they graciously represent .
seeing john travolta play bill clinton
so confidently and justly is enough to make the film more than worth a look . and the rest of the cast also make
superb performances - adrian lester sharply portrays the intellect of henry whilst kathy bates is perfect as the robust and energetic libby holden .
at occasions , you ca n't help but feel that these terrific characters are going to waste .
there are long slabs of time where john travolta ( unquestionably the most interesting to watch ) is missed from the screen ; and since it is awkwardly structured as henry 's story we are often forced to watch scenes that perhaps are not so necessary to the central plot - or even the point of the film .
having said that , make no mistake - primary colors is always enjoyable to watch
.
but frequently we have to ask ourselves - exactly what are we watching ?
most of the first half of its duration is a lightheaded look at melodramatic confrontations that seem so genuine we can not help but laugh , but the way primary colors chooses to finish tackles aspects that are very contrary , and almost unsuitable , to the rest of the film .
but as i mentioned before , there is a thin line between satire and controversy - and for the most part , primary colors delivers an entertaining indulgence of political matters combined with a far - from - overpowering look at winning the public 's opinion .
although at occasions the film may jump around a little too freely , focus is never lost on how important and vulnerable the subject matter really is .
thankfully , it is clear to make the distinction on what is entertaining movie cosmetics and what is a provocative documentation of something
so really it 's scary .
[A]: P


[Q]: plot : a rich guy who does n't believe in love , orders a mail - order bride for himself .
that very evening , the couple is married and fall madly in love soon thereafter .
but what 's this ?
one of them might not be the person they are pretending to be ?
wow . . .
a sin , indeed .
critique : easily
one of the worst movies that i 've seen all year .
too long , too boring , too predictable and too ridiculous for anyone interested in watching a good movie .
what the hell were they thinking when they made this thing ?
( it 's no wonder that the film has been sitting on the racks for about a year ) this felt like a really bad tv movie of the week , with some nudity stuffed in from time to time , just to wake up the audience .
have you ever switched channels and fallen upon one of those ridiculously melodramatic tv movies , one that you just could n't help but switch back to from time to time , just to make sure that it was n't part of some sick joke ?
well , this movie is exactly like that , only it is n't a joke , it is n't on tv
and you are asked to pay money to see it ! !
i say again . . .
what the shite were they thinking ?
okay , so where do i start ?
first of all , the trailer of this film gives away the movie 's main plot twist , the betrayal .
so for the first half hour of the film , you 're basically just sitting there , watching these two " lovers " go through the motions until the " betrayal " occurs .
whoopee , big surprise .
second of all , angelina jolie is horribly miscast in this part .
why ?
well , it 's like this : not for one second
do you ever believe that she is not a nasty backstabbing woman !
i mean , it 's like all of those people who complained about jack nicholson being psycho from the start of the shining , well , the same goes here .
every look in jolie 's eyes screams " psycho " !
then of course , you have the case of the " patsy " husband , a man who just ca n't seem to figure out anything in time .
i mean . . .
how boring is that for the audience ?
you 're watching this guy screw up time after time after time , and somehow , we 're supposed to feel sorry or care about this dude .
no , thanks !
and if we do n't care about him , and we really do n't care about her ( she 's a beeyatch and as confused as we are about her actual motivations in the film ) , who the hell are we supposed to care about in this film ?
well , i 'll tell you .
the only thing that i was worrying about the whole way through this picture was whether or not i 'd actually fall asleep before the end credits rolled .
no suspense , no chemistry between the leads , no real love or passion , no sense of surprise , plenty of plot holes for everyone and an extra moronic ending
.
so why am i even giving this film a rating of three points ?
well , it 's actually pretty simple .
i liked the locations in the movie and the groovy score , but my primary reason for slipping three notches onto this bedpost is for the gratuitous shots of jolie 's boobies ( that 's two points right there ! )
and another one for antonio 's ass ( hairless , just for the record ) .
everything else in this movie was pointless , boring and just plain stupid .
try imagining a soft - porn movie .
. .
but without the plot !
that 's pretty much what you 've got here .
a low point in the careers of both stars .
oops , i almost forgot to mention the crappy dialogue . .
.
god
oh mighty . .
. make it stop ! !
where 's joblo coming from ?
american psycho ( 9/10 ) - cruel intentions ( 8/10 ) - eyes wide shut ( 6/10 ) - fatal attraction ( 8/10 ) -
playing by heart ( 7/10 ) - under suspicion ( 7/10 ) - what lies beneath ( 8/10 ) - what women want ( 4/10 ) - whipped ( 7/10 )
[A]: N


[Q]: we all know the fate of " child 's play , " which is the same for almost any film these days that does marginally well financially : sequel hell .
with the newest installment in the quasi - popular series currently out ( that would be " bride of chucky " - and it grossed 11 million in its opening weekend , which i think is the sign of the apocalypse number five )
, it 's kinda fun to go back and see how it all began rougly ten years ago with the original , a task which is a retread for some , and for others ( namely myself ) a chance to see what all the fuss was about .
alas , the original " child 's play " actually is n't that bad .
even seeing it in the tiny , claustrophobic , and mechanically - challenged theatre at my college was n't the horribly dull experience i thought it would be , not just because of the nicely rowdy crowd ( which you almost need to watch a film like this - and if you do n't believe me , try and watch this flick by yourself one day ) , but because as a whole , this is n't a bad movie .
it 's not great , but it does have two things that many horror films like this one do n't have : 1 )
a rather nifty premise , and 2 ) a sense of humor , both which save this from horror hell , which is precisely where , say , " i know what you did last summer " has recently gone .
the premise of " child 's play " is that a serial killer named charles lee ray ( brad douriff ) is shot and almost killed by a chicago hard - boiled detective ( chris surrandon - see what happens to some oscar nominees ? ) , and before he dies , utters a voodoo chant that sends his soul directly into a kid 's doll called chucky , a doll which has got to be the scariest - looking kid 's doll i 've ever seen .
the next day , a bum who 's stolen it sells it to single - mother karen barclay ( catherine hicks ) , who then gives it to her young son andy ( alex vincent ) for his birthday .
of course chucky begins talking to the kid and trying to find a way to get out of the doll , but certain twists come up .
like the guy he learned voodoo from reveals to him that the only way to break the curse is to take over the body of the first person he told he was inside the doll , that being andy .
and soon enough , chucky is killing people either for revenge or for what seems like fun , and people are discovering that chucky is n't just a kiddie doll one by one .
the idea is a neat one , ripe for lots of comic terror , and luckily it utlizes a lot of that .
it plays with an idea stolen from a classic looney toons short that when someone knows that chucky is alive , they tell people about it , but when he tries to prove themselves , chucky does nothing , and everyone thinks they 're crazy .
it plays with this , as well as the whole child - like thought that dolls and toys come to life , and even manages to cram in a couple really frightening moments .
even if there 's an entire sequence devoted to cliches ( a woman alone in a house hears a noise , goes to investigate it , and finds nothing , but wait for the kicker a second later ! ) , there 's also a harrowing car ride with chucky trying to knife the detective from the back seat , and then trying to attack him when the car finally crashes , leaving the viewer with at least rather visceral exprience .
the ending is rather fun , as well , albeit a tad too drawn - out ( about four different endings , maybe five ) , and the characters are more intelligent than the average horror film line - up , making them easier to sympathize with . if there 's one horrible thing about many horror films , it 's that the protagonists are morons who you ca n't help but shout obscenities at , and for the most part , " child 's play " steers away from that .
and most of all , the chucky character is a good one , not just because he provides instant comic relief ( look !
that doll 's moving on its own ! ) , but because he 's a generally scary character .
if there 's anything really wrong with " child 's play , " it 's that it 's too trite and has too less self esteem .
at almost 90 minutes , " child 's play " features way too less to be a real classic of horror .
it throws itself into a simple three act set - up that renders it quick and almost forgettable if it were n't for the fact that the film deals with a psychotic doll .
if the film had more confidence in what it was presenting , it would really push the envelope and become even more than just a short bit of horror escapism , which is precisely why this kind of film is only memorable as a cheap little horor film . . . which is n't necessarily a bad thing .
as such , " child 's play " is content to be just the short , typical horror film , but saves itself via a sense of humor and a nice quasi - campy feel that makes it much more enjoyable than the average short , typical horror film .
[A]:
P