instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
a common complaint amongst film critics is " why are n't there more literate scripts available ?
" quiz show gives signs of hope that the art of writing is n't dead in hollywood and that we need not only look to independent films for thoughtful content .
paul attanasio 's script takes what could have been a tepid thriller ( the quiz show scandals of the late 50s ) and delivers a telling parable about the emptiness of the post war american dream and the golden bubble that surrounds and protects tv networks and their sponsors .
the film is riddled with telling symbols
( e . g .
a ' 58 chrysler , a radio announcement of sputnik ) but is never heavy handed . deft direction by robert redford and keen performances by ralph fiennes , john turturro and rob morrow
dovetail perfectly with the carefully honed script .
redford departs from the usually overlight , " cable tv quality " sets and camera work so common in recent 20th century period pieces .
quiz show
perfectly captures the colors and textures of the eisenhower years .
although i was only 4 years old when the " twenty one " scandal broke , enough of the 50s icons survived throughout my childhood for me to recognize the authenticity of redford 's almost tangible palette .
from plastic covered furniture to carefully coifed contestants , the images ring true from that era of rampant consumerism , of a generation that had gone through 15 years of depression and world war without " disposable income , " before the manifestation of its american dream .
the film deftly weaves several themes together , from assimilation and exclusion of jews from " the good life , " to the lengths that a scion of a literary family will go to to match his father 's fame .
though the 50s audience that is " rocked " by this scandal may initially seem naive to us , they should appear all too familiar , with our current national passion for the rise and fall of icons like michael jackson or tonya harding .
charles van doren and herbie stemple were the overnight mega celebrities of their day .
the tv audience is almost a fourth main character , always at the center of the decisions being made on their behalf .
at the film 's end , the credits roll past slow motion footage of that same 50s tv audience , mindlessly laughing at some piece of fluff .
like the distorted mirror that captured a blurred swastika at the end of cabaret , this " mirror " may reflect an image we 're not all that comfortable with .
answer:
P


question:
godzilla is the ultimate culmination of the " who cares about plot " summer movie .
a loose remake of the 1954 " classic " japanese monster movie , godzilla , king of the monsters ( which is itself pretty thin in the story department ) , roland emmerich and dean devlin 's big - budget lizard - stomps - manhattan disaster flick has been written with the brain dead in mind .
the script is n't just " dumbed down , " it 's lobotomized .
godzilla lives and dies on special effects alone .
presumably , the primary target group for this film is teenage boys , the demographic most likely to shell out $ 7 repeatedly to see the same images of monster - instigated carnage .
that 's not to say that females and other age groups are immune to the special effects seduction ; they 're just not as readily susceptible .
this is the third straight movie in a row where emmerich and devlin have demonstrated that a mastery of computer - generated visuals is far more important for making money than the ability to write and direct for actors .
stargate was a financial success .
independence day was a runaway hit .
and , with godzilla already drowning in hype and merchandising tie - ins before it even opens , it 's virtually guaranteed at least $ 100 million .
nice numbers for a film that could have been penned by a not - too - precocious grade school kid .
godzilla is n't completely without merit , although it is close .
there 's a certain visceral thrill inherent in watching the giant lizard rip his way through manhattan ,
but it wears off quickly .
frankly
, while the special effects are competent , they 're not all that stunning .
there 's nothing new here
; it 's jurassic park meets aliens , with a little independence day thrown in for bad measure .
maybe it will require george lucas and his new star wars movie to take computer - generated visuals to the next level .
godzilla never really pushes the envelope , preferring to remain within a comfort zone .
the imagination of monster movies like king kong has been replaced by a crass , formulaic approach which disallows creativity .
( how disturbing is it to know that godzilla has been chosen to close the 51st cannes film festival ? ) worst of all , godzilla is n't even exciting .
with the possible exception of a mildly enjoyable car chase near the end , there is n't a sequence in this film that raises the pulse .
even the scenes with dozens of aircraft attacking the monster are so devoid of tension and suspense that they are yawn - provoking .
independence day may have been dumb , but it was full of " adrenaline moments " capable of getting the audience involved in the action .
in this aspect of its production , as in so many others , godzilla is lacking .
actually , part of the problem is that we 're never sure who we 're supposed to be rooting for : the green monster with an attitude or the paper - thin humans trying to stop him .
the plot , such as it is , can be summed up rather simply .
after sinking a few ships and leaving some footprints on tropical islands , godzilla shows up in the big apple .
he does some of the usual tourist things :
stops by madison square garden , visits the chrysler building , goes on a walk through central park , and takes the subway .
in the process , he knocks over a few buildings and steps on countless cabs , but he never has trouble with traffic jams .
on hand to stop him is an elite u.
s. army unit , led by a slightly less - arrogant - than - usual military man ( kevin dunn ) and a biologist named nick tatopoulos , who has a theory about godzilla .
in his opinion , the big guy is actually a lizard grown to enormous proportions as a result of the radiation given off by french atomic bomb tests in the south pacific .
in nick 's words , godzilla is " a mutated aberration ?
an incipient creature ?
the first of its kind .
"
as luck would have it , nick 's old girlfriend , audrey ( maria pitillo ) , is a reporter based at a new york tv station .
along with her cameraman friend , animal ( hank azaria ) , she decides to follow nick around as he trails godzilla .
then , just when the military has rejected nick 's theory about why godzilla is in new york , a member of the french secret service ( jean reno ) recruits him for a special assignment .
instead of stomping around tokyo this time , godzilla has chosen new york city .
unfortunately , manhattan has been destroyed so many times in recent disaster movies ( independence day , deep impact , armageddon ) that it 's becoming boring .
the whole tradition of monsters roaming around the city started with king kong , but the big ape was only about 30 feet tall .
he could climb the empire state building .
at ten times that height , godzilla would be more likely to knock it over .
godzilla contains a few lame attempts at humor .
there 's an ongoing feud between animal and his wife that plays like sit - com material , an unfunny and repetitive gag about how no one can pronounce nick 's last name properly , and a rather tame attack on film critics roger ebert and gene siskel .
both of the popular personalities have alter egos in the film : " ebert , " the mayor of new york , is played by michael lerner , and " gene " ( lorry goldman ) is his campaign manager .
ebert 's re - election slogan is , not surprisingly , " thumbs up for new york .
" the siskel / ebert stuff is amusing the first time it 's used , but , after a while , it grows tiresome .
and , although the " characters " do n't serve any real purpose , they keep popping up .
godzilla is saddled with an unimpressive cast .
this is largely because emmerich does n't want to risk a human performance upstaging his lizard .
that 's not to say that matthew broderick and jean reno are n't capable of good performances ( both have done their share of solid acting in the past ) , but they are n't a - list names .
then again , considering the quality of the writing , even pacino and deniro would have been hard- pressed to shine .
maria
pitillo ( dear god ) plays the love interest and hank azaria ( great expectations ) is on hand to present what is supposed to be comic relief .
ultimately , it does n't really matter what i ( or any other critic , for that matter ) have to say about the movie .
tristar has assumed that godzilla , like all self - proclaimed summer event motion pictures , is pretty much critic - proof .
it may also be word - of - mouth - proof .
those who want to see the movie will see it no matter what i write or their friends say .
so , when i go on record to assert that godzilla is one of the most idiotic blockbuster movies of all time , it 's like spitting into the wind .
emmerich and devlin are master illusionists , waving their wands and mesmerizing audiences with their smoke and mirrors .
it 's probably too much to hope that some day , movie - goers will wake up and realize that they 've been had .
answer:
N


question:
funny how your expectations can be defeated , and not in good ways .
the ghost and the darkness promised ( at least , it seemed to me to promise ) a hemingwayesque showdown between men and nature .
what it delivered was mystery science theater 3000-level material -- an inadvertently hilarious story that made me scream advice at the characters .
" get new jobs !
" was one line , if i remember correctly .
at the end of the 19th century , col .
patterson ( val kilmer , whose irish accent comes and goes like an african zephyr ) is an engineer who has been hired to build a british railway bridge across the tsavo river in uganda .
he is having immensely stereotypical problems : the natives are restless , his boss is a jerk , and now two man - eating lions are stalking the work camp and killing people off .
patterson tries to handle the situation himself , incompetently , and then turns to charles remington ( michael douglas ) , a hunter of world reknown ( or something like that ) .
the movie stacks the deck so heavily in favor of the lions , they should have gotten top billing and co - starred with siegfried and roy .
they are nigh - invulnerable , as one comic book put it , and this is of course just the excuse the movie needs to have one native after another stepping forth to solmenly recite lines about the power of nature .
give me a break .
the movie has n't got the wherewithal to even begin to exploit such ideas ; it 's just trying to find convenient ways to stall us .
even the lion hunts themselves are idiotic .
get this : remington 's big plan is to build a large scaffold - like structure in the middle of the savannah , sit on it , and wait for the lion to show up .
he does this , and then gets knocked off by a bird .
by the end of the movie , the blood vessels in my palm were all broken open from me pounding my forehead with my hand .
the acting is forgettable .
douglas does a good job of portraying a relatively cracked fellow , but it 's nothing he has n't done before .
kilmer looks like he wishes he were someone else , somewhere else , and the rest vanish into the cinematography .
the camera , by the way , sometimes behaves so stupidly
all by itself that most of the lion attacks are incoherent .
what did i expect from this movie ?
i dunno .
some real excitement , i suppose .
a sense that there were formidable forces on both sides of this equation .
no such luck .
i dug out my tattered copy of hemingway 's " the short happy life of francis macomber " and read that to get the taste of this movie out of my mind .
answer:

N