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

plot : a separated , glamorous , hollywood couple must pretend to reunite for a press junket of the last movie that they ever shot together .
kewl . . .
now
i only wish that i could pretend never to have seen this movie . . .
critique : trite , unfunny , boring and a waste of everyone 's talent .
how a premise with such zest and bite can turn into a movie that does n't feature any chemistry , any real laughs , any surprises or any spice is beyond me .
how julia roberts is used solely as a " puppy dog " character , puttering around in the background while we endure the complete bitchiness of zeta - jones ' character , who is not one bit funny or romantic
( two ideal ingredients in a " romantic comedy " ) , is also beyond me .
and why they chose john cusack , a great , quirky actor in his own right , to play
the most bland , uninteresting and unfetching character ( with zero chemistry with either of his leads ) is further more , beyond me .
and to anybody who decided that this project was " funny " enough to greenlight featuring the talents mentioned above , along with billy crystal , christopher walker , seth green and stanley tucci .
. .
well , what can i say .
. .
i just do n't have the words .
so is this the worst movie that i 've seen all year ?
no .
but it definitely sucks
and it 's basically because . . .
well , it 's just not funny .
and for the record , allow me to state a few more problems with it .
it starts off slow , it 's got no energy , it does n't engage you with any of its characters
( julia barely gets somewhat interesting in the film , everyone else . . .
lame ! ) , it utilizes way too many flashbacks to move the story forward , it 's utterly predictable , standard , routine , see - through and uninteresting as a plot and it just sits there on the screen , big and ugly , waiting . . .
waiting for you to laugh or find something in it that is amusing .
and then hank azaria shows up . . .
aaaaaah , the film 's savior ( mind you , some might be offended by his exaggeration of a stereotype , but that 's another story altogether ) .
but when an experienced " voice " actor upstages all of the main stars in a summer " blockbuster " romantic comedy with an over - the - top antonio banderas accent , damn dude . . .
your film 's in trouble ! ! rent this movie on video just to see what went wrong yourself .
the references to ricky ricardo and senor wences
( huh ! ? ) , the idio - plot points like when one of the characters goes on the roof to stretch his arms out and relax , but everyone believes that he 's going to kill himself ( hardy - har - har ) and the cheap way of getting the audience to leave the theater laughing by bringing back a ball - sniffing dog that has no place being in the location at the end of the movie , well .
. .
i could go on .
but i wo n't because i do still respect all of the actors in this film and actually did laugh at azaria , green and tucci 's antics from time to time ( ironic , eh .
. .
what about the leads , dammit ! )
and liked the premise behind the film ( before i saw the finished product , of course ) .
a dud all the way around .
btw , all the talk about this film was that julia roberts was to be in a fat suit for one scene
( her character is supposed to have lost 60 pounds ) , so when the scene finally came , i did get a little excited about what it might look like and then . . .
well , it basically just looked like julia roberts in a fat suit ! ugh .
i think i 'm gon na start drinking again after this lame - ass movie .
c'mon hollywood , enough with the crud !
where 's joblo coming from ?
beautiful ( 1/10 ) - my best friend 's wedding ( 7/10 ) - notting hill ( 5/10 ) - pretty woman ( 7/10 ) -runaway bride ( 5/10 ) - someone like you ( 4/10 ) - wedding planner ( 3/10 ) - when harry met sally ( 10/10 )
- you 've got mail ( 4/10 )
N

at the outset of swordfish , john travolta 's gabriel shear is pontificating about the status of american cinema today .
basically , he says , it boils down to a lack of imagination among the majority of writers .
how ironic , as travolta seems to be describing his latest venture .
swordfish is loud , violent and amoral .
it has the audacity to justify murder and mayhem in the name of sustaining our way of life .
and how does travolta 's gabriel plan to do this ?
by robbing billions from his own government and using the funds to out - terrorize terrorists .
swordfish is a very cynical movie .
it relies on an audience 's perception of our leaders as ineffectual and duplicitous and on terrorists as non - human , faceless entities not worthy of compassion or consideration .
the movie 's plot is preposterous with enough illogical leaps that if the film ever slowed down , you 'd actually see how ridiculous it all is
.
this is a live - action road runner cartoon , moving so quickly that it 's over before you can catch your breath to ask any reasonable questions .
the storyline revolves around super hacker stanley jobson ( hugh jackman ) , recruited by gabriel to crack the government 's computer codes so gabriel can gather billions for his anti - terrorist campaign .
talk about whacked - out patriotism .
my objections to swordfish are many .
the body count is high , but that is expected in a movie of this sort .
it 's becoming a bore watching anonymous soldiers , police officers and government agents blown to bits .
another example is the family dynamics between stanley , his 10-year - old daughter and his ex - wife .
stanley , though having served time in prison for hacking , is shown as a loving and caring father , forbidden by his ex to see his little girl .
audience animosity is immediately created for his former spouse by showing her as a drinker and smoker who also sometimes stars in her new husband 's adult films .
thus when she is found murdered late in the movie , neither stanley nor his daughter are allowed any time to grieve .
in fact , subconsciously , many in the audience are probably glad she was killed .
then there is the sequence involving one of gabriel 's henchman holding a gun to the head of stanley 's daughter to coerce the hacker to download the key computer program for gabriel .
children as pawns have become a most unwelcome clich ?
in recent films .
there is enough violence in the real world involving children without having to make them on - screen victims as well .
yea
, it 's only make believe , but that does n't mean you have to tolerate it
.
travolta is cool , deadly charming and flamboyant as the near - crazy gabriel .
his character is reminiscent of his villainous characterizations in broken arrow and face / off .
jackman looks dour through most of the proceedings .
his only moment of any depth comes when he finally is able to create the worm to get inside the government database .
his sense of joy and accomplishment is one any computer whiz can appreciate .
halle berry is decorative and lovely as gabriel 's assistant , while don cheadle is given little to do as the head fbi agent hunting gabriel .
swordfish plays like a comic book with a larger - than - life character in gabriel .
viewers align themselves with him despite their uncertainty if he is hero or villain .
and maybe that is the movie 's underlying flaw : there is no real hero to speak of , only those doing their upmost to survive .
and that is not enough .
this is one swordfish that should have been thrown back in the water .
N

the swooping shots across darkened rooftops suggest a very tim burton movie , but , alas , no caped crusader descends to save * this * film
.
instead , it 's a skeletal housemaid ( julia roberts ) who must bear witness to this unfortunate retelling of " dr .
jekyll and mr .
hyde .
" for a few , fleeting , maddening moments , director stephen frears ( dangerous liaisons ) gets everything
just right-- the tone , the colors , the characters ; all the ingredients to make a most - powerful potion out of valerie martin 's best - selling novel .
yet it fizzles too quickly ; the volatile mixture losing potency from the very first scene .
casting is a large part of the problem .
the story all but collap- ses around ms .
roberts--
she does n't have the range for this kind of drama .
her accent also comes and goes , though it 's nowhere near as glaring as the total lack of chemistry between her and co - star john malkovich .
( he looks the same in both of his roles-- an incredible fact that 's missed by everyone in the story ! )
the very british supporting cast-- including michael gambon and george cole-- gives credibility to the smaller parts .
glenn close also appears as a madam that the good doctor calls upon .
her performance is as close to intentional camp as the movie ever gets and-- as a bonus-- offers a likely peek at her upcoming cruella de ville in the live - action 101 dalmantions .
the biggest botch in mary reilly is suspense : there is none .
no terror , no tension ; nothing .
without any weight , wit , or wonder to propel the story , the viewer is left with little more to do than pay attention to the period detail , a few buckets of blood , and stuart craig 's fabulously dreary production design .
all of which gets old after about an hour , at which point i recommend leaving .
( the pacing in the second - half is especially abominable .
if you * do * stick it through , your sole reward is a half - hokey special effect depicting the infamous transformation . )
mr .
frears reportedly recut his film several times , missing several release dates in the process .
( obviously , no one advised him to throw up his hands and just turn the whole damned thing over to mel brooks .
blucher ! )
mary reilly is the second robert louis stevenson story of the month , after muppet treasure island .
perhaps mr .
frears should consult with brian henson on future projects .
i daresay that
even ms .
piggy is a better choice for a certain roles than julia roberts .
and she does have a great chop !

N