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

big courtroom thrillers have always captivated america .
o .
j . simpson , tom capano , the menendez brothers .
all these names are synonymous to americans and courtrooms .
and , of course , courtroom dramas are not a new topic to hollywood . whether it be john grisham 's thrilling novels or television 's famous dramas , the courtroom has always provided big bucks .
so when i rented a civil action , i was expecting the film to be like the rainmaker , a brilliant law film that kept viewers on the edge of their seat .
however , what i saw in a civil action was far different from what i expected , a major surprise , but
fortunately , a pleasant one .
john travolta always seems to come up big when you least expect it .
no one expected him to light up the screen in grease , nor in saturday night fever .
but , whenever he gets knocked down , he always seems to come back fighting .
a civil action is not john 's best performance , but a strong one that could rival any performance in 1998 .
travolta proves that a normal and believable performance can vault a film into oscar nominations .
his performance is not flashy , nor memorable , just solid . if he delivered the only solid performance , this film would still be average .
luckily , he has a strong supporting cast .
william h .
macy is probably one of the most underrated actors in hollywood .
he continues to deliver great performances one after the other , but he is still regarded as a secondary actor .
in a civil action , he delivers yet another great performance
as travolta 's paranoid and greedy accountant .
he is not a lovable character , but a character who stands out in your mind whenever you think of the film .
he is not one of the big time lawyers , just a measly accountant .
but , he delivers one of the best supporting roles of 1998 , but there is actually someone better in a civil action .
robert duvall is also an underrated actor .
he gets many leading roles , but is never heard when you hear of big box office draws like tom hanks , brad pitt and jim carrey .
duvall has a supporting role in this as a lawyer of the co - defendant .
duvall is magical in this role .
he is the wise teacher , who not only battles it out in the courtroom , but also manages to teach every major player a lesson , in his own twisted way .
in many non - comedic films , directors are always trying to find a way to implement a touch of comedy , to keep the audience on their toes .
unfortunately , they usually just key in on one character whose main objective is to be funny ( jar - jar binks , anyone ? ) .
however , this usually backfires because the character is never fully developed .
this is not the case in a civil action .
they have comedy coming from all sides . whether it be duvall 's inane questions or macy 's sharp anger , the laughs come in a steady pace .
granted , it 's not roll in the aisle funny , but it provides a nice addition to the film .
the plot is terrific- somewhat .
the setup is nice with the film actually starting with a victory in the courtroom .
then the case that will make or break jan ( travolta ) 's career rears its ugly head .
they find out the goldmine involved with the case and wind up taking it .
however , budgets soon flounder and jan finds himself in deep debt .
i will not spoil the rest , although i must speak of the one downside to the film .
the courtroom debates are great , but the actual problem they are fighting for is never fully explored .
it left me somewhat confused , although the rest of the film is terrific .
all in all , john travolta is back yet again in this great film .
his supporting cast , consisting of macy and duvall , turn in tremendous performances , which ease the load on travolta .
the film is smart , witty and thought provoking .
not only does it gauge in - court battles , but also the various tolls it can take on the major players .
a civil action provides everything a drama lover craves .
P

the reunion film is not an original idea in any way , shape , or form .
it 's been done throughout film history over and over again , and has become one of the many sub - genres , like the prep school sub - genre , the angst - filled teen sub - genre , and the slasher sub - genre .
what makes " peter 's friends
" so remarkable is not how it does n't follow the rules of this sub - genre , but how it follows it so well , and creates characters that i would n't mind hanging with .
what are the rules of the reunion sub - genre ?
well .
. .
. 1 .
you need a group of friends , most of them married or at least dating , and sometimes even married or dating eachother .
2 .
you need to have them brought back together over some sort of a crisis .
3 .
they are not to have spoken together much since they split apart .
4 .
the reunion has to come in intervals divisible by 10 . 5 .
they all have to be slightly to highly neurotic .
6 .
the reunion has to bring them together , seperate them with little crises , then bring them back together because , after all , they 're friends .
7 .
there has to be some sex or at least some making out either between the friends or with other people that are there or were invited .
8 .
eightly , they 're all unhappy or marginally so .
9 .
there 's some sort of sexual tension amongst some of them that 's built up over the years .
10 .
the friends are all wildly successful in the world of entertainment and the arts , sometimes internationally so .
11 .
the film is filled with nostalgic radio hits from the time when they were friends , sometimes causing them to get together in dance / song .
since it follows these rules so closely , it will probably be ( and has been ) coined off as just a " british ' big chill . '
" and in some ways it is .
both follow the rules , as i said , and both feature lots of bitching , big confessionals , and broken relationships .
but while " the big chill " was , at least to me , a tad too whiny and unsatisfying , " peter 's friends " hits its mark , making this film funny , dramatic , and poignant .
the friends of peter 's were all in the same theatre group back in ' 82 , performig wildly outrageous british acts for people far too stuck up to enjoy them
( the opening scene has them all dancing in tux tops and tutus ) .
after peter 's ( stephen fry ) wealthy father ( richard briers , hardly on screen enough to register , but oh well ) dies , leaving a giant mansion to him , he has to decide whether or not to keep it .
not sure what to do with it immeadiately , he decides to throw a giant reunion party , inviting back all his old chums .
of course , all or most of his chums follow the tenth rule .
andrew ( kenneth branagh , also directing here ) is an actor who 's unhappily married to a tv star , carol ( co - writer rita rudner ) .
maggie ( emma thompson )
is a successfuly publisher of self - help books , but looks like she needs them more than her customers , as she is lonely and unhappy .
roger and mary ( hugh laurie and imelda staunton , who were also married in " sense and sensibility " ) are married , and are the most successful creators of jingles in the uk , but have suffered a tragedy as one of their newly born twins has recently died .
and sarah ( alphonsia emmanuel ) is as promiscuous as ever , having a new boyfriend as of two weeks named brian ( tony slattery ) who 's married and wants a divorce because of her , giving her doubts .
as for peter , things seem okay . . .
the film features lots of inner - friend jokes , and even some old theatre anecdotes ( which i at least find a lot of fun in , as i 've done lots of theatre myself ) .
and there are big confessions , brawls between the friends , and by the end , almost everyone is unhappy , even though some have resolved their problems long before the end ( which i kinda dug ) .
the final twist would seem forced an anti - climactic , but for some reason , i felt the same way the rest of the friends did .
maybe it 's because the people in this film are so likable that i just wanted to join their clique .
that 's really what makes " peter 's friends
" so lovable
: the way you just want to hang with a group of friends who can be so dysfuntional sometimes , but when someone 's in crisis , can come together wonderfully for one another .
it 's when you have a giant crisis like this and people want to selflessly help you out instead of subtely pushing you away
that makes you realize you have true friends , and these people are true friends .
not to mention kenneth branagh is able to make the film seem nostalgic for the 80s
( a decade i grew up in , unfortunately ) without taking us outside of the 90s .
there are some 80s classics and anti - classics like tears for fears " everybody wants to rule the world , " but unfortunately no stupid / fun 80s songs ( i think if i ever did an 80s reunion film , i 'd put some crap go gos song on , or at least some good old " come on eileen " ) , but this is the british 80s we 're talking about .
oh well .
but anyway , the direction is pretty good , although nothing amazing .
branagh 's forte is really making shakespeare fresh and magical , but at least he 's very good with making a less ambiguous film like this .
the writing is good from rita rudner and martin bregman , with lots of good one - liners , and even some really bad but good puns ( to mock the fact that andrew lives in l .
a .
, peter , while cutting some logs , asks him is he has wood in l .
a . , and andrew says ,
" no ,
but we have hollywood
" - punishment like that ) .
the actors , as in most speaking movies , are better than their material , though , with some stand - out performances to the six friends , as well as the outsiders like slattery , rudner , and phyllida law as the old housekeeper of the peter 's mansion .
a little note should be made about hugh laurie 's performance , as he looks like he took some massive doses of prozac before doing this - i mean , i 've never seen him actually act this dramatically .
"
peter 's friends " is a really enjoyable film which makes people like me pine for some sort of future reunion , although i do n't know what kind i 'll have ( like most people , i do n't look forward to my high school reunion ) .
because of the way these friends are still able to maintain the same amount of care they have for one another and after such a long period of seperation , i just look forward to the day when i can have friends like that .
P

director david fincher has such an eye for detail which is very rare in hollywood these days ( terry gilliam comes to mind as another one ) .
film is one of the best art forms because not only can you tell a story , but you can use the camera to capture the smallest detail and have it mean something .
but most directors seem to go for action with the slightest ounce of a story .
so whenever a director uses the camera to its fullest potential , the film almost automatically deserves a good review .
and when they add a fascinating story to it , you have nearly perfect entertainment .
fincher 's the game is no exception to this .
the game is one of the most interesting and complex films to come out of hollywood in a long time .
fincher has n't made a film since " seven , " his box office and critical hit which defied expectations and became one of the best movies ever .
so it is about time he made another film .
and what a ride it is .
the game is n't quite as powerful as " seven , " but in some ways it is better .
overall , the game could have used a little more clarity , or a little more uncertainty .
it walks a line of insanity and reality , but it never goes either way until the very end .
the outcome is satisfying enough for the preceding events , and it makes a lot of sense once everything is set straight .
unfortunately , unlike " the usual suspects , " we are never given enough information to figure out for ourselves what is happening , whether it be true or false .
however , this also gives the film a frightening aspect which the game uses to the fullest extent .
the game is told completely from its main character 's point of view .
nicholas van orton ( michael douglas ) is a high - strung and isolated businessman .
he lives alone in his giant mansion , divorced from his wife elizabeth , and is celebrating his 48th birthday ; the same age at which his father committed suicide at , in the same mansion .
for his 48th birthday , conrad ( sean penn ) , the rebel of the family , gives nicholas a gift certificate to crs : consumer recreation services .
"
it will make your life fun again , " his brother promises .
as skeptical as nicholas is , he is somewhat intrigued , and annoyed by the lack of information -- something this businessman hates .
seeing a billboard in an office , he decides to visit the mysterious company .
jim feingold ( james rebhorn ) greets nicholas and guides him through the sign - up process , which consists of psych - tests , physicals , emotional responses , and other mind games .
"
each game is suited to each person 's emotional and psychological needs , " explains feingold .
one day , nicholas gets a call from crs and they explain that he failed the tests .
even more intrigued and now somewhat angered at the time he spent signing up , he starts asking around to see what people can tell him about the company .
what he does n't realize is that the game has already begun .
the phone call is just the first of many strange events to be thrown nicholas ' way .
how he finds out that he is involved has to be witnessed because it is amusing and fun and visually impressive .
the detail involved in fincher 's shots is incredible and almost requires a second viewing just to appreciate the effort that went into them .
with " seven , " fincher had almost every single shot mean something .
he also has the unique ability to make you look at exactly what he wants you to .
compared to " seven , " though , the game is light and comical .
because of this film 's sense of humor and self - awareness , nothing can be taken quite seriously .
so do n't try to make much sense of what goes on in the game , because it does n't want you to .
what does make sense is the final revelation -- when everything becomes apparent and clear .
if taken as it is , the game 's ending makes complete sense .
but if you try and critique every minute detail , then you get yourself into plot holes and incredibility .
perhaps that is the reason i docked the film .
while trying to remain realistic and plausible , the plot is too unbelievable to create any real tension on screen .
we do n't really care if douglas ' character lives or not because it is n't believable .
the ending requires you to have believed anything that has happened previously , but if you suspend disbelief and take the film as it is , you can accept the game as an emotionally and psycholically disturbing thriller .
michael douglas gives a terrific performance as nicholas .
douglas has played lonely businessmen before , but here he adds another level to his performance .
his character , who is normally level - headed and relies on facts , is forced to trust nobody .
can he believe the waitress he bumped into ?
what about his brother who got him involved in the game in the first place ?
douglas portrays this aspect of his character extremely well , and gives one of his best performances ( even better than his " falling down " persona ) .
the supporting cast is essential in this film , and casting was critical .
sean penn is always good , and he gives yet another credible performance as douglas ' brother .
deborah kara unger ( from " crash " ) is the waitress he bumps into , and her performance is extremely good
.
in fact , she almost steals the film from douglas .
james rebhorn portrays his character very well , and adds some confusion and desparation to douglas ' predicament .
another good performance comes from armin mueller - stahl ( from " shine " ) as the book editor .
but considering that douglas is in every single scene of the game , he not only commands this cast , but makes this distant and lonely character come to colorful life .
the game is rated r for language , violence , some gore , and some nudity and drugs .
what is essential for this film to work is the writing .
john brancato and michael ferris have woven a confusing and compelling screenplay with witty dialogue , and some very funny moments .
this screenplay will probably get an oscar nomination for best original screenplay because it does almost exactly the same thing the usual suspects ' did .
however , the visuals of the game are enough to make the viewer enjoy the vexing plot .
and if you can get yourself to believe everything occuring on the screen , you will be thoroughly entertained by one of this year 's best films .

P