instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
as we see the terrible events that unfold before our eyes in the middle east at the moment , hollywood does n't loose the oppertunity to get involved , by telling stories and expressing opinions .
this film centers on a relationship forged throughout the adult lifetimes of two marine colonels , hays hodges ( tommy lee jones ) and terry childers ( samuel l . jackson ) .
they fought side by side in vietnam , where childers saved hodges ' life by shooting an unarmed pow .
that 's against the rules of war but understandable , in this story anyway , under the specific circumstances .
certainly hodges is not complaining .
years pass .
hodges , whose wounds make him unfit for action , gets a law degree and becomes a marine lawyer .
childers , is now a respected and much - decorated hero that has served his country with his life and sould .
because of his excellent record , childers is sent to yemen to rescue the american ambassador ( ben kingsley ) , cowering in the embassy under assault from violent demonstrators and snipers blasting from rooftops .
childers does what he has to do : evacuate the family and protect the men under his command .
after three marines die and the colonel thinks he sees ground fire , he orders his troops to shoot into the firing crowd .
more than 80 yemeni men , women , and children are mowed down .
childers is immediately accused of ordering his men to fire on a crowd and murder of unarmed civilians .
he persuades his old friend hodges to represent him in the courtroom drama that occupies the second half of the film .
did childers violate authorized u . s .
military rules of engagement ?
or are there simply no rules in war ?
the answers to these stereotypical questions are obvious , but the inconsistent plot immediately raises all sorts of other questions .
the murder of 83 " innocent civilians " has to result into something greater than a simple trial in the u . s .
where is the accusations from the arab leaders ?
where is the u . n . ?
the film ends without even telling the most interesting story : what happens on the international arena ?
this film ( in a way akin to films such as " a few good men " ) has already been accused of breaking the rules of morality and ethics and even of racism .
these accusations are pretty heavy , but also unfair .
what director william friedklin truly broke was the rules of decent filmmaking
. one of the earliest apparent problems with ' rules of engagement ' is its lack of credibility .
the entire operation in yemen may remind us about what happens in the middle east right now , but is overdone , contrived and unrealistic - as if a chain of events had to happen in a particular manner in order for the plot to proceed .
a lot of it is so cheesy that no one could possibly accept it as reality .
that is precisely why it 's not offensive .
it is completely unobjective .
many stories are started and never finished .
many questions are asked , but never answered .
a lot of parallels are referring to nothing .
it seems that neither the director , producers or the screenwriter can make up their minds about the contents of their film .
is it about arab mentality ?
america 's foreign policies ?
america 's role in the world ?
corruption in the higher circles ?
it goes on and on .
it consists of countless stories , but not a definable plot .
it tries to be everything for everyone and ends up being nothing for no one .
i think that it is ironic , because director william friedkin 's probably most acclaimed film was " the exorcist " which had a silly story , but became a rather effective film .
in this case you have a strong story with many possibilities and the result is a silly film .
though several scenes bare the mark of professionalism ( such as the impressive battle scenes ) , his latest film does simply not engage .
i believe that friedklin is a director that is absolutely depended on great scripts and talented producers in order to succeed .
it 's obvious that he has neither and the result is therefore a catastrophe .
the characters feel designed , unreal , merely shadows , with no life outside the conflict .
even the actors can not save this film from going under .
though both jackson and jones act admirably , with performances that are as good as you get with a script like this , it is not something that these great actors can boast of .
they have roles that they could play blindfolded with their hand on the back .
jackson is gray and jones uninteresting .
the rest of the cast , including ben kingsly , blair underwood and guy pearce are simply waiting for their paychecks .
the time has come for the verdict .
on the charges of complete lack of objectivity , i find this film guilty .
on the charges of breaking the rules of reasonable filmmaking , i find it guilty .
but on the charges of racism i find this film not guilty , because of it 's inconclusive and often silly plot
that lacks objectivity everywhere , not only when concerning the arab population .
i must admit that the film is dangerously near the line of being racially offensive and i do think that screenwriter stephen gaghan went a bit too far , portraying the yemeni people almost as stereotypical hollywood bad - guys .
this is very sad , since in a time like this it is crucial to not lose objectivity and proclaim the truth .
however , it is absolutely necessary to remember that the muslim terrorists are responsible for most of the terrorist activity in and outside the united states .
and that it 's not a coincidence that u . s .
residents in the middle east , including yemen are on constant maximum alert .
answer:
N


question:
" desperate measures " was something i was excited about seeing back when it was originally scheduled to be released : summer ' 97 . for some reason , it was delayed until hollywood 's traditional dumping ground : january .
now that it 's out , i see no real reason for that delay , as it 's a simple yet highly entertaining film .
michael keaton stars as a maniacial murderer who 's bone marrow can save the life of the dying son of a san francisco police detective ( garcia ) .
keaton agrees to the transplant , only so he can attempt escape .
he succeeds , in a plan that of course could only work in the movies .
the police force is now trying to kill keaton , while garcia is working against them trying to keep keaton alive in order to save his son .
the film definately has it 's flaws .
the plot is strictly tv movie of the week fare , but the acting and direction certainly boost it far above that status .
also , after keaton 's escape , garcia 's captain barks at him " how many men have to die to save your kid 's life ? " which the film treats as such an evil and insignificant remark .
the thing is , it 's a vaild point .
how many people have to be needlessly crippled , burned , and killed just to save this one child ?
what 's the greater good here ?
many lives or one life ?
if movies really had guts nowadays , i would have loved to have seen this movie come down to a final choice for garcia 's character .
place him in a situation where he knows that he has to kill keaton because keaton is about to kill someone else .
alas , movies these days generally have no such ambition to pull the audience 's strings in ways which might make the uncomfortable .
despite a few silly moments ( and one or two really stupid ones ) , the good things about " desperate measures " outnumber the bad .
the main highlight would be keaton 's performance .
the character could have easily been an overacting , scene chewing freak , but keaton underplays it nicely .
he 's not as menacing as he was in " pacific heights " or even as menacing as he was in " batman
" ( yes kids , batman used to be a dark character ) , but you certainly get the idea that he 's evil .
even the final scene of the film , which normally i would just hate , seems strangely appropriate for this film .
so much so that i did n't mind it in the slightest . and another bonus : the film takes place in san francisco , which usually means a car chase on those hills that you 've seen a billion times before .
and for a moment , it looked as though it was about to happen .
but it does n't ,
and that 's creative .
[ r ]
answer:
P


question:
i had an epiphany today .
it occurred to me while i was watching " house on haunted hill .
"
it is as follows : if a trailer makes the film it 's advertising look like a trashy , stupid movie , well guess what ?
chances are , there * is * truth in advertising .
too bad i did n't trust my own instincts when something - or - the - other possessed me to see this movie .
i blame it on my sudden craving for a scare and my anticipation of " sleepy hollow .
" that and " dogma " started too late in the afternoon for my schedule .
an hour of " angel " or " buffy " is scarier than this doozy
that tries to be scary and shtick but falls flat on its face .
i wish i 'd seen it when it was halloween .
at least i would have been forgiving .
hey , tis the season .
the movie was scary ( albeit very confusing , dizzying , and nauseating ) at first , but soon the horror got repetitive and downright laughable because the film obviously was n't going anywhere .
now i truly appreciate films like " scream , " " halloween , " or any old hitchcock film where the scariness stems from situations that are at least somewhat realistic .
that 's what spooks people out , the fact that it could happen to them or someone they know .
there has to be a logical precedent for the situations they want to scare us with .
sure , utterly unpredictable is good , too , but that 's different from utterly nonsensical .
hohh ( house on haunted hill ) , on the other hand .
. .
well let 's just say i about fell off my chair laughing when they oh - so - cleverly revealed that everyone who got invited to the party was related to the psycho doctors who died in the house a couple of decades ago .
riiiiight .
y'know , that just sends chills down my spine .
yeah .
just like i wet my pants when they told me the house is evil .
ooooooo .
hint : blood and guts only work a few times .
sooner or later people start to tell themselves that it 's just ketchup and props and you 've got to come up with something better than that .
there were just too many things in this movie that we 've all seen before ; from the inevitable " plot developments " of strangers unwittingly trapped together ; strangers turning against each other ; the evil manifesting itself ; the dead coming back for a last scare .
each was more predictable than the last .
why did n't these fools just stay together in one place anyways ?
sheesh .
was i grossed out ?
yes .
did i get spooked a few times ?
yes .
but why ?
i get really disturbed when there is no why .
when there were n't random scares that were there for no other reason than for the visual effect ( which was n't that good either , trust me ) and the scare , the film was filled with drab , laughable dialogue .
the characters were incredibly flat and cliched . not to mention downright annoying .
you 've got a bunch of people going nowhere in their lives ; of course they 're dumb enough to go to a party some stranger invited them to provided they win a million dollars if they survive the night .
jeez , i thought no one fell for those " you may already be a winner " things anymore .
and of course , all three gals are babes .
i wonder how on earth the geoffrey rush of " shine " ended up in this movie .
keep that up , geoff , and you 'll qualify for the next batman venture .
the only single person i enjoyed was chris kattan because , well , he just cracks me up .
and famke jansen (
sp ? )
because she reminds me of the delectable brosnan .
pierce brosnan ( hey , i willingly endured " dante 's peak " three times for him : ) .
all right , i concede .
there were a couple of things i enjoyed .
that perverted little amusement park at the beginning .
i probably wo n't ride a rollercoaster for a while .
and the machine they used to drive geoffrey 's character mad ( see , i do n't even remember their names ) .
the machine , not that stupid fishtank with naked wimmin in it .
i kept waiting and waiting for that inevitable twist at the end of the movie .
it would n't have redeemed the film , but at least it would have made me feel better .
but no , they opted for the beautiful sunrise ending .
thank god they did n't add a kiss at the end or i would have puked .
god , there is no hope .
answer:

N