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

Q: seen may 19 , 1999 at 5 p . m .
at the crossgates cinema 18 ( guilderland , n .
y . )
, theater # 1 , with my brother john for $ 8 .
50 .
[ theater rating :
*
*
* * : excellent seats , sound and picture ] ( critic 's note : this review is the longest i 've ever written and still only scratches the surface .
i 'd recommend this be read only by those who have seen the film as a form of critical analysis . ) as my friend and fellow film critic ted prigge said in his review of ` the phantom menace ' - how do i even write this review ?
never mind the fact that i 've been waiting for a new ` star wars ' movie since i was seven years old .
never mind the fact everyone on the internet had already dissected and discussed the movie before it was even released .
never mind that there 's so much going on in this movie in terms of plot , action , special effects and long - term story that to analyze every aspect would take a lot of time and energy and still would n't cover everything .
and also like ted
does in all of his reviews , i 'll try to review this in a way different from my usual reviews and instead write as casually as possible as if i was talking directly to you , the reader . before we can begin analyzing the specific aspects of the film , many of the most general and most significant factors must be considered ( to get the specifics of the film , skip this and the next four paragraphs ) .
as has been made obvious for the last several years , another trilogy of films will be produced to account for the [ missing ] initial three installments of the ` star wars ' series ( the first of the films was actually episode four , not one ) .
george lucas , the creator of the series , has probably just assumed most people know the first - produced trilogy ( ` star wars , ' ` the empire strikes back ' and ` return of the jedi ' ) is actually the second trilogy , chronologically .
in media interviews in the past he has explained why the movies were made out of order , but i ca n't recall his reasons .
with this new film he as writer and director has also assumed viewers are at least vaguely familiar with the storylines and significant plot points of the first trilogy ( err . . .
second trilogy .
. .
well you know what i mean ) .
and in order for this review to be thorough many of those significant points must be mentioned which , unfortunately , may serve as spoilers so proceed with caution .
[ critic 's note
# 1 : it is one my personal policy not to intentionally analyze spoilers because i would like my reviews to be able to make sense to the reader both before and after viewing the film reviewed , but it would be nearly impossible to do the film justice here without breaking the rule .
critic 's note # 2 : reviewing this film also breaks the universal critics ' law of reviewing movies , which as roger ebert coined , ` it 's not what a movie is about , but how it is about it . '
because so many outside factors come into play in the film 's plot and significance as part of a trilogy , and just considering modern society , it again would be difficult , if not impossible to simply review the film as a completely autonomous story . ]
first of all we have to catalog what we know about the film before even going into it .
we know that young anakin skywalker will grow up to become the evil ruler darth vader who is also the father of luke skywalker , who will lead a successful revolution against him and his empire .
we know obi - wan ` ben ' kenobi was the trainer of anakin in the ways of ` the force ' in attempts to become a jedi knight , but would fail and thus anakin would fall to the ` dark side . '
we also know something about ` the force ' itself , that it is some kind of universal force which determines fate and can be manipulated by those whose minds are expanded enough to believe in it and feel it ( the jedi ) .
what we do n't know for sure is the history of the ruling of the galaxy , which is most likely much longer and more complex than any government we have had here on earth .
to me , this was one of the most fascinating aspects of the first three films because there seemed to be a subtle , definite order to all the complexity .
also , it seems that we 're supposed to be familiar with a few other details about the story which have come out of the thousands of comic books and paperbacks published in the years since the movies ended .
most notably , details regarding the emperor from ` empire ' and ` jedi , ' and that he was once a senator and his last name is palpatine .
for those who have n't kept up with all the ` star wars ' paraphernalia over the years , there is still a way to know these details simply by recognizing an actor ( or his voice at least ) .
with ` the phantom menace ' being the first chapter of a long saga , one would assume the basic groundwork would be laid , including the history behind all the major factors of the series , especially ` the force ' and the jedi knights .
unfortunately , this film does more of the opposite as it simply builds on top of what must be a history so long and detailed it could never be explained .
i did n't liked that aspect to this film and is one of the reasons it falls just short of greatness .
if you 're going to tell a story from the beginning - tell it from the beginning ( is it possible that after this trilogy is complete there could be another trilogy of episodes -1 through -3 to clarify the back story even further ? ) .
but i digress .
i 've said so much and yet i have n't even touched on the specifics of the film itself .
all these necessary ` disclaiming ' elements should go to show just how vast the story of the ` star wars ' series is and this individual film itself .
what we get here is a movie not unlike any of the other three we 've come to know and love since the late 1970s .
its similarity to the other films helps to keep the spirit of the series familiar , but at the same time seems to be a flaw in the filmmaking process itself since it sometimes rings of unoriginality .
the basic story is rather sorted , complex and even confusing at times .
we 're told that an army known as ` the trade federation ' has set up a blockade around an seemingly insignificant planet called naboo .
we 're not given too many details to clarify the back story of what the federation is and what their purpose is , instead the film opts to get its story moving quickly .
we 're introduced to two jedi , the master qui - gon jinn ( neeson ) and his apprentice obi - wan kenobi ( mcgregor ) .
the two are acting as ambassadors of some sort in hopes of ending the obvious hostility between the federation and the planet 's queen , amidala ( portman ) .
the leader of the federation , an alien called viceroy , is following the orders of a strange , mythical character - an older human man whose face and body are covered and shadowed by the black robe and hood he wears .
he is referred to as lord sidious but considering his appearance , and especially that creepy evil voice of his , he is a obviously one of the most significant characters in the series .
sidious communicates to viceroy only through digital transmissions and never in person .
clearly his actual whereabouts are something he wants to keep secret because that would also reveal his identity ( which is never openly revealed in the film , but should be clear to most viewers .
i have a feeling we 'll delve into his background in the next two films ) .
but it does n't take the film long to spring into action and within minutes our hero jedi are fighting for their lives and the film 's story
begins to move along .
the film does n't have one specific plot and works in the same manner as the other films in the series where as what we get is one mini - plot and adventure on top of another .
there are so many of these mini - plots - within - plots in this film
i would not describe them all because it is what gives the movie its hook .
the other films have relied on this type of storytelling , but because of the limits of the technology at the time , the films ' screenplays were also limiting .
the sense of limitlessness here is what gives ` the phantom menace ' its unique traits .
as we already know , the film takes place at least a generation or two before the original ` star wars ' trilogy which means a lot of the background which was unclear and/or unexplained may be cleared up here as it is the beginning of the vast epic story .
and here the most significant storyline is that involving the discovery of 10-year - old anakin skywalker ( lloyd ) , by qui - gon jinn and his introduction to the jedi council .
to briefly summarize the story , jinn stumbles upon skywalker in an attempt to buy parts for queen amidala 's spaceship which was damaged in efforts to free her from the federation .
their meeting on tatooine is mostly chance but of course jinn chalks it up to the will of the force .
jinn can feel that skywalker has a great natural power in the force , and through another sub - plot involving a bet on skywalker in a fantastic race he will enter , more and more details of his significance begin to reveal themselves .
this also provides for a new elaboration and explanation of the force which has never been mentioned before .
in fact , it seems to be something so important it is upsetting it has never been mentioned before .
the element seriously undermines the mystical aspect of the force and transforms it into something more physical and scientific which is completely unnecessary .
by the film 's third act all the major significant elements become tied together in a rather familiar execution of the plot .
it 's funny how the reality of the ` star wars ' world seems so embedded in mythology , new age - like philosophy and religion and yet the solution to all the major conflicts in the series has been violence .
not that this technique has n't been used in movies and in real - life situations countless times throughout history .
and at least it 's all in the spirit of the ultimate powers of good versus evil in a fun and exciting matter .
it does border of the cartoonish sometimes , but that 's just the film appealing to our inner child , which is the basic reason the entire saga exists and has become such a big part of our modern society .
` the phantom menace ' delivers exactly what you 'd expect from a ` star wars ' film which is why it succeeds as well as it does
but is always why it never truly achieves greatness .
so many things in the film we 've seen before and done with more heart because the filmmakers concentrated just a bit more on story and character because they were limited .
but this film is far from bad because it at least embraces the spirit of sheer fun at the movies .

A: P
****
Q: 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 .

A: P
****
Q: if there 's one thing
i just ca n't stand , it 's a film that oozes with sentimentality .
here 's a note to all film makers : films are more effective when the emotions of the characters speak for themselves .
swelling , saddening music is not a good way to tell us that the people in the film are unhappy , and that the situation is hopeless . alas , my giant is a film that uses manipulative sentimentality so frequently and with such high intensity that i forgot as i watched it that there are other ways of getting audience members choked up .
what reminded me was that i was n't choked up , or even the slightest bit moved , for that matter .
my giant is a forced , contrived , and conspicuously un - cute
( i detest the word " cute " but i 've chosen to use it because the makers clearly wanted to create a " cute " film here ) .
it takes a premise that might have been interesting ( i liked the preview ) , and bogs it down with endless plot turns and cliches , all of which are intended to get some kind of easy emotional rise from the audience .
maybe it will work for some people .
it did n't work for me .
billy crystal plays sam cayman , an agent who , at the beginning of the film , is in romania .
he 's in romania because the kid actor he made famous is doing a film .
the screenplay has him in romania so he can get fired , get in a car accident , and get saved by an enormous individual who stands almost eight feet tall .
his name is max ( gheorghe muresan ) , and sam thinks he 'd be a great movie star because of his size .
subplots are as follows : sam has a son and a wife ( kathleen quinlan ) , and he 's never around for them , so they move to chicago .
max is in love with a woman named lilianna who moved away from romania twenty years before the film begins .
sam convinces max to go back to america with him so they can make lots of money ,
and so their various subplots can all be resolved .
sam is broke .
max is dying .
pass the kleenex .
my giant , as a comedy , is only moderately funny .
it has its moments , the best of which features steven seagal making fun of himself .
in one great scene , sam gets his son on the phone to talk to seagal ; of course , his son does n't believe that he 's actually speaking to seagal , and he goes off about how bad of an actor he is ( i would quote the line i like
but it would probably lose its effect ) .
crystal is always entertaining , and he has a few good lines here ( some of which are subtle throwaways that many will miss entirely ) ; often , however , he 's countered by a slew of jokes that are n't funny , and cause an involuntary rolling of the eyes .
muresan is kind of fun to watch , but he just ca n't act very well . quinlan , on the other hand , is a great actress who needs to get a role that shows off her talents .
she was underused last year in both event horizon and breakdown , but at least in those films she had moments in which she could show us her stuff .
here , the best thing she gets to do is fake a romanian accent .
all of these disappointing ingredients create a film that , for much of its running time , is simply mediocre . as my giant lumbers to its inevitable conclusion , however , director michael lehmann ( who did a great job directing the underrated hudson hawk ) and scriptwriter david seltzer pile on every cliche imaginable , each one intended specifically to pull at our heartstrings .
sam 's multiple engagements with his family are all completely hackneyed ( how about a main character who has a healthy relationship with his family ? ) .
later , it turns out the entire story is supposed to be a great big metaphor signifying sam 's reunion with his family .
and some people might think that what sam does for max towards the end is a valiant thing , but i had a few morality problems with it ( and i apologize for being vague ) .
it 's icky .
it drips with gooey , wannabe human emotions .
my giant could have been a straightforward and funny family film .
more importantly , it could have been moving on a level far deeper than it is . instead ,
it 's a complicated , overlong , and under - engaging film that elicits too few laughs and strives for superficial tears .
and since it left me feeling completely unmoved , i stand by my position that sentimentality is evil and will ultimately destroy the world .

A:
N
****