instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
let me start off by saying that leading up to the release of the latest bond film , i really was n't looking forward to it as much as i have with some of the previous films .
i 'm not sure if it was the fairly lackluster trailers or the ever - present dread that the next film will fall back into the miserable ways of the timothy dalton years .
i 'm happy to report that any doubts were erased after about the first 10 minutes of the film .
by that point , it was evident that mr .
bond was back with a vengeance .
all doubts would have probably been erased sooner except for the fact that the first ten minutes of the film were n't exactly a pleasant experience .
it seems that nobody told the geniuses working at the theater that the house lights are supposed to be turned off when the movie starts .
it took a reminder from an audience member to clue them in .
i guess they can be excused though , taking tickets and cleaning up popcorn between shows is extremely taxing on the brain .
anyway , after somebody remembered what the light switch was for , i settled in for bond .
i think the most noticeable aspect of this , the 19th film in the series , is that it really goes back to the almost tongue in cheek style of the roger moore films .
there were probably more one - liners in this movie than in the last several combined .
and bond 's last one - liner in the film is about the best of the series .
the world is not enough also contained perhaps the most action of any movie of the series .
everything from wild boat chases to the usual assortment of cool bond gadgets trotted out just when there seems to be no way out for 007 . for the most part , the action sequences worked very well .
although , there were a couple of times that i thought some things were a bit over the top , even for a bond film .
i think some of the blame can be laid at the feet of director michael apted .
while he did a good job for the most part , there were points in the movie , specifically during action sequences , that he seemed to loose site of the fact that he was making essentially an action film .
most noticeably sequences on a snow covered mountain and one involving bond getting through a closing door looked like apted thought he was filming some sort of high brow art movie .
he almost seemed like he did n't know what he was doing .
but they were brief scenes and really should n't take away from the otherwise solid job that apted did in directing
.
if you have ever seen a bond film , you wo n't be shocked to learn that plot has never been their strong suit .
the world is not enough is no exception .
this time we have yet another over villain that bond has to stop for the good of the world .
007 matches wits with the terrorist renard ( robert carlyle ) , a man who has a bullet lodged in his brain that makes him impervious to pain .
why this point is included is beyond me .
they took great pains to explain his condition , but it only came up later in the movie as a scene that can only be described as looking like an afterthought .
anyway , renard , like the typical terrorist that he is , is bent on some harebrained scheme involving a mid - east oil pipeline .
i guess world domination just is n't as attractive to terrorists as a money making venture anymore .
bond is brought in to protect the pipeline 's owner , elektra king ( sophie marceau ) , who is the daughter of one of renard 's recent victims .
along the way , bond has to enlist the help of a nuclear scientist , dr .
christmas jones ( denise richards ) , and his old rival valentin zukovsky ( robert carlyle ) .
like all bond films , you basically just have to suspend disbelief over the plot , since it is ridiculous beyond words .
my biggest complaint would be that it was about the most disjointed of any of the bond films .
there was at least one point that i had to stop and try to remember why bond was where he was and why he was doing what he was doing .
the buddy that i saw the movie with was completely confused over an earlier kidnapping of marceau 's character .
it was alluded to earlier in the movie briefly -- although not included in the film .
later , it became a big part of the story and left him with the distinct feeling that he had missed something .
but because it is a bond film , the beautiful women and nifty gadgets seem to make you forget about script problems quite quickly .
after all , it is n't shakespeare .
how about the cast ?
brosnan seems to get better with each of his appearances as 007 .
i grew up with the roger moore version of bond , so i really enjoyed the lighter style that brosnan brings to the character .
judi dench , as m , had a bigger role in this film than in her two previous appearances in the role .
she brought the talent with her that one would expect from an oscar winner .
robbie coltrane was easily one of the best parts in goldeneye , so it was nice to see his russian mobster character revived in this movie .
coltrane gets more screen time , which simply leads to him stealing even more scenes .
then there are the bond girls .
sophie marceau might be one of the most beautiful actresses working today .
there is just something about her breathtaking eyes that makes her a natural to play the innocent victim .
those that saw her in braveheart know she is more than just a pretty face .
marceau may be the most talented actress to ever play a bond love interest .
then we have denise richards .
there was no doubt in my mind that she was cast exclusively for her looks .
and after you see the outfits she wears , you wo n't have any trouble guessing what part of her anatomy caught the producer 's eyes .
i was pleasantly surprised to find that she really did a good job playing a nuclear scientist .
admittedly , there was one point that the audience snickered a bit at one of her technical lines of dialogue , but other than that
she stacks up ( no pun intended ) to her bond girl predecessors nicely .
i must say that the biggest disappointment was robert carlyle 's character .
while carlyle did a fine job with the material that he had , his character just never worked for me .
the producers tried very hard to add more complexity to his character , but it just never quite got off the ground .
i guess i was hoping for a bit more regarding the whole impervious to pain aspect of his character , but the writers decided to play up the emotional side of his character .
this might have worked well in another movie , but i do n't go to see bond movies for their deep characterizations .
last , but not least , we have desmond llewelyn as q .
this is the 17th appearance for llewelyn as bond 's gadget guy , and he is as good as ever .
although his screen time has grown far more limited in the past few films , he is still a treat to watch .
rumors abound that this may be his last appearance in the role .
he says future appearances are up to a higher power .
the producers have introduced his protege and future replacement , a bumbling and somewhat pompous character played by comedy master john cleese .
while we do n't see much of him in this film , i think it is fair to say that desmond llewelyn 's legacy , whenever it is passed on , will be in very capable hands .
so how does it stack up ?
despite some problems , the world is not enough is a very entertaining movie .
and , all things considered , what problems it does have are small compared to some that have plagued earlier bond movies .
this is easily the best of the brosnan films .
it may even be the best of the entire series , certainly in the top 3 .
one thing is for sure , even after 19 movies , there is still plenty of life left in the james bond series .
here 's looking forward to bond number 20 .
answer:
P


question:
ugh .
that about sums this movie up .
just , ugh .
the original godzilla movies are somewhat of a cult classic , and when reviewing the previous films , each film had a certain degree of intelligence .
and that was the reason they found such an enviable cult following ; in spite of bad special effects , horrible dubbing , and a man in a lizard suit , they maintained a certain degree of . . .
how to put this ? . . .
dignity ?
not quite the word i 'm looking for .
you understand , right ?
and in 50 years , godzilla has maintained that degree of ' whatever ' . leave it to america to screw the whole thing up .
> from the ' geniuses ' that brought us " independece day " , arguably the worst sci - fi movie of all time , to ruin whatever reputation godzilla had .
while they do bring us eye - popping special effects that will amaze you ,
they lost what was at the center of all the original godzilla movies -- a storyline .
summing up the movie is simple .
heck , i can do it in one sentence : giant lizard attacks a giant city and a bunch of nobodies stop it .
simple as that .
matthew broderick
stumbles over his lines , and it 's hard to picture hank azaria in any role besides his classic dog - walking character on the television show " mad about you " .
the dialogue seems to be improvized , almost as if there was no rehearsel done at all .
i can see the scene on the set right now .
"
all right !
we spent all of this money making big special effects , and we 've got ta get this movie out by summer
or it 's going to bomb in our faces .
so , you actors just say what ever comes to the top of your head , all right ?
make up something , m'kay ?
good .
roll film ! !
"
the special effects are enough to keep you interested through one viewing , and some of the cinemtography is well - done ( the scene with the black umbrellas comes to mind ) .
still , an hour into it , you will become antsy , wondering how long they can drag it out . and drag it out they do ! !
i have to laugh .
the slogan for the film is , " size does matter " .
i think they cut this too short .
it should read , " size does matter .
acting does not .
"
answer:
N


question:
studio 54 attracted so many weird and bizarre people to its gates that it 's a wonder why the film about the life and death of the studio centers itself on one very boring , cliched individual , not to mention an ensemble of people who would n't be at all fascinating unless they worked at the studio , which they did according to this film .
are we supposed to believe that out of all the strange folk who populated the studio nightly , that a character who is a bland ripoff of tony manero would really make a good protagonist for the film about it ?
" 54 " belongs in the elite group of films known as " the big disappointments " : the films that attain so much hype and/or so much potential in its creation that they come off worse than they are when they are finally finished .
i was heavily awaiting " 54 , " not the least because i 've become fascinated with the infamous club , which has been the subject of an engrossing documentary that 's been running all summer on vh1 , which is , weirdly enough , much more intriguing and engrossing than this " edgy " film .
perhaps more importantly , " 54 " is part of the blossoming subgenre , " the 70s nostalgia film , " which has been picking up mighty steam , what with " boogie nights " and " the last days of disco " coming out within the year , and both being such damn good movies that not only captured the feel of a certain time period ( the late 70s party and the early 80s wakeup period ) , but brought us interesting and real characters , like scotty , the tragically gay boom mike operator from " boogie nights , " and charlotte , the ironically clueless and bitchy co - protagonist from " the last days of disco , " not to mention several others .
"
54 " deals not so much with the timeline of the studio ( how it began , how it was run , how it ended ) - that 's all dealt with in the narrated opening and finale - but more interested in the characters who populated it .
this is a definite plus .
here 's a film that could have been a fascinating 2 hour plus film about the tragic people who went there to party , and had to wakeup in the 80s when things like diseases , economy problems , and perhaps worst of all , reagan , all hit and forced everyone into a rude awakening .
the story of the studio is tragedy in itself : let 's look at how it all affected the people .
but this film does n't let that happen .
it gives us a half - assed protagonist named shane o'shea ( ryan phillippe , from " i know what you did last summer " ) , who 's
chief character trait is the fact that he 's from new jersey , which also happens to be his chief character flaw ( i guess ) .
he 's dim - witted , into being part of " the scene , " and soon finds he 's become a bit of a rave amongst the studio regulars .
. .
a bit like " saturday night fever , " ' cept no travolta and no real interest put into him .
poor , poor phillippe struggles to make him interesting , but
all he is a half - assed character and not at all our ticket to the glimpse of the decadence going on inside the club that he could have been .
shane begins to hang out with some other denizens of the club , like anita ( salma hayek ) , a wannabe donna sommers , and her young hubby , greg randanzo ( breckin meyer , from " clueless " ) , who helps shane become a bartender and rise to a bit of fame .
although he begins to get somewhere when he sleeps with the foxy billie auster ( sela ward ) , an exec of sorts , he falls in lust with a soap star named julie black ( neve campbell ) , and thus the boring romance subplot that 's all too not necessarily important to anything else in the film and never really becomes interesting at any point in the film
.
the film 's sole point of interest and one major strongpoint is the all - too necesary personage of steve rubell , played by mike myers ( you heard me ) .
rubell , the famous head of the studio acted as if he never stopped partying ever , and is an easy metaphor for the life and times of his creation , but the film , thanks to a surprisingly strong performance by myers , makes him out to be more than that .
notice the scenes sole shocking scene , where he tries to get felatio from one of his male employees in turn for a promotion : myers brings the humanity to rubell in this scene , and a couple others , that some of us who 've only seen him on tv never saw , and proves to be perhaps the one aspect of studio 54 that this film actually nails .
first time feature director mark christopher proves that he 's a better director than a writer , though not too terribly much .
his story is trite and shallow , as are his characters , and his direction is shockingly flat , especially for a film about this subject .
it 's as if he had a great story to tell , but instead opted for the easier route .
the studio 's recreation is amazingly accurate , though , and very impressive , but his direction is never captivating enough .
some people say that a film does its job if it makes you want to visit the locale it takes place in ( despite the film 's tone , i still want to go to rome and its many nightclubs after i saw fellini 's " la dolce vita " ) , and when i watched " 54 , " i did n't particularly want to stay .
answer:

N