In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
--------
Question: how do you judge a film that is so bad , but intentionally so ?
in spiceworld , the highly popular singing group the spice girls accomplish their major goal : mocking themselves with a purposely cheezy film and having a lot of fun doing it .
if that was their goal , they did a fantastic job .
so is it fair to give it such a low grade when it was n't really meant to be much better than this ?
honestly , i 'd rather see this film before many others i gave higher grades ,
so does that mean i graded it inaccurately ?
truth be known , i do n't really think i can answer this question .
to understand spiceworld , you have to understand the spice girls .
unless you 're very
* very * young , or fairly older , you probably have at least heard of them .
they 're a group of five busty british babes who 've had # 1 hit singles and whose debut album sold millions .
they 're primarily adored by pre - teen girls who hope someday the contents of their training bras might match those of ginger spice 's ( real name : geri haliwell ) wonderbra .
all five of the girls have these " spicy " names for which they are better known than their real names .
there is the aforementioned ginger spice , as well as sporty spice ( melanie chisholm , or mel c . ) , scary spice ( melanie brown , or mel b . ) , baby spice ( emma bunton ) , and posh spice ( victoria addams ) , and
all of them , to some degree or another , resemble their stage names .
the spice girls took the world by storm , and spiceworld is actually a good- humored spoof of all that transpired during their quick rise to fame .
it 's quite nice to see what good sports the girls are ( and not just the one dubbed sporty ) about poking fun at themselves .
they do n't take themselves too seriously , and that 's probably the best thing about them .
it 's also surprising how natural they seem in front of the camera * acting * , and not just singing and dancing .
they 're not flawless by any means , but for the most part , they deliver their lines without feeling staged , and , like them or not , we get the sense the five are very at home within their characters ( which seems reasonable since they portray themselves ) .
what makes the film bad is that extreme fans of the spice girls wo n't get enough of their music , while the rest of us do n't get enough of a movie .
the real point of this is to look at the spice girls for over ninety straight minutes .
most of the film is very blas ? , but several parts are downright boring , and then they have those sporadic moments that actually make us laugh out loud !
if you 're a big fan of the group , you probably wo n't get enough of what you want , and if you 're not a big fan , you get too much time devoted to nothing more than " look at us " moments .
for the right crowd , the " music video " sequences will be the highlights of the film , but for others , they will serve as three - minute lulls in a hectic - but - overall - uneventful storyline .
other key actors include richard e . grant as clifford , the spice girls ' manager , alan cumming as the film - maker piers cutherton - smyth who attempts to make a documentary of the group , george wendt as martin barnfield , a producer who constantly works on pitching a spice girls movie , and roger moore in a small , self - parodizing role .
all provide relatively good performances , keeping in mind once again that this film was n't meant to be acted seriously .
even meat loaf shows up as dennis the bus driver and seems to have fun with it .
while this film is continuously compared to the beatles ' a hard day 's night , i think that is an unjust comparison .
it is supposedly the movie studio that first mad the comparison by way of press kits , but i do n't think drector bob spiers , nor the spice girls , intended it to be so .
i think the studios were just trying to boost hype and interest in the film , and have instead , come off rather pretentious
.
i do n't think this film is trying to be anything more than a fun , satirical look at a group that got so big , a movie seemed the next likely step .
and what could 've been better than a self - indulged yet self- mocking approach ?
probably nothing , and so it is .
spiceworld is a movie i thought would be embarrassing to enjoy , but now instead , i find myself wanting to defend a movie i did n't even give a good review .
it 's bad , but it succeeds in every way it intended .
it gives the spice girls a chance to play while allowing all those obsessive fans out there to indulge in every brainless moment .
perhaps the group is nothing more than a gimmick .
if that 's the case , the movie 's gimmick is that it * is * such a gimmick !
you might be saying , " a spice girls movie ? come on ! "
,
but when it comes down to it , i think that 's the point .

Answer: N


Question: plot summary : the year is 2024 .
the ozone layer has long since gone and the earth is now protected from radiation by a shield invented by connor mccleod .
the shield , although saving lives , has made the atmosphere hot and humid .
connor is a mortal and a tired old man who has given up hope .
on returning from the opera one night connor is accosted by the leader of a " terrorist " organisation .
they have tried to find out what the company that now runs the shield unit are covering up .
connor is then attacked by two assassins sent by katana from the planet zeist ( like zeit -- get it ? ) .
they fail and connor becomes immortal again by chopping their heads off .
he then brings ramirez back to life in glencoe in scotland .
both ramirez and connor are rebel leaders back on zeist and have been sent to earth as punishment .
connor now has the option to return being the last one but opts to stay with his new found immortality and fight to find out about the company and the shield .
katana meanwhile , fearing connor would return , sets out himself to kill the highlander .
if you have never seen it . being a fan of highlander and mr .
connery , i was in the cinema as soon as i could to see highlander ii :
the quickening .
i wish it had been quicker .
i feel whatever else you can say about a film ( bad script bad music , etc . ) if you sit just plain bored through most of it then nothing much else needs to be said .
the film was short but in my opinion only twelve minutes or so
( the time mr .
connery is on the screen for ) is worth watching .
the plot sounds a little ridiculous but i was willing to give it a chance .
maybe they could pull it off .
instead , i find that the characters have completely changed from those in the first film .
it 's as if they are different people with the same names .
witness connor jumping into bed with the leader of the resistance -- where is the attitude of " who wants to live forever , when love must die " gone to ?
the love sub - plot
* must * have had footage cut out .
the highlander and ramirez both seemed aware of powers they had never mentioned before .
putting our heroes in deadly situations and then having them walk away because of some new power is very annoying .
i still want to know why connor 's coat becomes flame proof when he is immortal !
we are not given enough time on zeist to believe in it , nor are we told why advanced aliens still use swords to kill .
why not dynamite or laser saws or just plain bullets followed by a quick chop to the neck ?
i know the head needs to come off
but you could at least immobilise your opponent with laser rifles first .
to be fair one assassin tried this
but he must be the world 's worst shot .
meanwhile connor develops luke - skywalker - like powers of laser beam deflection .
as for " bad guys , " we see a rebellion on zeist , crushed easier than a grape and then the rest of the plot depends on katana being obsessed with killing mccleod in case he returns to zeist .
two assassins are sent , presumably they are meant to be good at killing but an aged connor kills them both with no problems .
no more assassins are sent .
katana , supposedly a very powerful man goes himself to kill connor .
has he no more assassins ?
has he no better ?
why was the rebellion crushed so easily then ?
michael ironside is totally unconvincing
( bring back the kurgan ) .
he seems like a cartoon character and really is n't that evil , just stupid and violent .
we see the hollywood trick of the chief nasty threatening a child again and killing lots of innocents .
yet he still seems like no threat -- perhaps because he seems too stupid to threaten connor , or maybe because his two best assassins would n't have been amiss with larry , curly and mo .
so much for plot and characters .
the music is atrocious .
it is at best intrusive and at worst annoying . bring back queen .
there was an audible sigh ( of relief ? )
when connor played a queen track in a juke box .
i believe this at least is to be corrected for the american release .
the acting is at best flat , except for mr .
connery .
lambert is uninteresting and when he delivered " there can be only one " this time around it
just made me wish there had only been one -- highlander .
michael ironside is unconvincing
; sorry , michael , i usually like you and everyone else was incredibly forgetable .
so why 2/10 ?
visually the film is interesting at all times .
it has a blade runner feel to it and some of the special effects are quite stunning .
add to this an irrepressible sean connery who smiles throughout the whole film -- or is he smirking to himself ?
his lines and delivery might make the film worthwhile
had it not been so obvious that he can not take the whole thing seriously at all
but hey
--
*
i 'd * have done it for 12 million .
oh , and i agree with a previous reviewer
, she * does * look like sharon stone but i believe it is her first film .
incidentally there is a line producer credited and i hear rumours of highlander iii : the wizard .

Answer: N


Question: this well - conceived but ultra sugary coming - of - age film is not for everyone , and i include myself as one of those who found it too sappy for my digestion .
joseph cross ( joshua beal ) is a 10-year - old who is saddened by the recent loss of his grandfather ( loggia ) to bone marrow cancer .
loggia is wonderful in relating to the child in such a wholesome manner , it almost saves this film from drowning in syrup .
the beals are like a sitcom idyllic family , where everyone is just so nice and affluent , and properly religious without being fanatical .
the beals , the father ( denis leary ) and his wife ( dana delany ) , are both successful doctors ; julia stiles plays joshua 's older sister , needling her younger brother but also showing that she really cares about him .
this is a family seemingly conceived in heaven , but living in south philadelphia , sending their children to a well - run catholic school .
joshua , the protagonist and the narrator of this yarn , is a handsome , sweet , intelligent , friendly , and endearing child , who does well in school , relates to the nuns and priests , and talks politely to his well - meaning parents .
all this mawkish interplay makes it almost too nauseating to watch .
the plot arises when joseph has a problem coping with the death of his beloved grandfather , who promised to be with him forever .
his answer is to search for god , pretty heady stuff for a youngster his age to do , but that 's just the way it is , sometimes .
this search for god takes us nowhere because , as his friend david ( reifsnyder ) says , where can you look for him if he does n't exist .
now , that 's a smart kid .
but joseph looks for him in the usual places , and what better place than to start in the parochial school he attends .
one of his teachers is the kind - hearted sister terry ( rosie o'donnell ) , who wears a philly baseball hat and equates the jesus stories with baseball , making him the clean - up hitter , and in my opinion , if she was n't a big tv star , would have a vocation as a parochial school teacher , she is that convincing .
throughout the film , she is saved from answering any tough ( sic ! ) question about god by the bell , as it rings to end the class .
nothing much happens in the search for god , there is no parody of the catholic school ; though a visiting cardinal is found by the boy not to be able to talk to god , but this is gentle stuff , no real criticism or search for god is attempted .
what comes next into play is some hollywood hokum , which is designed not to upset anyone , as joseph has a reassuring encounter with a real , live angel , a blond little boy his own age and dressed like him in the catholic school uniform who wears the innocuous smile of a goody - goody .
the film ends as this angel ( ! ! ! )
tells him his grandfather is all right .
his quest is ended , as apparently angels do n't have wings and are approachable ; and god , well , . . .
maybe that 's for another film down the road .
this part of the film was the final straw for me , i could n't swallow any more goo .
as this film flopped commercially , his next one , the sixth sense , pared down the schmaltz and came up smelling like a rose .
though if you look through the cleverness of both scripts , this director is loaded with hokum , all he has learned how to do , is hide the hokum better .
well , god bless him , if he can do that .
this is a nice family picture and there is room for it in hollywood .
it 's just too bad that it had nothing relevent or even truthful to say about death ,
children in a parochial elementary school , or for that matter , about god .
and that family of his , they 're too good for words .
yet the film meant well and its benign message had its heart in the right place .
for those who want to see something soft , without a bite to it , this is the one .

Answer:
N