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

Q: with more and more television shows having gay characters , and even the infamous " ellen " sitcom being centered on the life of a lesbian , the movie industry too seems to be gaining more and more homosexual based plot lines .
the birdcage was critically acclaimed , as was this years chasing amy .
then along came in & out , and all three of these films are on my top ten list for the years in which they were released .
it 's also noticeable that this " alternative lifestyle " becomes less and less taboo as the years go by , and it seems that using comedy as a medium is proving a worthwhile effort .
while it 's a very serious issue to many , it is the comedies that people are flocking to see and that are gaining notoriety .
but the way we 're using comedy to present homosexuality is also changing quite dramatically .
while the gay community was once very stereotyped and used to laugh * at * , it is more and more becoming something we laugh * with * , and when a movie like in & out comes along , it is something that both heterosexuals and homosexuals should be able to thoroughly enjoy .
it does n't poke fun at the lifestyle , it simply uses it to all
it 's comedic capacity , just as love , sex , marriage , birth , death , and anything else has been .
the idea for in & out was born the day tom hanks won his oscar for portraying an aids - afflicted gay man in philadelphia .
if you remember , during his acceptance speech , hanks gave a highly emotional tribute to the gay community , and even sighted a former gay teacher of his as a major inspiration in his life .
it 's a serious and touchy subject , but producer scott rudin viewed it as the setting for a potentially hilarious comedy , and pitched it to screenwriter paul rudnick .
it 's true that if this same film had been written by a heterosexual , it may have been more controversial , but because it was written by an openly gay writer , the prerogative was set .
kevin kline , who only seems to become more and more acclaimed , stars as howard brackett , a high school english teacher in the small , picturesque town of greenleaf , indiana .
after a three - year engagement to fellow teacher emily montgomery ( joan cusack ) , a wedding date has been set , and the hubbub surrounding it is almost as big as that
surrounding another huge story - greenleaf high graduate cameron drake ( matt dillon ) is up for a best actor oscar .
the small town eagerly awaits both events , and both seem quite astronomical , but little does anyone know how much one will affect the other .
when cameron drake is announced the winner , the excitement is heightened as he pays tribute to his high school english teacher , mr .
brackett .
everyone is cheering back in greenleaf - that is until cameron tacks on those three calamitous words , " and he 's gay .
"
the town becomes silent as the entire population joins in a simultaneous jaw drop .
the thing is , nobody , including howard , can understand how cameron came to that conclusion , and such wild and unexpected news can only wreak havoc in such a conservative american haven such as greenleaf .
naturally the questions pour from howard 's fiancee , parents ( debbie reynolds & wilford brimley ) , students , and the high school 's principal , tom halliwell ( bob newhart ) , and the evidence starts to become more and more obvious : howard is clean , neat , honest , sincere , a romantic , and perhaps the most incriminating fact , he loves barbara streisand .
the frenzy is n't helped any when camera crews from every conceivable news magazine and " entertainment tonight " wannabe show up at greenleaf high the very next morning .
one particular reporter is peter malloy ( tom selleck ) of " inside entertainment " , who unlike the collage of other reporters , wants to spend a whole week in the life of howard brackett , including coverage of his wedding .
the intrusion is all but welcome by howard , who is going more and more out of his mind with each passing minute .
it seems that no matter where he turns , a camera is being shoved in his face and questions regarding homosexuality are being tossed to him like frisbees .
the dominoes begin to tumble as howard 's closest friends begin acting different and principal halliwell hints at a possible termination of employment should howard indeed be gay .
it all sounds very devastating , and it would be if it were n't presented with near - perfection by one of this year 's most delightful ensemble casts
.
kline seems only to improve with age , and he is downright perfect here .
the great thing about this film is that every single character has a moment to shine , and they use it wonderfully .
every single actor turns in one of their best performances ever .
dillon has never been so likeable , cusack
has never seemed so perfect for a role , and brimley , reynolds , and newhart
all provide huge laughs when they 're up to bat .
rudnick 's script is heavily laced with wit and humor , and you 'll likely find yourself laughing out loud for a solid ninety minutes .
while in & out does n't carry enough to give it four stars , it remains one of the best done films of the year , all - around .
the script is exuberant , the actors are absolutely top- notch , and we 're allowed just the perfect blend of heart - tugging so as not to bog down the laughs .
it remains a solid comedy throughout its entirety , yet we 're still allowed a sappily touching ending .
despite it 's subject matter , and one scene that comes almost too close for comfort on explaining gay sex , this is a movie that everyone could , and should , enjoy .
frank oz , best known as a voice talent for muppets
, directs this film quite delightfully , using all the potential rudnick 's script has to offer , which turns out to be quite a bit . check this one out .
you 'll have a gay old time .

A: P
****
Q: paul verhoeven , the dutch auteur who dragged his violent , sexually aggressive aesthetic into american film , has never been what i 'd consider a thoughtful director ( though some of his films , notably starship troopers , have been lauded as artistic achievements ) , but he is the kind of hollywood film maker who 's managed to , no matter what the budget , make his films distinctive and even sometimes smuggle stimulating themes into the lavish high concepts on which he toils .
starship troopers was essentially a b - monster movie remake of his enthralling dutch war film soldier of orange ( a great film that 's nearly impossible to find on video , yet showgirls is everywhere ) , in which he cast a troop of stunningly attractive mannequins ; the square jawed casper van dien and denise richards ( who may actually be 45 % silicone ) , in what feels like an american propaganda picture set to monotonous scenes of graphic carnage .
it 's not a completely successful film , but
as a failure
it 's certainly an interesting ( and mostly entertaining ) one .
my favorite verhoeven films were the ones he made before he hit our shores ; spetters , a dark near pornographic coming of age film set within the sub - culture of drag racing and the aforementioned soldier of orange ( have n't yet gotten around to seeing the 4th man or turkish delight ) .
i believe his best hollywood film to be robocop , a bleak super - hero satire with a robotic hero that 's as touching as schwarzenegger 's in t2 .
that movie was violent but not in the overdone cartoonish manner of more recent verhoeven pics .
its violence seemed to be there for a purpose , namely to create an atmosphere of unpredictable dread , not to simply titillate an attention deprived audience .
there 's a jaw - dropping scene within the first ten minutes of robocop wherein the lead villain toys with a cop before snuffing him .
he tortures the officer by taking glee in his victim 's every fearful tic .
it 's a startling moment of barbaric , maddening violence that effectively sets the tone for the film that could be designated as splatter punk - noir .
in hollow man kevin bacon brutally slays a dog because it just wo n't shut up , he impales a co - worker , drowns another and so on .
but why ?
his character is introduced as a smug genius , the kind who 's always impeccably dressed and races a sports car while generic rock tunes blare from his stereo for the world to hear , sort of like a scheming uber villain from dallas or melrose place , though once the character becomes invisible , this film has him pull a 180 shift into a psychotic movie monster .
the kind who just wo n't die .
hollow man 's protagonists are the completely bland but beautiful scientist linda ( elizabeth shue , acting as if she were rebecca of sunnybrook farm ) and her lover , a hunk of beef scientist played by josh brolin who 's saddled with the film 's worst lines
( " i 've lost cohesion again ! " ) .
they 're a typical aaron spelling couple , good - looking but as vacant as george
w .
bush 's republican national convention speech ( i .
e .
bush referring to clinton ; " ? ?
?
so much promise ? ? ?
but to what end ?
to what end ?
"
-- this actually got applause !
suddenly warren beatty does n't look so absurd ) .
the rest of the film 's characters are all well past thirty , though act like annoying high school party animals insulting one and other with a series of strained one - liners
; is it just me or have
labored insults become big budget hollywood 's new character developing technique ?
ahh , what a cynical time we live in ? ? ?
as the picture opens we meet cain ( kevin bacon ) , an egocentric scientist working with the crew of aforementioned irritating scientists on a top secret ( so top secret the government has only provided them with a dilapidated warehouse in which to perform their extensive experimentation 's ) project with the goal to make invisibility a possibility ( for what purpose is never hinted at ) .
they 've performed several experiments on animals and have nearly solved the quandary causing caine , in a twist worthy of the film 's 1950 's late show origins , to impulsively experiment on himself .
caine neglects to let the pentagon in on his plans and somehow gets two of his co - workers to lie for him
so the rest of the crew will think the pentagon gave the go ahead .
our mad scientist is turned invisible ( after several fx - heavy complications ) , then he inexplicably
( it 's hinted that the process of invisibility has made the animals into more savage creatures , but this is never explored , and if that was the case why the hell would anyone be stupid enough to test this out on a human ? ) begins raping , assaulting and murdering anyone he pleases , always with a lame wisecrack ready a la freddy krueger .
it grows abundantly clear with each new release that it 's verhoeven 's films that have become hollow .
like the rest , this one is cold , heartless , and full of contempt for humanity , but in addition to all that it lacks any trace of wit , insight and makes no statement other than " audiences will pay for anything these days " .
it 's an affront to anyone looking for something stimulating on an intellectual level , or even those hoping to spend a saturday night with a fun , thrill - a - minute ride .
verhoeven has instead served up an utterly routine mad slasher flick with nobody to root for and no reason to care .
the previews make hollow man look like an irresistible flick .
how can one not have a good time at a film that utilizes state of the art fx to illustrate an invisible man getting down and dirty with his bad self ?
a couple weeks ago , after seeing the trailer , a bunch of friends and i got into a long discussion of how invisible man flicks never go so far as to have the invisible individual indulging in their newfound ability .
hollow man looked like the first film to do so and whoa , in a serious manner to boot .
but oh yeah , it is directed by paul verhoven not atom egoyan or peter greenway .
verhoeven delivers the sleazy " goods " , but not in a watchable or thrillingly disturbing manner , here
it just feels icky and uncomfortable .
the director keeps his camera trained at his nubile actresses , caressing their breasts with his lens all while faux - psycho music strains in the background .
it 's plainly obvious that verhoeven is n't exploring voyeurism ( like in the classic peeping tom ) but exploiting it and not even doing that very well .
it 's funny that with all the technology $ 90 million can get you verhoven is stuck at trying to figure out how to show a woman 's naked breast manipulated by an invisible hand .
most vexing is that the invisibility aspect is used simply as gimmick in yet another slasher movie wherein characters do stupid things just so the villain can pop up for more attacks .
in fact it 's largely irrelevant that bacon is invisible since , by the end , most of his potential victims don infer - red glasses that track his body heat .
as in every mad slasher film we get the killers pov ( a scene where he spies on his neighbor while she undresses triggered unpleasant memories of slumber party massacre ) , and lots of scenes where people are unknowingly stalked .
the film only provides one moment that i found genuinely creepy .
it happens when a lab assistant ( kim dickens , who looks like she stepped out of playboy ) in the middle of a chit chat with an invisible bacon , suddenly pauses .
"
are you looking at me ? " , she queries , obviously haunted .
it 's a little moment in a big film with nothing to offer but
ground breaking special effects set to a plot that should have run its course by 1982 ( the apex of the mad slasher craze ) .
those special effects are so stunning they alone keep this from being as bad as urban legend or i still know what you did last summer .
and they 're the only reason to check out hollow man , preferably as a mid - week bargain rental .
you 've been warned .
but you probably wo n't listen , will you ?
tis ' a pity ? ? ?

A: N
****
Q: apparantly money talks .
. .
and uses quite a bit of obscenities doing so !
i 've always considered myself pretty open about the gratuity a film can possess , whether in language , violence , sex , or what have you .
i find that this fact gives me a little more leverage to complain when a movie goes overboard , and money talks definitely does !
it 's not so much that the movie swore nearly constantly ( and i mean constantly ! ) , but it swore so much that it seemed overly prominent and way too staged .
perhaps if one character were foul mouthed , but in this film , everybody swears nearly every other word .
money talks is about a black ticket scalper named franklin hatchett ( played less annoyingly than expected by chris tucker ) .
franklin is your typical con - man and ends up with more than one person out to get him .
when the plot finally gets underway , there 's no less than three people ( or groups ) that want him , dead or alive .
the frenchman who 's somewhat responsible for franklin 's escape from a prisoner - packed bus , a hoodlum whom franklin owes seven grand , and the cops who wrongly suspect him of murder .
franklin 's only hope : james russell ( charlie sheen ) , an investigative reporter for the local news who 's out to prove himself a worthy journalist .
james offers to help clear franklin 's name if franklin will just allow him an exclusive report to help channel 12 conquer sweeps week .
both of these elements are completely lost along the way however , and never do reappear .
as expected , the odd couple of franklin and james do wind up friends at the end , which is another wasted element seeing as how they show no signs of becoming friends at any point along the way .
there is just nothing original or intriguing about this film , and so many developments are either non - relevant , or just plain forgotten about . money talks is a paint - by - numbers movie that lacks any real involvment with the audience . frivilous dialogue , a predictable , flat storyline , and two - dimensional characters make money talks a reason to save your money .

A:
N
****