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

[Q]: ( warning to those who have not seen seven : this review contains some spoiler information . )
seven is a powerful , fully - realized film on the level of the silence of the lambs .
it is a disturbing film that accomplishes its biggest of goals -- it occupies the viewers mind long after the closing credits have rolled .
while this film is not for the squeamish , there is no denying that seven demands attention , for it is a film that transcends its genre in both style and substance .
for starters , classifying seven as a " thriller " would not be an altogether complete classification of this film .
while i was genuinely thrilled throughout , i would rather call seven an " intense drama , " because that is what it delivers -- meaningful scenes with a relentlessness that does not readily let up .
part of director david finchers accomplishment is in style .
he seems to have a knack for knowing exactly how the average person fears something as " simple " as a corpse .
and visually , fincher shows us the remains of murder victims in all - too - realistic and graphic terms ( courtesy of rob bottin 's always - grisly special effects ) .
throw in the appropriate but not - to - be - underestimated effects of lighting and a foreboding score and the result is a technical masterpiece of the murder scene .
these scenes alone are quite impressive ; as fascinating as they are harrowing .
yet , seven is more than just a technical accomplishment .
in addition to style , fincher supplies substance .
seven has compelling characters that it wants us to know and understand , and fincher ties them all together in a completely pessimistic view of society .
detective william somerset ( morgan freeman ) is a man who has nearly given up on the world .
its easy to see why .
the world does n't make sense .
( somerset drives this point home with a rather ghastly story of a robbery victim who was attacked just blocks from the police precinct .
after knocked down and robbed of his wallet , the attacker stabbed the helpless man in both eyes . )
why should somerset believe that by following this murder investigation and " picking up the pieces " he will be able to catch the killer ?
somersets new partner , david mills ( brad pitt ) has not given up on the world , perhaps because he is still young ( and perhaps by having this optimism he 's naive in
this films portrayal of the world ) .
he completely disagrees with somersets abandonment of hope .
however , david 's wife ( gwyneth paltrow ) has so much fear of her urban surroundings , she is n't even sure if she wants to * tell * her husband about her recent pregnancy , let alone carry it until birth and attempt to raise it in this environment .
these three characters are all performed with skill and authenticity
that makes them feel like real people and not the typical hollywood characters a lesser film might have offered .
and in addition to making clear how each of these characters sees the world , fincher gives us support for
* why * they feel the way they do .
but if there 's one character that underlines the message seven is trying to convey , it has to be the killer , john doe ( kevin spacey ) .
seven 's payoff lies in its ability to allow us to see how the killer views the world and what drives him to do what he does .
one important thing to remember about doe is how easy it is to simply dismiss him as a " psycho , " with no motives behind his slayings .
this is exactly the mistake mills makes .
in the extremely intense and superbly performed closing scenes , were allowed to see that doe is , in his mind , merely a product of society .
he 's a killer who kills those who are bringing society down .
in his mind he did n't kill " innocent " people , and , perhaps , they were not completely innocent ( but , then again , who is ? ) .
he s absolutely infuriated that mills believes that the murder victims were innocent .
really , seven does n't just comment on the superficial obviousness of how screwed - up john doe is .
seven makes larger statements about how screwed - up society is , hinting that society 's degradation is simply conducive of creating more john does .
besides the stylistic and larger - issue arguments for seeing this film , i recommend seven because it is , after all , also a very slick and well - made thriller .
it features exciting plot developments , commanding performances , lots of suspense , and a conclusion that is chilling , riveting , and quite unfair .
but then again , its a cruel world .
[A]: P


[Q]: capsule : trippy , hyperspeed action machine from hong kong 's accomplished tsui hark .
van damme and rodman have nice chemistry
, the stunts are eyepopping , and stuff gets blowed up real good ; what more do you want ?
i admit i was all set to loathe double team ; it reeked of cheapjack timing - oriented marketing ( stick dennis rodman in a movie , quick , while he 's hot , and do something about jean - claude van damme 's flagging career while we 're at it ! ) .
surprise -- double team transcends its dumb roots and turns out to be a mess of fun
.
bring some friends , get some pretzels , and have a blast .
van damme is jack quinn , an ex - agent who is brought back in for " one last mission " -- you 'd think any spy worth his shoe phone would run like hell when he hears those words .
but van damme 's character has a pregnant wife who 's also a sculptor , and some unpleasant pressure gets used to get him to come through on this mission .
he 's been assigned to take down an old enemy , a terrorist named stavros ( mickey rourke , looking oddly subdued ) , who may be back up to his old tricks .
in the first showdown between quinn and stavros , the movie wears its ambitions proudly on its sleeve : nonstop action .
an amusement park , a hospital , a private " retired spy " 's retreat , most of rome , various houses , planes , cars and other modes of transport , and the coliseum ( ! )
all become arenas for some of the most bone - rattling shoot - outs and punch - outs filmed .
they are better seen than described and are reason enough to see the film : one jaw - dropping scene has van damme taking on a man who uses a switchblade with his * feet * .
( van damme is a good , dextrous athlete and fighter , but he is often upstaged . )
there are other nice touches .
stavros and quinn both want the same thing : to retire in peace with their families .
that ambition ties them together in various ways , and also humanizes them a bit .
one of the things about hk action movies is that there 's always some form of human element , and that 's carried over into this movie as well .
it gives weight to scenes that would otherwise be forgettable .
also good is dennis rodman , playing a weapons dealer named yaz -- a character who sticks out like a fistful of broken fingers and who is funny just standing there .
rodman is natural on screen ; he 's fun to watch , especially when slinging bad guys like basketballs , and deserves to get a movie of his own , based on what 's seen here : a lightweight , fast - moving entertainment
that showcases all of its pieces excellently .
[A]: P


[Q]: " love is the devil " is a challenging film , munundating its audience with wild imagery and a plot structure that disallows a plot , perhaps in an attempt to get us to know the artist 's psyche rather than the artist 's lifeline . watching it ,
i was enthralled with the look of the film , the way the director shot everything like it was looking through a bizarre , personalized filter .
everything looks like it is not how life looks like but how painter francis bacon , the film 's subject , looked at it personally .
but while
i was engrossed
, i stumbled upon my thoughts halfway through the film , awakened from my trance by some inner distraction , and began to try and follow what 's going on .
exactly what was i looking at ?
watching this film , i was n't sure if it was the most insightful film i had ever seen or the most vacuous .
directed ( and written ) by john maybury , " love is the devil " is stylish masterpiece for the senses .
everything looks originally bizarre and perplexing .
the camera angles are ferociously askew , and the close - ups are uncomfortably too close .
the editing is deft , occasionally cutting away to something bizarre every couple seconds , but other times holding on a shot for so long that you wonder if the audience is not supposed to be voyeurs , or rather , intruders to bacon 's world and psyche .
as such , there is no real story .
i 've not heard much about francis bacon that i did n't read prior to the film , but what i learned was this : he was a painter in england who reached his peak during the 60s and 70s , drawing hideously bizarre drawings of carnage and the like .
he was one of the first to really come out of the closet , and in interviews , he was notoriously drunk yet incredibly witty .
as played by great shakesperean actor derek jacobi , he 's like a foppish and self - absorbed cross between oscar wilde and nero .
he lives life the way he wants to live it , to the disatisfaction of those who have the privelege of being really close to him .
it 's as if he were taking delight in the destruction of others and maybe himself ( " champagne for my real friends , and pain for my sham friends , " he says one night at the bar he frequents ) .
"
love is the devil " chronicles the latter part of his life .
bacon , well - known in his mid - life , awakens one night when he hears a man tumble through his ceiling window and land on the floor .
he walks in , unafraid of what he finds , and discovers a thief , george dyer ( daniel craig ) .
bacon gives him an offer : if he spends the night with him , he can take anything he wants in the morning .
george agrees to this , and off to bed he goes , but ends up staying with him , for whatever reason .
the film shows their lives together , at least in reference to one another .
while creating bacon 's world of friends ( like " high art , " this film minors in showing a certain group of people who radiate a connection that is not shown but is understood ) , the film shows the relationship of bacon and george as it remains rather stagnant .
bacon is haughty and bizarre ; george is simple and does n't understand bacon in the least , especially not his paintings .
while watching this , that 's basically all i thought was there .
the film has a hypnotic feel , free of any restraints of form , and is shot so uniquely
that i felt my attention was almost entirely on the way this film was made rather than what it is about .
once the film is over , it 's easier to piece it together .
i kept on thinking about this film , wondering what the point to all of it was .
someone does n't merely make a film of all style and no substance at all , and if they do , they do it by accident , but still allow some substance to creep in .
thinking about it , i remembered how the two fed off of eachother .
i thought about how bacon was a masochist , in love with cruelty ( in one scene , he watches a boxing match with a orgiastic delight , and lets out a squeal of pleasure when blood from the one boxer 's head splashes across his face ; in another scene , he masturbates to the odessa steps sequence of eisenstein 's " battleship potemkin " ) , and perhaps he drove george too far in his delight for pain .
he drove him over the edge , and for him that was love , even if it was n't for george .
i guess that explains the title .
a bit .
that 's great and all , but i almost wish the film was devoid of any meaning .
i wish it had n't reduced itself to making some point about humanity , about how love is the most selfish thing in the world ( and it is , if you look at it a certain way ) .
or maybe if it had avoided any meaning about humanity and merely drove itself into being the one film that was truly inside one man 's twisted pysche .
it 's almost always best to obtain insights from looking at one man 's uniqueness than it is forcing universality down an audience 's throat .
that way you do n't reduce your film to something it 's just not .
i ca n't say i totally enjoyed " love is the devil , " though .
despite all of the things i respect about this movie , it 's still rather uncomfortable to sit through .
even at a normally trite length of ninety minutes , the film still seems like an arduous task to sit through , especially after an exhausting first hour . though hypnotic
, it still almost seems gimmicky and even redundant at times , as if it were taking advantage of one man 's truly bizarre nature but not doing anything deeper with it . as such , i respect the way the film looks .
it 's beautiful and painstakingly crafted
so that , along with " what dreams may come " and " dark city , " it 's the year 's most visually stunning film .
in fact , if a better script had been forged , i 'd almost compare it in visual power to a peter greenaway film , complete with similar haunting images that stick in the mind forever .
and with a dymanite performance by derek jacobi , it has the comic and distanced tone that it needs .
i just wish it had been more than mostly style and just a hair bit of substance .
then i would have had something to hold me over even now .
[A]:
P