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

i was anxious to see this for a long time .
a friend of mine recommended this to me because he has a crush on neve campbell , and he wanted to prove that she 's as hot as he thinks he is .
he proved it for me all right , but
the reasons i enjoy this film go way beyond that .
scream treads on familar ground , horror movie with , as star neve campbell puts it , " some stupid killer stalking some big breasted girl who ca n't act who 's always running up the stairs when she should be running out the front door .
"
it 's very familar , your typical horror film .
so why , you may ask after watching it , does it seem so new and original ? because it treats itself as if it has n't been done before , and thus the viewer is disilusioned into believing that it is not old , familar tired stuff .
this raises another question : how does it do this ?
simple : the characters .
they 're not your typical stupid horror film victims who do n't know what the hell to do when being chased by a guy in a ski mask and a machette .
they are horror fans , they know how stuff happens in a horror movie , they know what to do and what not to do , and that makes it scary , and even funny at certain times .
you can tell this just by watching the opening scene where casey becker ( drew barrymore ) is making popcorn , getting ready to watch a video , and some guy who sounds like a killer calls her up to play a game with her that involves horror movie triva that , if she gets it wrong , will get her and her boyfriend killed .
she knows what to answer when he asks her horror film questions , she just ca n't answer his final question , " what door am i at ? " and that gets her killed .
that scene works because in a normal horror film , half the things that happen in that scene would never happen .
the plot is typical horror stuff : sidney prescott ( an impressive neve campbell ) , an attractive young high school student who 's mother was killed a year ago tommorrow , is being stalked by a killer who 's previously murdered one of her classmates ( casey , naturally ) , and everybody in this small , california town is a suspect , including sidney 's boyfriend , billy loomis .
but as i said before , these people know how horror movies work , and that 's what makes it so appealing .
that and the references to horror movies , like when casey says , " the first ( nightmare on elm street ) was scary , but the rest sucked .
" which is obviously director wes craven ( who does a good job of poking fun of the genre that made him a legend ) patting himself on the back as he directed the first nightmare movie and none of the others , and when tatum , sidney 's friend , mentions the director , wes carpenter , which is obviously an homage by writer kevin williamson to not only craven , but also director john carpenter .
the cast is well chosen , neve campbell pulls off a good heroine
( and unlike most horror film heroines , she * can * act ) , drew barrymore does a good janet leigh impression for what little time she has in the film , and david arquette is impressive .
also good
( and funny ) in his role is henry winkler ( " the fonz " )
as the school principal .
i took half a point off for the unnecessary ( albeit limited ) appearance by friends ' courteney cox as reporter , gail edwards , sidney 's rival because she covered her mother 's disappearance .
i hate that show
, i hate those actors .
they 're untalented , overexposed , and overpaid , imho , and i would think wes craven is smart enough to know those actors are overexposed enough , but i suppose he is n't .
P

before you read my review , you got ta know that i love woody allen .
this is a very important note because allen 's films are generally an acquired taste and definitely not for everyone .
i know folks who believe him to be a complete genius , while others see him as a dirty ol' schnook who keeps making the same movie over and over again .
i love most of his films , but will admit to having been quite disappointed by his recent crop during the 90s .
in fact , why he felt the need to make 10 movies in those 10 years is beyond me ! if you look at the quality of those films , you 'll hear what i 'm saying .
the only two films of his that i really liked during that time were bullets over broadway and husbands and wives .
in fact , i secretly hoped that he would take some " time off " at the turn of the millennium , just to re - energize or something , but it does n't appear as though he has any intention of doing that .
so here i am again , reviewing yet another woody allen movie and hoping that it brings back the woody from the days of old .
plot :
the year is 1940 and woody allen
is a top - notch insurance investigator .
his methods are very old - fashioned and apparently out of date .
a new employee ( hunt ) has just been hired to streamline the operations for greater efficiency .
the two do not like each other .
one night , they are both put under a hypnotic trance by a magician , and unbeknownst to them , placed under his control .
soon thereafter , jewels are stolen , words of love are exchanged and everyone is looking for an answer .
critique : a wonderful recreation of the 1940s style movies , with the fast - talking witty banter between
co - workers , a catchy jazz score moving things along , film noirish elements such as the veronica lake - type sexpot , one - liners galore and a fluffy , if inconsequential plotline .
on the downside , the film actually starts off pretty slowly , with the first hour tossing only a few guffaws out there , but never really generating any kind of steady flow or energy .
the sets , on the other hand , were amazing , the production design and costumes were perfect , and the casting ideal , so i kept hoping that the film would pick up and not turn into yet another mediocre outing for the man .
but it was n't not long before i was fully engaged by the characters , entertained by the many zingers delivered back - and - forth between allen and hunt , and actually interested in the resolution of the flick .
i also appreciated how allen played the fine line between homage to the films of old , parody and actual reinvention ( note theron 's entire female persona that is drenched in film noir- very cool ) .
of course , films like this ( with little or no real tension in the plot ) need solid actors to keep you interested in the quick - fire dialogue , and once again
, allen does a great job in playing his character , who for once , is n't his typical new york jewish neurotic cheating insecure husband dude .
he actually plays a " macho " guy here and handles it pretty well , especially the scenes in which he 's hypnotized .
but the bigger surprise for me in this film was helen hunt , an actress who i was openly " sick of seeing " in movies late last year ( sorry babe , you were just in too many at the same time ! ) .
anyway
, she 's really great in this film
as the headstrong woman looking to a new era of equality amongst men , and does n't miss a beat of allen 's fast - paced dialogue .
i did n't care much for her running joke about him " dying " whenever he left a room , but overall she was really good
and i especially liked the way that her sweaters clung to her breasts as they did .
..
yum , yum !
harumph , but i digress .
so let 's recap .
a great looking picture with a nice jazzy score , some funny one - liners , especially in the second half , a decent plotline , although you should n't expect a real mystery or anything , and some solid acting all around .
i ca n't say that this is even remotely close to any of allen 's best work , but i certainly believe it to be a step in the right direction , especially after the dinky decade of films that he just went through .
it 's probably better geared towards allen fans more than anyone else ,
but i would still recommend this film to anyone looking for a cute , " old - school " kind of vibe , with chemistry between the leads , zippy dialogue and a satisfying conclusion .
little known facts about this film and its stars :
annie hall ( 10/10 )
- celebrity ( 5/10 )
- everyone says i love you ( 5/10 ) - husbands and wives ( 9/10 ) - mighty aphrodite ( 5/10 ) - small time crooks ( 7/10 ) - when harry met sally ( 10/10 )
- you 've got mail ( 4/10 )
P

" nothing more than a high budget masturbation fantasy " showgirls ( nc-17 ) - contains graphic nudity , profanity , sexual situations and violence .
some people , however , keep their clothes on .
you do not watch porn films for their intellectual values , nor do you write reviews on them .
that 's why this review will be short .
it seems that this film will end up in the porn section when it hits the video stores .
there is no story , script , point or acting .
only naked bodies , which is exactly the point .
here is the so called plot
: nomi , the 23-year - old with a dark past as a hooker , has hitchhiked from somewhere back east to perform in a show where a dancer does n't wear much more than a light coating of powder and a big , fake smile .
no one is twisting nomi 's arm .
no one is holding her grandmother hostage .
she wants to do this .
and that is what she is doing till the end credits .
so what 's the problem then ?
what 's the point ?
what 's the film about ?
is there anyone whose aspirations could inspire less sympathy ?
this film can be described in one sentence :
obscene level of incompetence
, excessive stupidity in the story line , gross negligence of the viewer 's intelligence , a prurient interest in the quick buck .
believe me , after an hour with these characters , acting and script , you 'll start hoping for someone to kill somebody .
elizabeth berkley makes a laughable try
as the heroine of this film , that is bad even for eszterhas ' script .
her character is the only one that is at least half written and she could really have done better .
her character denies the fact that she is a whore for the industry , selling her body to the hungry eyes of the horny public .
"
i am not a whore !
i am a dancer " , she screams , but does it in such an over dramatized way that you 'll start laughing
.
in fact the acting in " showgirls " brings terrible to a new and previously unknown level .
not one single achievement , besides the conventional cinematography , is worth mentioning .
it is a total waste of time and money .
there is not a single moment of what you might call intelligence .
the dialogue is structured of ancient stereotypes and cliches lined up one after another .
its attempt to even imagine to have half a brain results in
a catastrophe .
" in my films , " writes director paul verhoeven ( ' basic instinct ' , ' total recall ' ) , " i hold the mirror up to life .
"
well , excuse me ?
his attempt to go behind the scenes of las vegas , and as he put it " show the naked truth " , is simplified and unreal
.
occasionally , between his collection of mistakes and logical irrationalities , screenwriter joe eszterhas ( the creator of some of the worst screenplays in hollywood history ) inserts some lines of deep morality , that sound something like this :
" hey , i see you .
i see that you 're hiding " - " from what ?
" - " from you " .
yes , and even the only decent line in this film : " nomi is what las vegas is all about " ca n't save ' showgirls ' from going under .
it 's a strange phenomena .
it 's not erotic , because it lacks sensuality .
not dramatic , because it lacks the acting .
and not intelligent because it lacks a story .
it is simply verhoven 's bad excuse for making pornography .
you want to see naked women ?
bare breasts ?
full frontals ?
it 's nothing wrong with that .
but in that case i suggest that you rent a porn film in your local video store , and not waste time surviving through eszterhas ' pathetic dialogue .
b qualities , while it 's only a high budget porn - film .

N