instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
it has been 20 years since a terrence malick film hit theaters .
his new film , the thin red line , is a strange , beautiful , enigmatic mess of a movie .
the first thing that jumps out to one when they see the advertisements for this film is the huge cast .
it is filled with above - the - title stars .
the cast , for the most part , gives great performances .
john travolta , whose role is nothing more than a cameo , seems not to have attacked his performance with that much verve .
george clooney , whose role became a cameo in editing , gives a strange performance .
one wonders if he knew that his performance would become the object of ridicule through a character 's narration .
the rest of the cast , especially nick nolte and elias koteas , are unambiguously fantastic .
these actors ( and they are , with two exceptions , men ) were lured by the name of malick .
terrence malick is a cinematic legend .
he has often been called " the j .
d .
salinger of cinema .
"
his two previous films , badlands and days of heaven , are spectacularly beautiful and obscure motion pictures .
after he made them , he disappeared for 20 years .
this film marks his return .
what he 's made with the thin red line is a film that seems less concerned with plot than with the emotion of the moment .
the narration which fills the film ( and perplexes many ) not only lets us hear the narrators ( the characters themselves ) pontificate , but also lets us hear such of - the - moment thoughts as " i 'm scared .
"
the rather simple plot of the thin red line is used as a canvas on which many stories are painted .
the plot couldly simply be boiled down to an assault on a hill .
a plot synopsis for the thin red line is difficult , because the story is fractured .
many stories are here , from the clash between the lieutenant ( elias koteas ) and the savage colonel ( a voracious nick nolte ) to the private ( ben chaplin ) who uses his love for the woman he left behind to keep him going .
the fracturing of the story is ultimately a fault .
it is as if an artist spent an incredible amount of time artfully sculpting tiny statues and then threw them into a box , shook the box , and poured the results onto a table .
this basically creates a mess , but the stories can be discerned and enjoyed .
i 'm not declaring that the film has no structure .
while saving private ryan used warfare to bookend the plot , malick uses reflection and glorious shots of nature to bookend about 90 minutes of combat .
the battles in the thin red line are astonishing and display a mastery of filmmaking . the astounding cinematography in this film must also be given notice .
this film uses color and light in such a fantastic way , that it will be sad to see it degraded when it has to bee transferred to video .
ultimately , malick has crafted a film that is a movie that enjoys looking through the treetops more than regarding the war that rages below them .
the film is filled with nature photography and the regarding of nature .
while some have said that the anti - war message and pro - nature tubthumping was juvenile , it was done with so much complexity and thought , that it can not ever honestly be called childish .
after seeing the thin red line , i was haunted by it and am quite ready to see it again .
answer:
P


question:
as we see the terrible events that unfold before our eyes in the middle east at the moment , hollywood does n't loose the oppertunity to get involved , by telling stories and expressing opinions .
this film centers on a relationship forged throughout the adult lifetimes of two marine colonels , hays hodges ( tommy lee jones ) and terry childers ( samuel l . jackson ) .
they fought side by side in vietnam , where childers saved hodges ' life by shooting an unarmed pow .
that 's against the rules of war but understandable , in this story anyway , under the specific circumstances .
certainly hodges is not complaining .
years pass .
hodges , whose wounds make him unfit for action , gets a law degree and becomes a marine lawyer .
childers , is now a respected and much - decorated hero that has served his country with his life and sould .
because of his excellent record , childers is sent to yemen to rescue the american ambassador ( ben kingsley ) , cowering in the embassy under assault from violent demonstrators and snipers blasting from rooftops .
childers does what he has to do : evacuate the family and protect the men under his command .
after three marines die and the colonel thinks he sees ground fire , he orders his troops to shoot into the firing crowd .
more than 80 yemeni men , women , and children are mowed down .
childers is immediately accused of ordering his men to fire on a crowd and murder of unarmed civilians .
he persuades his old friend hodges to represent him in the courtroom drama that occupies the second half of the film .
did childers violate authorized u . s .
military rules of engagement ?
or are there simply no rules in war ?
the answers to these stereotypical questions are obvious , but the inconsistent plot immediately raises all sorts of other questions .
the murder of 83 " innocent civilians " has to result into something greater than a simple trial in the u . s .
where is the accusations from the arab leaders ?
where is the u . n . ?
the film ends without even telling the most interesting story : what happens on the international arena ?
this film ( in a way akin to films such as " a few good men " ) has already been accused of breaking the rules of morality and ethics and even of racism .
these accusations are pretty heavy , but also unfair .
what director william friedklin truly broke was the rules of decent filmmaking
. one of the earliest apparent problems with ' rules of engagement ' is its lack of credibility .
the entire operation in yemen may remind us about what happens in the middle east right now , but is overdone , contrived and unrealistic - as if a chain of events had to happen in a particular manner in order for the plot to proceed .
a lot of it is so cheesy that no one could possibly accept it as reality .
that is precisely why it 's not offensive .
it is completely unobjective .
many stories are started and never finished .
many questions are asked , but never answered .
a lot of parallels are referring to nothing .
it seems that neither the director , producers or the screenwriter can make up their minds about the contents of their film .
is it about arab mentality ?
america 's foreign policies ?
america 's role in the world ?
corruption in the higher circles ?
it goes on and on .
it consists of countless stories , but not a definable plot .
it tries to be everything for everyone and ends up being nothing for no one .
i think that it is ironic , because director william friedkin 's probably most acclaimed film was " the exorcist " which had a silly story , but became a rather effective film .
in this case you have a strong story with many possibilities and the result is a silly film .
though several scenes bare the mark of professionalism ( such as the impressive battle scenes ) , his latest film does simply not engage .
i believe that friedklin is a director that is absolutely depended on great scripts and talented producers in order to succeed .
it 's obvious that he has neither and the result is therefore a catastrophe .
the characters feel designed , unreal , merely shadows , with no life outside the conflict .
even the actors can not save this film from going under .
though both jackson and jones act admirably , with performances that are as good as you get with a script like this , it is not something that these great actors can boast of .
they have roles that they could play blindfolded with their hand on the back .
jackson is gray and jones uninteresting .
the rest of the cast , including ben kingsly , blair underwood and guy pearce are simply waiting for their paychecks .
the time has come for the verdict .
on the charges of complete lack of objectivity , i find this film guilty .
on the charges of breaking the rules of reasonable filmmaking , i find it guilty .
but on the charges of racism i find this film not guilty , because of it 's inconclusive and often silly plot
that lacks objectivity everywhere , not only when concerning the arab population .
i must admit that the film is dangerously near the line of being racially offensive and i do think that screenwriter stephen gaghan went a bit too far , portraying the yemeni people almost as stereotypical hollywood bad - guys .
this is very sad , since in a time like this it is crucial to not lose objectivity and proclaim the truth .
however , it is absolutely necessary to remember that the muslim terrorists are responsible for most of the terrorist activity in and outside the united states .
and that it 's not a coincidence that u . s .
residents in the middle east , including yemen are on constant maximum alert .
answer:
N


question:
"
the world on land -- it 's just too big for me .
" starring tim roth , pruitt taylor vince , bill nunn , clarence williams iii . rated r .
the legend of 1900s is the year 's most absurd movie , a rambling , nonsensical piece of seafaring garbage that goes nowhere fast
.
it stars thespian extraordinaire tim roth , looking wistful as ever , as a guy named . . .
1900 .
you heard right .
his name is , in all actuality , 1900 .
he was born on an ocean liner on 1/1/1900 ( uh , hence the name ) , abandoned and adopted by danny , a ship crewman .
1900 spends most of his early years hiding in the bowels of the ship because of danny 's fear that he might be taken away from him because of " visa matters .
"
well , when 1900 is about 9 or so , he starts wondering all around the ship .
one day , he discovers a grand piano .
he sits down and starts playing .
miraculously , what comes out is beautiful .
a group of onlookers gathers to watch this stunning prodigy make such amazing music at such a young age .
when one of the people who knows 1900 tells him that his playing the piano like that without permission is " totally against regulations
" 1900 replies " f
* ck the regulations !
"
ho
ho ho .
1900 grows up never setting foot on dry land .
when he 's about 30ish and can play the piano like nobody 's business , onboard comes another musician .
his name is max ( pruitt taylor vince ) and he plays the trumpet .
after 1900 catches max barfing everywhere during a storm , he sits him down on the piano next to him , takes the piano 's braces off and plays while the piano flies all around the hall , taking them with it .
how the chair they 're sitting on and the piano do n't separate , i do n't know , but this apparently is n't the kind of thing we 're supposed to ask .
after that , 1900 and max become friends .
max is determined to get 1900 off the ship and discover what he is missing on land , but 1900 has no intention of doing so .
what 's more , he does n't even want his music to go anywhere without him : when a record company hears about his talents , they come on board to make a record of his music , but after finding out that -- gasp !
-- they 're going to make millions of copies , he breaks the record .
the conflict of the movie is that after max , unsuccessful in his endeavor to get 1900 off the ship , gets off himself , he stumbles upon a record of 1900 's music in a store .
the record should n't exist because a ) 1900 never stepped on dry land and b ) the one record that was made on the ship was broken .
ladies and gentlemen , it 's a mystery !
the story itself is ludicrous and uninteresting and so are its elements .
we 're supposed to be roused by a climactic . . .
piano duel ?
there is n't anything in this movie with the potential to compel .
1900 comes off as a whiny , brooding , extremely unlikable man : i ca n't recall a single word he said that was not some sort of depressing pseudo- meditation on life .
ditto for max , who does n't seem to have a life outside his friendship with 1900 .
tim roth plays 1900 with about as much panache as a fig leaf ; there 's no spirit , no gusto to the character .
he insists that he leads a happy life on the ship , but to us he is dead .
pruitt taylor vince is a little more palatable , at least providing a moment of comic relief here and there to liven things up a bit .
the highlight of the movie would have to be the eminently amusing clarence williams the iii as the arrogant , leering " king of jazz " who challenges 1900 to the aforementioned piano duel .
the legend of 1900 was made by giuseppe tornatore , whose 1988 cinema paradiso is considered a masterpiece by many .
this effort is utterly limp and lifeless .
at once ridiculous , boring , narrow - sighted and pointless , this is one movie that should be -- and will be -- quickly forgotten .
answer:

N