instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
[ note that followups are directed to rec .
arts .
movies .
current - films and rec .
arts .
movies .
startrek .
current only , not to rec .
arts .
sf .
movies .
-moderator
] star trek : first contact a film review by michael
dequina copyright 1996 michael dequina star trek :
first contact ( pg-13 ) anyone familiar with the series of star trek movies knows of the " even - odd pattern " --the even - numbered installments of the series are good while the odd - numbered ones are , well , not - so - good .
the pattern continues with the new star trek : first contact , an energetic sci - fi adventure that
( coincidentally ? ) is the eighth entry in the hugely popular series .
in this first trek feature to feature only cast members from the late star trek : the next generation television series , captain jean - luc picard ( patrick stewart ) and the rest of the 24th - century crew of the starship enterprise -- commander will riker ( jonathan frakes , who also directed ) , android lt .
cmdr .
data ( brent spiner ) , lt .
cmdr .
geordi laforge ( levar burton ) , lt .
cmdr .
worf ( michael dorn ) , dr .
beverly crusher ( gates mcfadden ) , and counselor deanna troi ( marina sirtis )
--travel back to 21st - century earth while doing battle with the borg , a race of cybernetic beings that share a collective mind with the borg queen ( alice krige ) .
the borg intend to alter history and assimilate all of humankind into their race -- starting with the earth - orbiting crew of the enterprise and a 21st century stowaway ( alfre woodard ) .
this is an interesting plotline that is sure to mesmerize trekkers everywhere and engage everyone else , but , unfortunately , it only makes up the star trek half of the script by brannon braga and
ronald d . moore .
the other half of the title -- first contact -- refers to a subplot that takes place on 21st - century earth , where riker , troi , and laforge meet legendary scientist zephram cochran ( james cromwell ) , who is about to embark on the first warp speed flight in human history , which directly leads to the first contact with extraterrestrials .
while this story does tie into the main plot and pays off interestingly in the end , it is nowhere near as involving or exciting as the borg battles on the enterprise .
not helping matters is the tiresome cochran character , an eccentric whose drunken schtick starts out funny but becomes too one - note after a while .
in the end , though , the first contact subplot does n't detract from the enjoyment of the film as a whole .
the story is typical sci - fi fantasy , but the conviction of the cast -- most notably the always - phenomenal stewart -- makes you believe and care .
frakes , making his feature directorial debut , keeps the action swiftly rolling along and delivers the action goods , even upping the violence a notch ( this is the first trek film to bear a pg-13 rating ) to greater effect .
st : fc has a bigger budget than the last trek outing , the middling star trek generations , and it definitely shows on screen -- the production design and especially visual and makeup effects are outstanding
( in particular those involving the borg queen ) .
braga and moore 's mostly sharp script will please both trek devotees and the rest ; the references to the borg storyline in the tv series , the continuity with the previous film ( e . g .
the ongoing saga of data 's emotion chip ) , and a fleeting star trek : voyager crossover will make trekkers squeal with delight , but such points are made easily accessible to those less familiar to the trek mythos .
paramount was reportedly worried about the staying power of its trek franchise with the next generation cast now carrying the helm .
based on the entertaining success that is star trek : first contact , i 'd say the studio has nothing to worry about
( at least not until this cast retires and the crew of the wan star trek : deep space nine takes over . . . ) .
answer:
P


question:
the haunting , a film so confusing that it forgets the true meaning of a horror film : to scare us .
if you 've ever seen a movie , which you probably have considering you are on this website , you should know about all of the trivia they post before a movie .
they have things like illustrations and you have to guess the movie or facts about the film .
but , the one i always like are the & quot ;
other name&quot ; joke that try and rename a particular film .
for instance , the one playing before the haunting had different titles for the film , small soldiers .
they had titles like little infantry and can i get those fatigues in a smaller size ?
well , after seeing the haunting , i had a few particular names for it as well .
unfortunately , i can only post one of them , otherwise , i 'd be getting some pretty angry e - mails from overprotective mothers .
that title would be the confusing .
ok , that is a pretty bad title , but it fits this film perfectly .
it basically serves up no purpose , and
combined with dry dialogue and a boring and confusing plot , it completes the formula for a cinematic bomb .
liam neeson once again gets wrapped up in a film without any depth , but at least the phantom menace was exciting and had some depth .
the haunting is nothing but trash , but unfortunately , will still make a boatload of money .
before i rant and rave about how bad this film is , let me point out the few , and i stress the word few , bright spots in this film .
first , the house is great- looking .
it looks beautiful , but this is also a dark spot .
it looks so great that it is hard to be frightened by it .
this is something that rears its ugly head at all points of the film .
things look so great , that you are looking on in awe instead of being scared straight .
haunted house films have to contain one element to even be slightly successful and that is being eerie .
the hill house is not eerie .
it is beautiful , but not the least bit frightening .
ever heard of lili taylor ?
before this film i did not , but i am glad that i do now .
she gives the only satisfactory performance in the film . despite the dry dialogue and boring / confusing concept
, she manages to light up the screen every time she appears , but unfortunately , her co - stars are usually following right behind .
owen wilson , who plays luke , is the only other cast member even close to giving an admirable performance , other then taylor .
he is basically there for the comic relief , and his character development is poor in all other areas .
all of the characters are desperately underdeveloped .
wilson had potential as luke , but it seems they just needed him to add a few laughs .
liam neeson and catherine zeta - jones suffer from the dialogue and plot and should not have been in this film .
their characters must suffer from wicked mood swings because in each scene they turn from ruthless to compassionate to scared to brave and whatnot .
they just are not believable and this is the final nail in the haunting 's coffin .
the plot is terrible .
the opening scene of the film is very important , but the director makes it too obvious by getting close - ups of all the things that will play a major role in the end of the film .
as i sat through the film , i kept wondering what this film was trying to accomplish .
nell , lili taylor 's character , goes from the hunted to the savior .
it makes no sense and the director gives the audience no reasoning for the ridiculous changes that take place in the film .
he forces the viewer to make various assumptions and does not give any in - depth information .
for instance , the beginning of the film gives us a sense of why nell is getting involved in the program .
but , we get zilch for the other four .
plus , two of them get wiped out in the first ten minutes .
and the worst part :
most horror films have killings .
for some reason , they kill off luke at the end of the film .
no reason whatsoever , just off with his head , literally .
overall , the haunting is the epitome of a bad movie
. bad plot , confusing storyline and a waste of good talent .
hopefully , liam neeson can rebound and get into a good film and be used to his full potential .
hopefully , lili taylor will be recognized for doing such a great job in such a bad film .
and hopefully , other horror films , such as the blair witch project and the haunting of hill house , will not be as bad as this one .
answer:
N


question:
my opinion on a film can be easily swayed by the presence of actors i love .
i love ralph fiennes .
i love uma thurman .
i love sean connery .
hell , i 'm even a big fan of jim broadbent and fiona shaw .
i saw the fantastic preview for the avengers nearly eight months ago , and i 've been eagerly awaiting the film ever since .
a few months into the summer , however , i noticed that its release date had been changed a few times , and that it had ended up in the mid - august dumping ground .
then , in this final week before its official release , i learned that it was not to be screened for critics .
and that the actors had not been plugging the film on late night programs .
and that it was directed by the same man who brought us the remake of diabolique .
my expectations fell to pieces when i learned all of these things .
the film i saw today did n't even meet those expectations .
this is a lousy , incoherent mess .
i would slam it harder , if it were n't for the nifty sets and the mere presence of all these fine , lovable actors .
but sets are ultimately empty , and the performances are completely uninspired .
that 's the main problem with the avengers : for all it 's hip - hop flash and tidal waves ,
none of it feels the least bit energetic or inspired .
it 's like a chore , a bland exercise in superhero film making .
it also feels like its been cut to pieces , clocking in at 90 minutes and forgetting to close some of its own subplots .
this is just plain depressing .
the avengers is a film version of the popular 60s television show .
frequent readers of mine will not be surprised to learn that i 've never watched an episode .
i was n't alive then .
i do n't even watch television now .
i 'm very sorry that i do n't have this perspective , but , judging from the reviews i 've already read , knowing the tv show just makes matters worse .
i did n't know and love john steed and emma peel , and therefore i was not as upset to see how these actors i love have managed to thrash their roles .
i also doubt that familiarity with the series would allow me to understand more clearly the chain of events that do take place in this film .
based on what the film told me , i gather that steed ( fiennes ) is some kind of british super guy ( somewhat like james bond ) , and that dr .
peel ( thurman ) is just a really smart doctor , who also happens to know a lot about weather and about beating people up while limited by tight leather suits .
they are to work together , under mother 's orders ( mother is played by jolly jim broadbent , while his co - conspirator , father , is played by the equally - talented fiona shaw ) .
it seems that there is a man out there controlling the weather .
his name is de wynter ( connery ) .
he is a crazy scottish guy .
our heroes had better stop him , or else . . .
the weather will keep getting colder until they " have to go to hell to warm up " ( one of the film 's few funny lines ) . along the way there is subplot after subplot , hinged sloppily together by scenes that go nowhere , feel perfunctory , and ultimately make no sense
.
for example , our heroes are eventually attacked by a swarm of giant mechanical insects with machineguns attached to their torsos .
now , killer bugs do n't really go with the weather - controlling theme of the film .
the purpose of the bugs , other than to annihilate our heroes , is never established .
they 're never even directly connected to de wynter ( they 're controlled by his crazy henchman , played by eddie izzard ) .
the special effects are n't bad , but they 're loud , obnoxious , and intrusive .
like so many scenes in the film , it seems present only to keep your attention from waning .
and i guarantee you ,
it will wane .
i stopped thinking about the story when i realized it did n't do any good to think .
the avengers has clearly been chopped up and re - assembled so many times that even the people involved could n't tell us what happens .
there are several scenes in the preview that did n't make the final cut .
in addition , many of the sequences have irritating , grainy film quality , which makes it feel low - budget ( the last scene is particularly bad ) .
the scenes that do n't feature action should be electric , thanks to our wonderful cast .
they are n't .
the action scenes should be electric , because this is an action film .
they are n't , either .
and what about this
wasted cast ?
oh , it makes me weep with disappointment .
we 're talking ralph fiennes here ,
one of the best actors working today , one of the best actors * ever * .
i love the guy .
i 've loved all his films , until this one .
he seems like he wants to understand the film , but he 's as lost as we are .
and thurman , in all of her spectacular beauty and talent , ca n't manage to look at home here .
( i do n't blame her completely , for there is a strange subplot involving her evil twin that is never explained in any way , and it ca n't be easy to deal with such terrible screenwriting . )
connery , however , seems the most out of it , totally lacking any kind of focus , or interest , for that matter .
who is to blame ? is it the screenwriter , don macpherson ?
perhaps , although i can see a shell of a story here that could have been a good superhero movie had it been handled right .
is it the actors ?
for god 's sake , no -- these people clearly lost interest when they saw the inevitable path of destruction on which this film was travelling .
i blame director jeremiah chechik , who should n't have been given the task to begin with .
his best film , benny & joon , is quirky in the same way that this one was supposed to be , but here it mostly seems like a lot of failed attempts at wit and humor .
add to that a lack of experience in big - budget action , and you have the worst choice for director this side of james ivory .
if the avengers has a saving grace , it 's the set design .
the sets ( by stuart craig ) are big , colorful , and often pleasing to look at .
i like the final set - piece , on de wynter 's island , even if none of it makes a bit of sense .
i admired the overhead view of the stairs , showing dr .
peel running around in circles and never getting anywhere .
i also enjoyed michael kamen 's music score , particularly in the opening credits .
but this stuff is routine -- good sets and music are nice , but
there 's a lot more that needs to be here .
inspiration , for instance , would have been really nice .
maybe a little bit of cohesion in the story . or a sense of purpose .
most of all , though , i would have liked to see these actors relish in their roles .
damn this movie for not giving them the chance .
answer:

N