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

how do you judge a film that is so bad , but intentionally so ?
in spiceworld , the highly popular singing group the spice girls accomplish their major goal : mocking themselves with a purposely cheezy film and having a lot of fun doing it .
if that was their goal , they did a fantastic job .
so is it fair to give it such a low grade when it was n't really meant to be much better than this ?
honestly , i 'd rather see this film before many others i gave higher grades ,
so does that mean i graded it inaccurately ?
truth be known , i do n't really think i can answer this question .
to understand spiceworld , you have to understand the spice girls .
unless you 're very
* very * young , or fairly older , you probably have at least heard of them .
they 're a group of five busty british babes who 've had # 1 hit singles and whose debut album sold millions .
they 're primarily adored by pre - teen girls who hope someday the contents of their training bras might match those of ginger spice 's ( real name : geri haliwell ) wonderbra .
all five of the girls have these " spicy " names for which they are better known than their real names .
there is the aforementioned ginger spice , as well as sporty spice ( melanie chisholm , or mel c . ) , scary spice ( melanie brown , or mel b . ) , baby spice ( emma bunton ) , and posh spice ( victoria addams ) , and
all of them , to some degree or another , resemble their stage names .
the spice girls took the world by storm , and spiceworld is actually a good- humored spoof of all that transpired during their quick rise to fame .
it 's quite nice to see what good sports the girls are ( and not just the one dubbed sporty ) about poking fun at themselves .
they do n't take themselves too seriously , and that 's probably the best thing about them .
it 's also surprising how natural they seem in front of the camera * acting * , and not just singing and dancing .
they 're not flawless by any means , but for the most part , they deliver their lines without feeling staged , and , like them or not , we get the sense the five are very at home within their characters ( which seems reasonable since they portray themselves ) .
what makes the film bad is that extreme fans of the spice girls wo n't get enough of their music , while the rest of us do n't get enough of a movie .
the real point of this is to look at the spice girls for over ninety straight minutes .
most of the film is very blas ? , but several parts are downright boring , and then they have those sporadic moments that actually make us laugh out loud !
if you 're a big fan of the group , you probably wo n't get enough of what you want , and if you 're not a big fan , you get too much time devoted to nothing more than " look at us " moments .
for the right crowd , the " music video " sequences will be the highlights of the film , but for others , they will serve as three - minute lulls in a hectic - but - overall - uneventful storyline .
other key actors include richard e . grant as clifford , the spice girls ' manager , alan cumming as the film - maker piers cutherton - smyth who attempts to make a documentary of the group , george wendt as martin barnfield , a producer who constantly works on pitching a spice girls movie , and roger moore in a small , self - parodizing role .
all provide relatively good performances , keeping in mind once again that this film was n't meant to be acted seriously .
even meat loaf shows up as dennis the bus driver and seems to have fun with it .
while this film is continuously compared to the beatles ' a hard day 's night , i think that is an unjust comparison .
it is supposedly the movie studio that first mad the comparison by way of press kits , but i do n't think drector bob spiers , nor the spice girls , intended it to be so .
i think the studios were just trying to boost hype and interest in the film , and have instead , come off rather pretentious
.
i do n't think this film is trying to be anything more than a fun , satirical look at a group that got so big , a movie seemed the next likely step .
and what could 've been better than a self - indulged yet self- mocking approach ?
probably nothing , and so it is .
spiceworld is a movie i thought would be embarrassing to enjoy , but now instead , i find myself wanting to defend a movie i did n't even give a good review .
it 's bad , but it succeeds in every way it intended .
it gives the spice girls a chance to play while allowing all those obsessive fans out there to indulge in every brainless moment .
perhaps the group is nothing more than a gimmick .
if that 's the case , the movie 's gimmick is that it * is * such a gimmick !
you might be saying , " a spice girls movie ? come on ! "
,
but when it comes down to it , i think that 's the point .
N

well , i 'll admit when i first heard about this film ( which was before dante 's peak ) i could just smell what ' twister ' had started .
so now it seems that we 're in a full fledged return to the ' 70 's disaster film era .
with ' twister ' , ' dante 's peak ' , ' volcano ' and soon ' flood ' and james cameron 's extremly expensive ' titanic ' i 'll say first off
i enjoyed ' volcano ' much more than i did ' dantes peak ' .
part of that is just being biased as
i usually enjoy anything that tommy lee jones appears in .
i 've been reading a lot about the movie being ' cheezy ' or ' hokey ' and really did n't see or think that once during the entire film .
i get bored easily and this film did n't bore me for a minute .
another thing , and boy am i bitching today !
, that bothers me is when critics and such go on about
" well that s not really possible .
"
you know what ?
i could n't give a bloody damn if it 's possible or not , really i could n't .
it 's a freaking movie and i do n't want reality thrown in my face .
i want to be able to see the impossible , the all might " what if " to many reviewers have seen one to many movies !
the special effects are the second star to this feature .
they are so amazing that i found it hard sometimes to believe they were indeed fx
and la was was not burning to the ground .
they did an incredible job and come oscar time ( if they remember ) some notice better be thrown there way .
P

with his last two films - shine and snow falling on cedars - australian director scott hicks has proven his cinematic flashbacks to be some of the best out there , and his latest , hearts in atlantis , is no different .
its structure - beginning and ending in present day with one long flashback in the middle - is similar to the green mile , which is a bit ironic considering both were based on stephen king books .
the parallels do n't end there , either .
atlantis was adapted by william goldman , who had previously penned the big - screen version of misery and is in the process of working on the script for king 's dreamcatcher .
even the film 's content is a bit reminiscent of mile .
in fact , it 's the perfect blend of the feel - good ' 60s nostalgia of stand by me ( also by king ) and mystical power hokum of mile .
king 's atlantis is a book comprised of five related short stories , but the main focus here is on the first ( and longest ) tale , called low men in yellow coats ( the film 's title comes from the second chapter ) .
it 's set in 1960 harwich , connecticut , where 11-year - old bobby garfield ( anton yelchin )
lives in a boarding house run by his cold , self - centered mother elizabeth ( hope davis , joe gould 's secret ) , who seems to care more about her wardrobe than her son .
bobby spends his time with his two closest friends , john sullivan ( will rothhaar ) and tomboy carol gerber ( mika boorem ) , who become something like the kevin , paul and winnie of harwich .
when a new tenant moves into the vacant room , the fatherless bobby finds a male role model in ted brautigan ( anthony hopkins , hannibal ) , a mysterious stranger who is vague enough about his past to make bobby 's mom suspicious enough to at least momentarily turn her head away from the mirror .
ted teaches his young neighbor about the wonders of literature ( after his cheapskate mother gives him a library card for his birthday ) , dispenses prophetic words of wisdom and even pays bobby one dollar a week to read him the local newspaper and keep his eyes peeled for the low men , a group of people chasing ted to exploit his special powers .
i wo n't go into what these powers are , but they 're considerably toned down from the book ( and do n't involve black stuff flying out of ted 's mouth , a la mile ) .
atlantis ' present - day setting which bookends the film is based on the novel 's final chapter , titled heavenly shades of night are falling , and features david morse ( in yet another connection to the green mile ) as a married , middle - aged bobby who learns of the death of both of his childhood friends and returns to the dilapidated boarding house in which he spent his formative years .
atlantis is nowhere near as flashy as hicks ' cedars , which is disappointing but understandable considering the switch from the completely amazing robert richardson to the occasionally amazing piotr sobocinski , the oscar - nominated cinematographer behind krzysztof kieslowski 's red .
the acting is solid from everyone , including hopkins , who never once makes you think of dr .
lecter .
most impressive are youngsters yelchin and boorem , who both had tiny parts in along came a spider .
while i did n't really have much of a problem with goldman 's screenplay , i do need to point out at least one inconsistency .
goldman , for those of you who do n't read premiere , writes what seems like an annual criticism of everybody else 's films , carefully explaining why they all suck , make no sense and insult their audiences , while somehow failing to mention the crap that he 's penned ( like the general 's daughter ) .
it 's mean - spirited but fun to read , mostly on account of nobody else in hollywood having the balls to say anything remotely negative about anybody else in the business ( including michael jackson , o .
j . and robert blake ) .
in atlantis , which is supposed to be told through the eyes of young bobby , one would assume he would have to be in each scene in order to have the memory to which to flash back .
well , he 's not , and it does n't make sense .
1
: 41 - pg-13 for violence and thematic elements

P