instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
i can hear the question already .
what on earth do these two movies have in common ?
to most people , not a lot , except that both are by renowned directors .
as i saw them , however , both movies have flawed romantic scripts wrapped in distinctive packaging of lavish visuals musical numbers .
but oh , how differently the packages affect their films .
while " everyone 's " production numbers make an otherwise ordinary woody tale something special , jane campion 's imaginative visuals only serve to emphasize how pompous and uninvolving laura jones ' script is .
i left " everyone says i love you " not remembering a lot about who loved whom , but its infectious happiness put a grin on my face .
i left " the portrait of a lady " not remembering a lot about who loved whom , and i could have cared less .
" everyone " features nothing allen has n't done before storywise .
woody is again desperately in love with a beautiful woman ( roberts ) , and against the odds they manage to click for awhile before allen is left wondering what went wrong -- again .
similar situations happen to his family and friends .
some of the more outlandish comedy scenes even hark back to his " early , funny " films .
the scenes between tim roth and drew barrymore could have come out of " take the money and run , " his directorial debut .
however , nothing allen has ever done prepared me for this one - of - a - kind display of sheer good spirits .
in fact , in this movie , the feeling itself is what 's most important .
yes , the movie would have been better -- among his very best , i think -- if it had a meatier story .
but what it lacks in substance it makes up for in feeling .
and what better way to express feeling than through music ?
love is often best expressed in a song , and the numbers the cast break into here cut straight to the heart .
some are a tad too goofy , such as the number where a lot of ghosts prance around in a funeral parlor ,
but i admired allen for even putting them in there .
it also helps that as usual , allen has a top - flight cast working with him .
their singing voices range from quite good ( goldie hawn ) to not quite good ( allen ) to literally unlistenable ( barrymore , whose real voice was dubbed by a professional ) .
but while their vocal abilities differ , all the actors do a great job of putting joy up there on the screen , and making it rub off on the audience .
granted , some people will simply never accept characters singing in movies , but for those attuned to it , this film should work wonders .
jane campion , too , has a top - flight cast working for her in " portrait of a lady , " too , but even their considerable skills can do nothing to keep the film from being a stilted , virtually lifeless mess ,
albeit a visually interesting one . campion and her cinematographer stuart dryburgh come up with a great variety of eye - filling images that linger in the mind .
unfortunately , what did n't linger in the mind for me
was the story the visuals were supposed to be reflecting .
i remember very well shots of a train with its light beaming and shots of men vanishing around nicole kidman , but i can remember very little of what happened between all these people .
even worse , i do n't find myself feeling bad that i 've forgotten .
the problem , i think , lies not with the cast , which seemed to be trying very hard for the material .
it was the script that could n't convince me to care about anyone .
the characters were putting out all kinds of emotion , but i found no reason to connect with any of them .
i understood that the story was about cold , emotionally vacant characters , but for me to care about them , i have to identify with them somehow and want them to inject feeling into their lives .
jones ' script never simply gave me that opportunity .
in the end , it almost seemed as if campion was trying to inject some life of her own into the proceedings with her visual flourishes . unfortunately , as she kept painting these dazzling pictures , they only served to push me further away from the material and remind me that there was no connection between me and the film .
in the end , the movie 's one strength ended up hurting it .
so here we have two films with pretty uninteresting plots , and
yet i was able to truly enjoy one of them .
why ?
with both films , my head cared about neither story , but
only " everyone says i love you " was able to make my heart sing .
answer:
P


question:
along his carreer , mel gibson has collected several successes , not only from an economic point of view but also from an artistic point of view .
for all that , i think no one could guess the skills and abilities now disclosed in braveheart .
the australian actor decided to produce and direct a film about sir william wallace , a popular scotch hero of the 13th century , where he would also perform the principal role . accepting so huge challenge , mel gibson run the risk of stain all his work of years , with a suppoosed failure , just to see recognized , by everyone , all his potentialities and , that way , to consolidate his position in hollywood .
it was , definitely , an enormous risk
but i 'm sure mel knew exactly well what he was going to face .
braveheart is , in fact , a magnificent and magisterial film .
for three hours we are completely absorbed by the narrative 's rhyitm which never gives place to a single moment of monotony or uninterest .
the william wallace 's story is the story of so many others brave liberty 's defenders who fought and gave the life for that essential value , along the centuries .
seeing himself and his people victims of injustices and violent repression , william wallace dares to face the powerful edward i , king of england , in a war by the autonomy of scotland .
as the victories succeed the number of fighters with wallace goes growing up .
his courage and inteligence are admired by everyone , including the princess isabelle of wales , wife of edward 's son .
however , william wallace was also surrounded by enemies and some of them were closer than he thought .
braveheart may not be an historically corrected movie but the nature of its message make us think about the importance that we give to liberty , nowadays .
mel gibson directs with a lot of brilliancy a brilliant cast .
patrick mcgoohan has a very nice performance
as edward i , the king longshank .
the scene when he waits for the death and loses his voice is really good .
sophie marceau , as princess isabelle , has along the movie no more than fifteen minutes of performance but mel gibson gave to those minutes such a very special treatment that princess isabelle soon becomes one of the major characters in braveheart .
i also liked the performances of angus macfadyen , as robert the bruce , and , of course , mel gibson , as william wallace .
however , i think this time the mel gibson 's work as director was much better than his work as actor .
the excellent music composed by james horner is another thing that helps braveheart to be the success that it really is .
when we join that music to the beautiful scotch landscapes , view by the camera of john toll , then we realize all the beauty of this film .
braveheart is , in my opinion ,
one of the best movies of 1995 !
i 've heard some people saying that mel gibson is gon na be a new david lean .
for now , let 's see if braveheart equalizes the 6 oscars of lawrence of arabia .
it wo n't be easy !
it 's gon na be one more challenge for mel gibson .
answer:
P


question:
while the summer movie season approached its long awaited cessation , we had yet another shoddy , subordinate disposable celluloid superhero movie brought on by the inexorable hasten from the major studios to please kids with everything they think kids will go for to disburse their seven bucks .
and , once again , we have one of the worst films of the year .
the trend of the moment-- and bear in mind
it 's a trend not a movie - is spawn , and if you 've seen the animated series on hbo you 'll recall it embodies the lost life of a disfigured man , an individual who has transpired the ultimate punishment : he 's been sent to hell .
todd mcfarlane , the creator of the spawn comic book , must have had a tough time sitting through spawn , for his creativity and themes about resurrection and loss of identity were all being jettisoned in favor of reliable special effects , style over substance , ambience over anything else .
not only does spawn rely entirely on special effects , the story , about a bewildered individual who must take on a group of * bad guys * and * find himself * in the process is realized in such a sordid , incapable manner , it becomes indigestible after a while .
every character in this film is lifeless , vacuous and seemingly written by a depressed college student .
the story begins , like in every superhero movie in this age , with a man living an idyllic life .
al simmons ( michael jai white ) , a government agent / assassin shares the love of his wife , wanda ( theresa russell ) and daughter , has a tongue - in - cheek , wiseass partner , terry ( d . b sweeney ) and is content with the job his boss , jason wynn ( martin sheen ) , provides him .
the next element in the film is the part when things go awry .
and as expected , everyone turns the tables on poor al .
as the two are investigating their latest mission at some sort of biological weapons plant , al is befriended by jason , and dies in a gory and truly sickening scene .
inevitably , it leads everyone to the conclusion that he has passed away .
hence , jason 's mischievous master - mind plan , to ` conquer the world " is just commencing its initial stages , when al makes a pact with satan himself , agreeing to command the devil 's army to take over the world and he gets to see his family again .
so , our pal al has been uplifted to hell , and while his transformation from normal guy to spawn takes place , his ol' partner terry forms a relationship with his wife .
time passes .
and now spawn is present in the grotesque inner city , the ghetto where cog ( nicol williamson ) teaches
spawn how to utilize his neat artifacts , his motorbike , armor , etc . . .
this character is merely a poor man 's obi wan kenobi without all the mythological hoopla
.
now the stage is set spawn , the new ` enemy of evil ' vs evil . and evil takes the cake , doubtlessly .
john leguizamo 's deliciously heinous performance as the injurious clown working for wynn is the film 's relief point .
all this anguish , pain , half - baked themes and putrid action scenes are invisible to leguizamo , who steals the show and derives joy from his character , which is basically a compilation of so - so one liners .
and then there 's martin sheen .
whichever way you look you will find carving boards near his pitying and downright appalling last two years .
his selections calls for an immediate firing of his agent .
as the megalomaniac boss , his caricature plays like a bad dream out of a b - movie , scrambled , and left in the shelf to rot .
this is the man that starred in films such as apocalypse now and wall street .
i 'd never thought i 'd be saying this , but at this juncture , charlie sheen 's career is in better shape .
spawn is a movie in which realism , or even an attempt to draw a parallel between the problems of the hero and real life is identifiable .
for most of the film the vapid michael jai white consumes
his time ogling , jumping through roofs , and performing all kinds of acrobatic exercises which even batman and robin accomplished better .
it constantly reminded us we were watching a superhero movie-- a very bad superhero movie
.
continually the film kept on depending on special effects , and sadly
, this is how pictures are being made .
perhaps no other movie better than spawn illustrates the deterioration of cinema through computer wizardry .
the filmmakers seem to have forgotten every human element possible .
the quality of this film is abysmal and insulting .
it is perceptible that director mark dippe , attempted to touch the psychological chord that tim burton 's batman did touch , the desperation of a man whose life has all but evaporated in one spontaneous act .
but bruce wayne had human elements to him .
he was pensive , resourceful and had relationships , which made our perspective on him equally human .
the character of al simmons seems to be longing for a drastic change , as if he 's fatigued about being normal .
and as all superheroes , batman , superman , the phantom , they must possess an element of normal civilians to make us think they are extraordinary .
none of this is present in spawn .
the fighting sequences are weakly executed , the dialogue is penny - dreadful and the art direction an odious duplicate of blade runner 's . as an example of this film 's vastly creative imagination the writers of spawn decided to include a poor orphan boy who is abandoned and beaten , and then rescued by spawn , so our emotions tend to be a little more sympathetic .
admittedly , i did laugh once in the film , and that 's when todd mcfarlane showed up in an unexpected cameo as a bum .
it is no wonder why so american children grow up with no engrossment for art or literature .
besides blaming a large portion of it on the laughable school system , i condemn the other part to garbage like spawn .
movies that present no admiration , no captivation , no richness and vague interest in what children are being subjected to .
and kids will continue to see films like spawn , simply because they are unable to differentiate what makes an imaginative , wondrous film from an insipid and wasteful one .
children are not muppets . and spawn unapologetically targets children .
answer:

N