instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
ironically , one of the themes of 200 cigarettes is that you should try to make the best of every moment in life .
unfortunately i will no longer be able to say that i lived every moment of my life to the fullest , because i spent 95 otherwise perfectly good minutes , watching this sad excuse for a movie .
actually smoking 200 cigarettes in the same 95 minutes could n't be any worse for you than it is to watch the movie .
not only is it a pathetically bad film overall , but 200 cigarettes actually has no redeeming qualities whatsoever .
the plot is scattered , thin and predictable ; the acting is monumentally bad ; and the style of film making resembles a home video .
it is december 31 , 1981 and the big party is at monica 's ( martha plimpton ) house .
but no one has arrived yet .
her 8 invited guests and several people that they have picked throughout the evening are wandering the streets of new york city in various groups .
some of them know each other through their common bond of having slept with monica , and some are total strangers .
but they all are to face their own personal neuroses before night 's end .
those who are invited are the ones that have the issues .
it is up to those who are n't to help them come to terms .
first there is eric ( brian mccardie ) who is a former boyfriend of monica 's and is just getting over the heartbreak of their relationship terminating prematurely because of his sexual performance , or lack thereof .
he is one of the most bland characters , in a film full of dullness , because he is so utterly predictable and stereotypical , a common trait of this poor production .
bridget ( nicole parker ) and caitlyn ( angela featherstone ) who are both extremely sensuous young women looking for someone to handle their desires on new year 's eve and tag along to the party with them .
they stumble across a nameless bartender ( ben affleck ) who is the one truly perfect character in a film of imperfections .
he is nether sexually deprived , nor uncertain about his future , as he is in law school .
his lack of flaws is both boring , unrealistic and painful to watch .
as bridget and caitlyn make passes at him you are neither entertained nor humored by the sub - standard comedy .
moving on , there is val ( christina ricci ) and stephie , ( gabby hoffman ) 2 teenage girls with fake identification and very different thoughts .
val is monica 's cousin and a true fan of the new york scene .
on the other hand , stephie is convinced that she is vulnerable to crime when the two venture out of their usual locations in search of the party that they just ca n't find .
paradoxically , it is 2 punks that they meet at a bar ( actually they attempt to flee from their presence , but are n't successful ) who guide them through their fears and force a level of relaxation upon their warped minds .
of all the insanely dull and uninteresting couples
, only one approaches a level of decency in both acting and plot .
wisely , the movie 's creators have put heavy emphasis on lucy ( courtney love ) and kevin ( paul rudd ) who are best friends and share the common bond of being dateless .
paul has just broken up with long time steady ellie ( janeane garofalo ) and is starting to come to terms with his loss when lucy informs him that ellie had been sleeping around during their relationship .
however , the only complexity to these two characters is that they seem to want to be more than friends , and that is reiterated when they attempt sexual intercourse in a bathroom stall on more than one occasion during this strange evening .
finally , there are the two worst performances and worst sub - plot of the film .
jack ( jay mohr ) and cindy ( kate hudson ) have been going out for a short period of time and jack
just learned that he took cindy 's virginity the night before .
while she attempts to play this down and be her usual self , he is a predictably self loathing male as he attempts to deal with a string of one night stands that includes the recently deflowered cindy .
very often , when a film is as putrid as this production , there will at least be a decent quality of film making to reveal an occasional moment of glory . however ,
this film has neither the quality of cinematography nor the moments of glory to be highlighted .
instead , what you get is a collection of rough and inconsistent cuts , bad continuity and inaccuracies .
first , and most noticeable is that as the film goes from one subplot to another , there is no apparent order that it follows , and it is also weekened by unnecessarily edgy edits from scene to scene and shot to shot .
at other times , objects seem to get up and move and hairstyles and costumes change from shot to shot .
there are also at least 4 scenes in a taxi cab that go from start to finish .
not in a single one of them does anybody pay the driver .
and yet , no matter how miserable this film may be , and no matter how poor the acting is all around , there was a ray of a hope for these many bad plots .
perhaps , if the makers had just decided to concentrate on one or two or , perhaps , even three , there might have been the time and opportunity for some character development , or quality acting , or even a decent plot payoff at the end .
but it did n't happen that way .
the cast of quality name actors was forced into roles that not even one of them could convert into a mediocre performance , and every story line crashed and burned quicker than it takes for the ball to drop at midnight .
answer:
N


question:
i want to be involved in show business one day .
and i refuse to do any sequels to any movie i may make because i believe they only get worse .
this movie proves it for me .
i was a little worried about the last batman film ,
as i thought joel schumaccer , taking over from tim burton , would screw it up .
i also assumed val kilmer would screw up as bruce wayne .
they did n't .
kilmer did a good job , and the cast was left to carry the movie , which they did ( even jim carrey as the riddler and i ca n't stand jim carrey ) , because schumaccer messed up the direction with his glitzy gotham and his awkward camera angles .
this film is different .
the cast is still impressive , but here ,
not only does schumaccer mess up with the direction
( he 's one of those directors who 's good with actors , terrible with camera angles ) , but writer akiva goldsmith does n't really give an impressive cast anything to do .
the cast is impressive : clooney is a surprisingly good wayne / batman , o'donnell is a crafty robin as usual , they could 've casted somebody better as batgirl ( my friend likes neve campbell ) , but silverstone is not bad , and thurman is a good poison ivy .
the major problem is schwarzenegger , who is a terrible freeze .
his accent is so heavy , you ca n't understand what he says , and the trouble with action stars like him is they can not act
,
and they know it , but they figure that if they flex their muscles , say a limited amount of stuff , and kill a bunch of guys , then they figure nobody'll notice .
that 's the trouble with me ,
* i * notice .
schwarzenegger does not deserve billing over clooney , or as much money as he got for this , but hollywood thinks he does .
patrick stewart was the person i 'd heard that was considered to play freeze , and he would 've been so much better .
or sean connery , but not arnold
" i 'm not an actor , but i play one in real life " schwarzenegger .
i realize that you must be a star to play a major role in a batman film , but it would 've been nice if they 'd casted a star that had talent for the role .
akiva goldsmith 's screenplay avoids some stuff that happens in a normal batman film .
in a regular batman film , they 'd concentrate on the relationship with the girlfriend a little more , but elle macpherson 's julie madison is so limited here that we never get a real sense of who she is .
there is talk of a fifth batman movie .
my interest to see it is low , but i hope it 's better than this .
if you do n't want to waste your time , rent any of the other batman movies from blockbuster .
any other .
answer:
N


question:
marie ( charlotte rampling , " aberdeen " ) and jean ( bruno cremet , " sorcerer " ) are a comfortable , sixty - ish married couple looking forward to a peaceful vacation at their second home in lit et mix .
on their first , full day , marie sunbathes as jean goes for a swim .
hours later , marie 's initiated a full scale search when jean has n't returned , but no trace of him is found .
marie returns to paris and resumes her life , including chats with jean at the end of each day in francois ozon 's " under the sand .
"
marie 's ex - pat british friend amanda ( alexandra stewart , " frantic " ) and her french husband gerard ( pierre vernier ) try to snap marie out of her denial with a dinner party , where they introduce her to the handsome vincent ( jacques nolot , " nenette et boni " ) , yet marie suggests that gerard accompany her and jean to their gym the next morning .
eventually marie does begin dating vincent , but she discusses him with jean and even smiles at jean , hidden behind a bedroom curtain , when she makes love to vincent .
slowly , though , reality continues to chip away at marie 's fantasy life .
her bank advises her that without access to jean 's account , she needs to reduce her spending .
one of her university students ( she 's reading virginia woolf 's " the waves " ) turns out to be one of the young men who participated in the beach search .
then police arrive asking her to identify the clothing of a body they 've found washed up from the ocean .
that night , jean 's not at home when she returns to their apartment .
her mother - in - law ( andree tainsy ) cruelly insists that jean simply abandoned her out of boredom .
finally , marie goes to the police , insisting on viewing the body .
horrified ( she 's been warned it was in an advanced state of putrefaction ) , she laughs when handed a bagged watch , insisting that this is not her husband .
" under the sand " is a character study and melancholy portrait of aging
( ' i 've lost my youth , ' marie declares ) and loss .
charlotte rampling , given the chance to portray an older , yet still sexual , woman runs with it , bringing us into the mind of the character .
her chemistry with bruno cremet is startlingly natural .
as marie returns from her first date with vincent , she sits on the couch with jean . '
did he kiss you ? '
he asks .
the mood the two create is incredibly intimate and sad .
ozon ( " water drops on burning rocks , " " see the sea " ) , who cowrote the script with emmanuelle bernheim , marcia romano , and marina de van , has turned in a more mature work than his previous , creepy " see the sea .
" while he cleverly never lets us see jean enter the water that fateful day , leaving a number of possibilities - accident ? , suicide ? , escape ?
- open , he definitely tips his hand towards a certain outcome .
cinematography by antoine hiberli and jeanne lapoirie
( " water drops on burning rocks " ) glides around marie ( their 180 shot as she initially searches the ocean 's horizon for a sign of jean conveys her panic ) or captures rampling 's exotic face in mood divining closeup .
in an inventive fantasy scene , marie imagines jean 's hands massaging her feet while in a state of auto - arousal .
his two hands become four , then more combined with her own , becoming almost a one person orgy and recalling roman polanski 's " repulsion .
" original music by philippe rombi quietly adds to the overall melancholy .
" under the sand " is a unique portrait of loss .
it would make an fascinating double bill with liv ullmann 's " faithless " from earlier this year , another character study of a woman facing loss for different reasons .
answer:

P