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:
i still ca n't figure out why people went in droves to see this movie .
now before you go assuming i 'm some sort of high brow snob , who ca n't appreciate a little dumb humor , let me say that i love cheap humor .
i thought there 's something about mary was one of the funniest films that i have ever seen and it was certainly one of the best films of 1998 .
low brow adolescent humor can be a lot of fun , the problem with the waterboy is that it is just low brow and adolescent , there is no humor component .
i wanted to like the waterboy , i really did .
i think i only laughed maybe 2 or 3 times throughout the entire movie .
actually , i smiled a couple of more times on top of that .
not a great record for a 90-minute film .
the problem with the waterboy is the same as most other adam sandler movies .
those responsible for this mess seem to think that the sheer fact that sandler walks around using a goofy voice and playing dumb the entire movie is a substitute for actual funny material .
nothing could be further from the truth , as matter of fact , sandler 's idiot voice started to get on my nerves at points in this film .
it 's really a shame too , because this film had the potential to be very funny .
i personally believe that sandler is probably a very talented comedian , it 's just that so far he has n't been able to find the right film to showcase his talents .
if his only talent is making goofy voices and playing morons , my guess is that his career in the movies will go down the same road as the vast majority of the former stars of saturday night live .
most of whom are now happily no longer in the entertainment industry .
sandler plays a 31-year - old , somewhat mentally challenged , waterboy for a college football team .
the team 's somewhat mentally disturbed coach ( henry winkler ) realizes that his waterboy has a great deal of pent - up rage , which , if harnessed properly , would make him a force to be reckoned with on the football field .
you can figure out the rest from here .
sandler joins the team and this once lowly waterboy becomes a football star .
as i said , the film had a great deal of potential .
the idea was a decent one , but the main potential of this movie is a result of the cast .
all of whom are very good , just hamstrung by really , really , lousy material .
even sandler , annoying goofy voice and all , has enough charisma and natural comedic ability to overcome some of his bad material .
even as unfunny as his character is , i still found myself rooting for him throughout the film .
but it is the supporting cast that i feel most badly about .
if their material had been just a bit better , this film could have been such a funny movie .
fairuza balk plays sandler 's leather - wearing biker - chick love interest and does a great job playing sleazy and sexy at the same time .
winkler is great as the coach who uses a " coaching for dummies " -style book to help him get through games .
the real standout though , is kathy bates .
even with some of the worst material of her career to deal with , she is still a treat to watch in her role as sandler 's overprotective and overbearing mama .
even with the performances of bates and winkler , there is absolutely no way i would recommend this movie .
although i get the distinct impression that without them , this film would have ranked in negative numbers for me .
which is sad , because i ca n't really put my finger on a particular element of the movie and single it out as the cause of the disaster that it became .
it 's obvious that those involved , specifically the actors , tried very hard to make what they thought was going to be a funny movie .
it 's just too bad that 99 percent of all of the jokes fell flat .
answer:
N


question:
disconnect the phone line .
do n't accept the charges .
do anything you can to avoid the wretched , melodramatic sisterhood dramedy ` hanging up ' .
i figured i needed to get in touch with my feminine side , and ` hanging up ' seemed like an ideal opportunity to do so .
the film features an incredible palate of female talent , and the capability behind the camera brought to mind such sparkling gems as ` sleepless in seattle ' and ` unsung heroes ' .
meg ryan , diane keaton and lisa kudrow play a trio of sisters who , once separated by career judgments over family ties , must reunite when their father ( walter matthau ) is admitted into the hospital with alzheimer 's disease .
while this may read like an optimum opportunity to rekindle their relationship and reflect with poignancy on the past , the script by sisters delia and nora ephron
is exasperating , shapeless dreck teeming with emotional fakery .
` hanging up ' has the overall effect of a tele - marketer pestering you for two hours , while you do n't have the option of doing as the title suggests .
for the first half - hour , the ephron sisters use telephone conversations for a basis of character development .
this is an annoying and ineffective device .
cell - phones ring every five minutes , and everyone hurriedly rushes along , leaving marginal time for the frustrated viewer to relate to the sisters ' issues and problems .
if ` hanging up ' was an apple pie , then i felt as if we were getting the mere crust of the story .
granted , there are a few genuine and sincere moments in the film .
but they only help to establish that the remainder of the strained emotions are nothing but inferior dramatic muck .
the most outrageous strategy in ` hanging up ' is that , after a series of largely unrealized attempts at character development , we are expected to exhibit compassion and courtesy toward the sisters as they join for a melodramatic finale .
we are able to identify with eve ( ryan ) , the most open and caring daughter , because she is the one who stayed by her father 's side as everyone else moved forward to pursue a impending career .
georgia ( keaton ) , the eldest daughter , is celebrating the fifth year anniversary of her magazine called . . . .
` georgia ' .
maddy ( kudrow ) , the soap opera actress , spends time either contemplating her possible path to stardom or nursing her dog .
ryan 's convincing performance and diverting cuteness are two of the more agreeable aspects of ` hanging up ' .
kudrow , so delightfully eccentric as the off - kilter airhead phoebe in ` friends ' , is totally wasted .
ditto for keaton , who is serving a double shift as co - star and director - a time slot that can be a difficult priority juggle .
her frenzy is apparent . for a chick flick , there is a distressing lack of chuckles .
the reliable matthau is reduced to chaotic shtick that , given his character 's situation , seems more depressing than amusing .
even so , the peak form of humor in ` hanging up ' is represented by some of matthau 's nasty quips and ryan 's eternal battle to have the aforementioned pooch swallow a pill .
that about accounts for the three or four chuckles you will expel during the film .
my curiosity has suddenly been tweaked to discover how such a promising and star - studded approach could turn so viciously sour .
but really , it 's no mystery .
the predictable , melodramatic filth that is ` hanging up ' is certainly not the fault of these actresses .
pin it on the screenplay , which attempts to clear up vital issues in three or four minutes , while spending the rest of the running time in an annoying flurry of phone conversations .
it 's certainly a far cry from what one would label as a rewarding experience , but ` hanging up ' should have at least been enjoyable .
uh - uh .
it 's a wrong number from the beginning .
answer:

N