instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
synopsis :
an aging master art thief , his supplier , and a young , buxom security consultant are all not who they first appear to be ( or are they ? ) in this convoluted mess involving a risky heist during the millennium .
comments :
this movie was boring .
plain and simple .
entrapment should not have been boring .
it stars sean connery , who can still carry an action film despite his age , catherine zeta - jones , a likeable enough film presence , and ving rhames , ultra - cool star of pulp fiction and mission : impossible .
it takes full advantage of the y2k computer bug fears ( a current " hot topic " in the news ) in its storyline , which is set at the end of 1999 .
it has some genuinely well - staged action sequences .
so , what went wrong ?
plenty , unfortunately .
the major problem with entrapment is its script .
it has a been - there , done - that feel to it .
nothing seems particularly inventive or original , so the whole movie lacks suspense and drags
( it runs nearly two hours ) .
the screenwriters , for example , periodically use a countdown to the millennium as a means of transition between scenes ( i .
e .
"
4 days to the millennium " ) .
this device was used much more effectively in the overlooked sci - fi film strange days .
the characters are not who they appear to be at the beginning , which is neat at first but the device wears thin once the umpteenth " surprise " revelation is made . entrapment , in other words , relies too heavily on the audience not knowing what each character 's true motive is , resulting in a convoluted story which leaves many scratching their heads in confusion .
the star power here is quite strong , but the viewer ca n't help but feel the actors are wasted in this production .
sean connery is given such mind - numbing lines as
" never trust a naked woman . " ving rhames ' character seems like an afterthought ; he 's not developed at all .
the camera zooms in frequently and leeringly at catherine zeta - jones 's tight wardrobe .
this , in and of itself , is not bad , but , after a while ,
it has a juvenile feel to it .
at least the species movies hold no bones about the fact that they 're exploiting the female body .
entrapment does the same under the thin disguise of plot development
( sean connery supposedly falls in love with the girl while watching her , in tights , arc and pivot around laser beams ) .
the tagline for this movie reads " the trap is set .
" it sure is , on those who spent money to see this movie .
entrapment really is n't that bad ; it is watchable .
i would suggest , however , one waits until this is on cable or television to see it .
answer:
N


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:
an 80-year old woman jumps enthusiastically on her couch , wearing tight - fitting leather , as she cheers on her favorite tv wrestler by calling his opponent a ` pump - bitch ' .
two men messily eat fast food as their septic truck leaks raw sewage directly behind them .
and roughly 17 people are booted in the crotch .
welcome to ` ready to rumble ' .
judging from the fact that potty - mouth adam sandler is the reigning box - office comedy champion , you realize -- albeit while shaking your head -- that yes , there is an audience for this sort of thing . ladies and gentlemen , i weep for society .
mind you , when executed with style and comic ingenuity , jokes like an alarming bodily fluid mistaken for hair gel ( ` there 's something about mary ' ) and a laxative - induced attack of explosive diarrhea ( ` dumb and dumber ' ) can be extremely funny .
unfortunately , ` ready to rumble ' is not being helmed by the farrelly brothers , nor is it bolstered by a script that accommodates the viewer with anything even remotely clever or inspired .
` ready to rumble ' is built around the dedicated fan - base of professional wrestling . . . . which , in fact , sounded like a fine concept for a goofball comedy .
but director brian robbins and screenwriter steven brill handcuff themselves , and limited to a stampede of asinine , humdrum bathroom humor , basically the only thing they manage is to evoke memories of pauly shore and ` bio dome ' .
gordie boggs ( david arquette ) and sean dawkins ( scott caan ) take pride in being hardcore wcw wrestling fanatics .
by day , they transport raw sewage .
by night ( particularly on ?
nitro ' monday )
, they pay homage to their personal hero and savior - jimmy king ( oliver platt ) , the undisputed leader of the professional wrestling community .
with two tickets to an upcoming nitro performance , gordie and sean are psyched about witnessing the king defend his title first - hand .
but unscrupulous boxing kingpin titus sinclair ( joe pantoliano , sporting long hair and cowboy boots ) has other plans .
sinclair is plotting to have diamond dallas page ( playing himself ) pummel the king into the tarp , thereby dethroning the dignified wrestler and embarrassing him in front of a bewildered auditorium full of fans .
gordie and sean are shocked , rioting madly while arguing ` this is n't even a pay - per view event ! ! '
they take it upon themselves to track the king down and supply the encouragement essential for their fallen idol to make a come - back attempt .
along the way , you can expect a lot of sh-- jokes as well .
you may find something to like in ` ready to rumble ' if a )
you are a rasslin ' aficionado yourself , or
b ) you are a dedicated fan of the lowest of low - brow comedies .
i welcome low - brow humor with open arms
- that is , if its fresh and resourceful .
` rumble ' is nothing but a sloppy , frightfully unfunny swamp land of misbegotten retardation .
the first half - hour is the ultimate test of patience .
luckily , the simple - minded events pick up steam , particularly with the well - choreographed wrestling action .
director robbins showed a knack for capturing the brutality and excitement of football in ` varsity blues ' , and when in the ring , he does professional work .
but the violence is too excessive .
having the fake soap opera of wcw wrestling turn into a bloody skirmish brings back unfortunate memories of owen hart 's tragic accident just last year , especially with one character 's dive during a cage match .
this is not something you want a comedy to be reminiscent of .
outside the wrestling action , the lewd jokes and puerile sight gags bring new meaning to the term ?
scattershot ' , while the dialogue fluctuates in on the vulgarity scale of 1 to 10 , with brill 's extensive vocabulary ranging from ` diddly ' to ` boob ' and so on .
the final tally
: i chuckled a few times , groaned a lot , and indulged in one spirited belly laugh involving martin landau as a geriatric wrestling coach who fights pretty impressively for 105 .
casting - wise , ` ready to rumble ' is an odd duck .
oliver platt as a champion wrestling figure ?
he 's perhaps a bit chunky , but fellow wrestlers acknowledge this in the ring by calling him ` fatty ' , which dampens the blow i suppose .
rose mcgowan is fully disposable as a sultry wcw cheerleader ( ` the nirto - est of the nitro girls , ' proclaims gordie ) , but extra pep is added with appearances by wrestlers goldberg , ` macho man ' randy savage and sting ( among others ) .
wcw fans are sure to appreciate these .
others .
. .
well , wo n't .
i found merit in david arquette 's bountiful energy as gordie , which brings me to my finishing . . . .
ahhh . . . .
` praise ' for the film : in ` ready to rumble ' ,
i have discovered something even more annoying than arquette 's ` at&t ' television commercials .
now there 's a low blow for you .
answer:

N