instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
there 's a thin line between satire and controversy , and mike nichols ( the birdcage , wolf ) has directed a sharp and very honest look at a us presidential election .
based on the book written by " anonymous " ( actually former " newsweek " writer joe klein ) , john travolta plays governor jack stanton .
but he does n't actually play stanton .
he plays bill clinton ; just the same as emma thompson no doubt plays the first lady and billy bob thorton is the campaign manipulator james carville ( although the credits will of course say otherwise ) .
the film is taken from the perspective of henry burton ( adrian lester ) , a morally correct and somewhat hesitant new advisor to stanton .
he searches for justice and dignity in the ugliest possible situations , and whether it be keeping the history of his boss ' pants under wraps or contemplating digging up dirt on another politician , he approaches his work with a keen desire to skillfully serve his country and his fellow workers .
richard jemmons ( billy bob thorton ) and daisy green ( maura tierney ) team up with henry as the would - be president 's advisors , and hire lesbian veteran libby holden ( kathy bates ) as the campaign 's eccentric " tougher than dirt " incriminator .
together they face all sorts of sexual allegations , the irritatingly discourteous media and other witty politicians in the election race .
in its satire and controversy , primary colors is a similar film to wag the dog : they both are not afraid to wipe their noses in the nitty - gritty and take a bold look at something that will never has honesty as a virtue .
but whereas wag showed us how much affect a few people can have on the media , primary colors is much more concerned with fleshing out it 's characters , letting us understand what they want and why , and making us truly appreciate the humanity and rectitude that they graciously represent .
seeing john travolta play bill clinton
so confidently and justly is enough to make the film more than worth a look . and the rest of the cast also make
superb performances - adrian lester sharply portrays the intellect of henry whilst kathy bates is perfect as the robust and energetic libby holden .
at occasions , you ca n't help but feel that these terrific characters are going to waste .
there are long slabs of time where john travolta ( unquestionably the most interesting to watch ) is missed from the screen ; and since it is awkwardly structured as henry 's story we are often forced to watch scenes that perhaps are not so necessary to the central plot - or even the point of the film .
having said that , make no mistake - primary colors is always enjoyable to watch
.
but frequently we have to ask ourselves - exactly what are we watching ?
most of the first half of its duration is a lightheaded look at melodramatic confrontations that seem so genuine we can not help but laugh , but the way primary colors chooses to finish tackles aspects that are very contrary , and almost unsuitable , to the rest of the film .
but as i mentioned before , there is a thin line between satire and controversy - and for the most part , primary colors delivers an entertaining indulgence of political matters combined with a far - from - overpowering look at winning the public 's opinion .
although at occasions the film may jump around a little too freely , focus is never lost on how important and vulnerable the subject matter really is .
thankfully , it is clear to make the distinction on what is entertaining movie cosmetics and what is a provocative documentation of something
so really it 's scary .
answer:
P


question:
and now the high - flying hong kong style of filmmaking has made its way down to the classics , and it is n't pretty .
this time out the nod to asia goes by way of france in the excruciating bland and lukewarm production of the musketeer , a version of dumas 's the three musketeers .
by bringing in popular asian actor / stunt coordinator xing xing xiong -- whose only prior american attempts at stunt choreography have been the laughable van damme vehicle double team and the dennis rodman cinematic joke simon sez -- our musketeers are thrown into the air to do their fighting .
the end result is a tepid and dull action / adventure rip - off that stinks of indiana jones and bad asian kung fu .
the story is so simple my grandmother could have adapted the screenplay .
d'artagnan ( justin chambers ) is the vengeful son of a slain musketeer .
he travels to paris to join the royal musketeers and find the man that killed his parents .
in paris , he meets the cunning cardinal richelieu ( stephen rea ) , who is trying to overthrow the king , and richelieu 's man - in - black associate febre ( tim roth ) , the killer of his folks .
he finds the musketeers in paris disbanded and drunk , so he rounds up aramis ( nick moran ) , athos ( jan gregor kremp ) and porthos ( steven spiers ) to free the musketeer 's wrongfully imprisoned leader treville from the king 's prison .
d'artagnan and his new frisky love interest / chambermaid francesca ( mena suvari ) play footsy and coo at each other as the cardinal hunts down the musketeers until finally the queen ( catherine deneuve ) ends up being captured by the menancing febre , forcing the musketeers to regroup , with d'artagnan leading the charge , and save the day .
director peter hyams ( end of days ) obviously wanted to blend eastern and western filmmaking styles , but here it 's a disaster .
one problem is that , in reality , most eastern films have taken their lead from western ones .
jet li 's high risk is a rip - off of die hard -- not the other way around .
ironically , there is awfully little swordplay or action in the film at all -- maybe ten minutes of swashbuckling spread over five scenes .
most asian action films carry the bulk of their production with 20- to 30-minute action sequences , because they know the scenes have to carry the picture .
the musketeer instead weighs itself down with a predictable and monotonous screenplay by gene quintano ( sudden death ) , horrible acting
by stephen rea and tim roth , and the prosaic attempt of justin chambers ( the wedding planner ) to deliver his mousy self as a leader .
chambers ' d'artangnan is n't a musketeer -- he 's a mouseketeer ! and hyam 's use of candles and torches to light the grime and filth of 17th century paris are well - noted , but that 's the only standout in
an overall flat production .
answer:
N


question:
_ in brief : _ this film needs no introduction . if you have n't heard of it , then you must have been up in space on a sabbatical , and if you have n't seen it -- well , i suspect you 're in a small minority !
first thing 's first ?
is it all it 's hyped up to be ?
well , yes ?
and no .
it 's a good film , and there 's a lot to like about it , but it 's not without its problems .
when i saw the first trailer for " titanic " , it was when i went to see " bean " last summer , i think , my intial reaction was --
ai n't that downright sick to make a disaster movie out of such a dreadful , real - life tragedy ? !
i mean , what 's happened to hollywood 's script - writers , have they run entirely out of new ideas ?
gads ,
whatever next , i asked myself , how about an action film based on hiroshima starring jean claude van damme ?
i was not entirely filled with anticipation , but then i was n't alone in that respect .
it 's when it came out in the cinema , to rave reviews ( well , mostly ) and
anyone who 'd been to see it seemed disturbingly obsessed by it that i started to take notice !
i did n't see the film until several months after its release ( by which time my sister had seen it about four times ! ) , so i went with a slightly more open mind , but i still did n't think i 'd enjoy it much .
did i ?
yes
and no .
mainly yes , i 'm happy to say .
the first hour or so was beautifully done , not so much because of the scripting
( i 'll talk about that later ? ) but because the re - created ship and sets were stunning to look at , as was cameron 's directing , and the performances of the principal cast were so strong that the " human " aspect of the story , the romance between rose ( kate winslet ) and jack ( leonardo dicaprio ) , was enchanting
.
the film is told via flashback , with gloria stuart playing the elderly rose in the modern day ( you knew that , a ' course ! : - ) ) .
well , it 's an often effective device to use in storytelling -- though sometimes it can fall flat .
does it work here ?
in script form it does n't add all that much to the story .
what does add a lot to the story is gloria stuart , whose stunning performance is the strongest , most moving of the film .
her presence brings a much deeper level of passion , and depth to the story , and though her appearances are relatively brief , the film would have suffered without her . also impressive are dicaprio and winslet , who wholly succeed in rising above the often poor dialogue , and the bond they form is both heartfelt and moving
.
it 's an old story , you know -- forbidden love ala romeo and juliet -- but it works , and jack 's " rescuing " rose ( in both literal and figurative senses ) and teaching her to live life for what counts was pointed and touching .
in fact , i enjoyed the first half of the film a lot , largely because winslet and dicaprio bring such and charm , energy to the romance .
it 's engaging , touching and very enjoyable .
there 's more than a tinge of poignancy to it as well ,
simply because you know it 's not going to be a happy ending .
which leads us to the second half of the film .
we all knew it was coming .
i 'm sure director cameron was looking forward with eager anticipation to it , because as he 's stated in interviews , the real thrust of the story ( for him ) was the sinking , and the jack / rose romance was a merely a manipulative plot device to get you emotionally into the film .
i think that understates the importance of the romance , as i found it far more enjoyable than an hour of watching people die .
the iceberg arrives , and the captain announces that titanic will have sunk in about an hour .
and it is an hour .
my goodness , we do n't miss a second of that hour ?
gratuitous ?
well , perhaps not by today 's standards , i 'm sure there 's been far worse produced under the banner of " entertainment " in other films .
but i certainly was n't prepared for how shocking and graphic the last hour or so would be .
not that i 'd expect the word " understatement " to be part of cameron 's vocabulary ( he who brought us such , umm , vivid films as " terminator 2 " and " aliens " ) .
is it overdone ?
i thought so .
understatement can sometimes work wonders in conveying tragedy .
no , no one expected a happy ending , but i did n't quite expect the horrendously shocking and powerful scenes we were bombarded throughout the film 's second half .
still , whether it was overdone and heavy - handed or not , if it was the shock - factor cameron was after it worked , because i was shocked and moved , in fact i spent most of the last hour in tears !
you really could n't help but get emotionally involved ,
whether it was wishing someone would knock that dreadfully psychotic fiance of rose 's overboard or desperately hoping that rose would rescue jack , or that jack would rescue rose , or that they would both survive .
perhaps the most harrowing scene was when the ship has sunk , and those that sunk along with the ship freeze to death on the water surface .
the bit where rose lets go of jack 's hand , while promising she 'll never let go in her heart was particularly heart - wrenching , and the sight of rescue boats sailing amid the ocean of corpses was a pretty powerful image , to put no fine a point on it .
i loved the ending , however , which was both moving and slightly uplifting following the horror of the past hour and a half .
so , we 've established that the film is powerful and moving , if the last hour was rather excessive . have n't mentioned the script .
plot - wise
it 's ok , though the jack / rose relationship was beautifully developed
,
but i 've a feeling that 's to the actors
credit if anything .
as for the dialogue ?
well , titanic is set in 1912 .
it 's a period drama .
but i saw very little indication of period in so far as the dialogue is concerned .
did they really use phrases like " goddamn it !
" back in the turn of the century ?
i doubt it .
would someone talk like this : " do ya love the guy or what ? " .
i doubt it .
is such dialogue as " i saw the iceberg , and i see it in your eyes now
" not just a bit ? clumsy ?
yes it is .
a little more attention to dialogue would not have gone astray , and cameron himself is to blame ( he wrote the script ) .
stick with directing , dude .
but its more than redeemed by the acting , with dicaprio and winslet on fine form , ably supported by a strong cast .
star of the show was gloria stuart , though --
why did n't she win that oscar ? !
after all , they were throwing oscars at " titanic " left , right and centre , but gloria was perhaps the most deserving nominee . directing - wise cameron does a spectacular job .
like i said , his vision was a bit excessive , but at least he directed it well .
i have n't even mentioned james horner 's beautiful score .
utterly heavenly , though when your dad and sister play the soundtrack a lot you do start to get a bit bored with it !
; - ) i 've finished my rant , which lasted a lot longer than i thought it would !
just leaves a couple of questions ; was it worth all those oscars ?
hell , do n't talk to me about oscars .
bloomin ' farce .
it was deserving in a number of departments , though .
last question ; is it , as some suggest , one of the best films of all - time ?
nope , i do n't think so .
it 's certainly one of the most powerful and memorable films i 've ever seen ,
but i do n't think it quite ranks as one of my all - time favourites .
and as for the fact they 're reportedly making a " titanic 2 " ?
well i guess that 's typical hollywood for you !
answer:

P