In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
--------
Question: chris tucker is one of those guys you immediately get a reaction from -- you either find his helium voice , crazy eyes and jerky mannerisms funny or annoying .
i think i fall into the former category ( i 'm one of the few who thought his turn in " the fifth element " as a prancing , prince - like deejay was complete inspired lunacy and not the least bit aggravating ) , but his new vehicle " money talks " just does n't do him service
.
tucker is good in the movie -- and this is the kind of film that , if people see it , could make him a big star -- but he 's also really the only thing good about the movie .
in fact , if you see " money talks , " it should shock you beyond recognition that two of " toy story " 's writers penned the sloppy script .
tucker 's role here is that of franklin hatchett , a petty los angeles con artist whose carwash scams get him dogged by investigative reporter james russell ( charlie sheen ) .
after being busted on the job for some illegal business involving counterfeit passports , franklin finds himself on a bus to the county jail and handcuffed to slick international jewel smuggler raymond villard ( gerard ismael ) .
but villard 's thugs blow up the bus in an attempt to free their leader ( never mind that the explosion could have instead killed him ) , and because he and franklin are joined at the wrist , franklin is allowed to escape as well , but not before overhearing some important information regarding a diamond stash that -- for some reason or another -- is being hidden in a vintage roadster waiting to be auctioned off at an upcoming auto expo .
the local media mistakenly puts the prison break - out blame on franklin , which is where james comes back into the picture .
he makes a deal to protect franklin if , in turn , franklin gives him an exclusive interview .
this means james must present his new " friend " in the stickiest of situations -- a formal dinner party for he and fiancee grace ( heather locklear ) , also attended by her uber - rich parents ( veronica cartwright and nicely game paul sorvino ) .
and of course the bad guys track franklin down and try to knock him off , all the while he spars and forms an unlikely bond with james .
"
this ai n't no buddy movie , " claim the print ads .
yeah ,
right .
actually , for the better part of , oh , 20 minutes , it appears " money talks " has the momentum to cover entertaining ground , and this is mostly due to the presence of spastic motormouth tucker .
this is tucker 's first leading role , and if you imagine a slightly lankier , african - american jim carrey with a reliance on wild r - rated raunch rather than pg-13 physical comedy , you have a good idea of the conviction with which he assaults the role .
but you realize all too quickly that tucker 's overstated liveliness is the only thing " money talks " has going for it .
and a lively actor alone does not a successful movie make .
it 's all too easy to pick out everything wrong with " money talks .
" the plot is recycled buddy - buddy comedy - thriller tripe that seemed overused even when " nothing to lose " employed it last month .
everything is paint - by - numbers , especially the los angeles coliseum finale , which finds not one , not two , but three separate enemy factions firing at franklin as they pursue him through the bleachers .
the villains , as many as there are , are dull .
certain story elements are too coincidental .
and too much of the film 's dramatic agenda is played too straight .
a scene where grace confronts james after learning franklin 's true identity ( " you brought a killer into my parents ' house ! " ) is extremely silly .
you get the picture .
obviously , i did not have a pleasant experience at " money talks .
"
but the people around me appeared to be having a rip - roaring good time ( one gentleman several rows behind me chortled with such expressive conviction
i began fearing for his health ) .
but tucker , at least for me , is a pretty funny guy , and aces the movie 's best scene , where franklin passes himself off as vic damone 's son at james and grace 's engagement bash and toasts the couple with barry white lyrics .
tucker 's audience -- and he does have one -- will probably like " money talks .
"
those who he irritates , however , will have a more productive day staying home and scraping the gook out from under their toenails .

Answer: N


Question: plot summary : the year is 2024 .
the ozone layer has long since gone and the earth is now protected from radiation by a shield invented by connor mccleod .
the shield , although saving lives , has made the atmosphere hot and humid .
connor is a mortal and a tired old man who has given up hope .
on returning from the opera one night connor is accosted by the leader of a " terrorist " organisation .
they have tried to find out what the company that now runs the shield unit are covering up .
connor is then attacked by two assassins sent by katana from the planet zeist ( like zeit -- get it ? ) .
they fail and connor becomes immortal again by chopping their heads off .
he then brings ramirez back to life in glencoe in scotland .
both ramirez and connor are rebel leaders back on zeist and have been sent to earth as punishment .
connor now has the option to return being the last one but opts to stay with his new found immortality and fight to find out about the company and the shield .
katana meanwhile , fearing connor would return , sets out himself to kill the highlander .
if you have never seen it . being a fan of highlander and mr .
connery , i was in the cinema as soon as i could to see highlander ii :
the quickening .
i wish it had been quicker .
i feel whatever else you can say about a film ( bad script bad music , etc . ) if you sit just plain bored through most of it then nothing much else needs to be said .
the film was short but in my opinion only twelve minutes or so
( the time mr .
connery is on the screen for ) is worth watching .
the plot sounds a little ridiculous but i was willing to give it a chance .
maybe they could pull it off .
instead , i find that the characters have completely changed from those in the first film .
it 's as if they are different people with the same names .
witness connor jumping into bed with the leader of the resistance -- where is the attitude of " who wants to live forever , when love must die " gone to ?
the love sub - plot
* must * have had footage cut out .
the highlander and ramirez both seemed aware of powers they had never mentioned before .
putting our heroes in deadly situations and then having them walk away because of some new power is very annoying .
i still want to know why connor 's coat becomes flame proof when he is immortal !
we are not given enough time on zeist to believe in it , nor are we told why advanced aliens still use swords to kill .
why not dynamite or laser saws or just plain bullets followed by a quick chop to the neck ?
i know the head needs to come off
but you could at least immobilise your opponent with laser rifles first .
to be fair one assassin tried this
but he must be the world 's worst shot .
meanwhile connor develops luke - skywalker - like powers of laser beam deflection .
as for " bad guys , " we see a rebellion on zeist , crushed easier than a grape and then the rest of the plot depends on katana being obsessed with killing mccleod in case he returns to zeist .
two assassins are sent , presumably they are meant to be good at killing but an aged connor kills them both with no problems .
no more assassins are sent .
katana , supposedly a very powerful man goes himself to kill connor .
has he no more assassins ?
has he no better ?
why was the rebellion crushed so easily then ?
michael ironside is totally unconvincing
( bring back the kurgan ) .
he seems like a cartoon character and really is n't that evil , just stupid and violent .
we see the hollywood trick of the chief nasty threatening a child again and killing lots of innocents .
yet he still seems like no threat -- perhaps because he seems too stupid to threaten connor , or maybe because his two best assassins would n't have been amiss with larry , curly and mo .
so much for plot and characters .
the music is atrocious .
it is at best intrusive and at worst annoying . bring back queen .
there was an audible sigh ( of relief ? )
when connor played a queen track in a juke box .
i believe this at least is to be corrected for the american release .
the acting is at best flat , except for mr .
connery .
lambert is uninteresting and when he delivered " there can be only one " this time around it
just made me wish there had only been one -- highlander .
michael ironside is unconvincing
; sorry , michael , i usually like you and everyone else was incredibly forgetable .
so why 2/10 ?
visually the film is interesting at all times .
it has a blade runner feel to it and some of the special effects are quite stunning .
add to this an irrepressible sean connery who smiles throughout the whole film -- or is he smirking to himself ?
his lines and delivery might make the film worthwhile
had it not been so obvious that he can not take the whole thing seriously at all
but hey
--
*
i 'd * have done it for 12 million .
oh , and i agree with a previous reviewer
, she * does * look like sharon stone but i believe it is her first film .
incidentally there is a line producer credited and i hear rumours of highlander iii : the wizard .

Answer: N


Question: what surprises me most about the long - awaited batman is that the movie centers not on the caped crusader but on the joker .
the dark knight actually has less screen time than his homicidal arch nemesis !
i can hear batfans everywhere protesting : " first they had the nerve to cast michael keaton as batman , and now they think they can get away with making him second banana to the joker ! !
"
and , indeed , this situation would have been altogether inappropriate and intolerable
were it not for the fact that someone at warner brothers had the savvy to cast jack nicholson in the role he was born to play .
nicholson deserves the top billing he is receiving in the posters and opening credits since his astounding , oscar - worthy performance as the joker is the highlight of batman .
nicholson shows no inhibition or shame as he pulls out all the stops to create a joker that makes cesar romero look like bozo the clown ( romero played the joker in the ' 60s tv series ) .
on one hand , nicholson 's joker is extremely funny .
his murderous escapades and manic outbursts ( which include defacing paintings in an art museum and invading the television airwaves with hilarious pirate broadcasts ) bring humor and laughter into an otherwise dark film .
but on the other hand , his outwardly jovial disposition is only a mask for his intense contempt for all of mankind .
the joker 's cruelty and demented , diabolical nature are truly frightening and sinister .
this guy is off his rocker , and he not only knows it , he flaunts it !
but enough about nicholson as the joker : i 'm sure most people are wondering about michael keaton as batman .
like many , i was outraged when warner brothers announced that keaton had been cast as the caped crusader .
but batfans need not worry because holy unconventional casting !
keaton delivers .
he is convincing as the tormented millionaire , bruce wayne , and beneath his hard , black body armor , he is mysterious and formidable as the batman .
even though the screenplay only halfheartedly attempts to develop the character , keaton manages to give hints of the inner turmoil and emotional rage that drive wayne to don his bat gear and battle the low life scum of gotham city .
visually , batman is
a knockout nothing short of a triumph for director tim burton and his production team .
the movie successfully captures the film noir look and bleak , gloomy atmosphere of such batman comic books as " the dark knight returns " and " the killing joke .
"
burton 's film is a feast for the eyes ; the $ 35 million budget is definitely on the screen .
the sets , costumes , and make - up are stunning and worthy of oscar nominations .
nicholson is n't joking when he boasts , " wait ' till they get a load of me !
" his grimacing smile , green hair , and purple suits over orange shirts are colorful and outrageous .
keaton 's wardrobe is equally appropriate .
batman 's cape , mask , and body armor make him look threatening , frightening , and invincible bringing to mind not adam west 's campy costume in the tv series but peter weir 's outfit in robocop .
production designer anton furst 's sets are a wonder .
gotham city is dark and foreboding , almost as if it were an expressionist vision of new york .
the batcave is cold , bare , and desolate .
the world that burton and furst have created in batman is a melancholy nightmare of violence and corruption .
the movie 's gritty bladerunner / robocop look is a joy to behold .
the plot , on the other hand , is not as rousing .
the screenplay is not up to snuff in comparison to the stylized sets and superb acting .
it takes forever for what little story there is to finally kick into gear .
batman tries to walk a thin line between action and character psychology , but it fails to give us enough of either one .
as i mentioned earlier , the screenplay gives us plenty of the joker , but it never fully establishes batman 's psychological motives and underpinnings .
in terms of action , batman is not as thrilling as you might expect .
burton seems more concerned with the visual and dramatic elements of the story .
more than anything , batman is a mood film .
while batman may not completely absorb and excite you , it will likely impress you with its success at bringing to life the style and spirit of the batman comic books .
thanks to its distinctive look , the movie like a good comic book transports us to another world .

Answer:
P