In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.

[Q]: disillusioned and trying to find the spice of life , richard ( leonardo dicaprio ) sets off for thailand .
there he a meets crazed man by the name of daffy ( robert carlyle ) who gives him a map to a beach , a secret utopia , then commits suicide .
richard sets off for this beach with his neighbors from this hotel , ? tienne ( guillaume canet ) and fran ?
oise ( virginie ledoyen ) .
once they get there the three discover a secret society existing on this beach , there richard falls for fran ?
oise .
this covers about half to two thirds of the movie and aside from the romantic element , which is solely a creation of hollywood , seems to hold to the original novel .
the cinematography and general beauty of this part of the movie is breathtaking .
i do n't think anyone can argue that this movie is visually stunning .
but that is were many things go wrong
, darius khondji has totally outdone himself in doing the cinematography .
though the script and the interpretation of the novel are quite lacking .
the plot of the movie moves along at a decent pace for about half of the movie or there abouts .
this is where the movie has some great potential , then the three travelers get the island and there is a turn for the better , yes folks i said better .
now up to about two thirds of this movie its actually pretty good , nothing spectacular aside from the cinematography
but it still has promise .
this is where things start to degenerate to something that becomes almost un - watchable .
there is even a ' video game ' style sequence that borders on the disgusting , it does n't make sense for the movie and just looks dumb in my opinion ( and i am hoping many other peoples ) .
i am hoping that in my little rant i 've made it abundantly clear that the movie is lacking quite seriously in plot and uneven pacing , so if you go see it and you do n't like it because of this do n't blame me .
the character development was not up to par either ; i found the character of richard to be nothing more than a spoiled child .
although there is a feeble attempt to make this whole story profound it fails and richard ( leo 's character ) comes off as a wannabe philosopher .
the character seems to be underdeveloped from the get go and seems to just do things for no apparent reason , granted some people are like this ( myself included ) but i nor anyone i know that is fairly random would ever do things of the sort this character does .
the next point is that some of the really interesting characters are simply not developed enough .
richard is obviously obsessed by fran ?
oise at the early stages of the story , yet there is actually very little development along this story line .
this
i am sure contributes to the movie 's lack of core plot and being unfocused .
now , i shall move onto something a little better about the movie ( for all you cynics out there the movie did have a few good things about it ) .
the cast and acting was passable at the very least , and i think that leonardo dicaprio actually did pretty well in the role of richard .
mind you
i think the rest of the cast that had some which had reasonably sized roles did equally well if not better .
which begs the question why is leonardo paid so much ?
( i think this is a topic all on its own so i wo n't get into it ) .
but i like the fact that there was an international cast used ,
had only and american cast been used i can see this movie being horrible .
the international flavor added a more global feel to the movie that made it that much more bearable .
not to mention the movie is set in thailand and a global cast makes more sense .
when all is said and done i liked the movie for the most part but the gaping inadequacies of the plot are unforgivable .
i would not recommend this movie to anyone , the fact that i liked it has a lot to do with the cinematography and the sheer beauty of the movie not its plot or story .
as it is the story tries to be much too philosophical and fails at its attempt . if you do end up going to see this movie be forewarned about its shortcomings .
[A]: N


[Q]: ` bats ' is an insulting slap across the face for any dedicated horror movie fan .
to pull something like this off , you need to have a sense of wit and style , with a heavy dosage of humor to back up the process if the fright factor ever declines .
something like the underground worm thriller ` tremors '
had just the perfect mixture of these elements , and in return , the film was tremendous fun .
with the notable exception of a wisecracking supporting player , ` bats ' mainly plays it 's premise for straight - arrow horror .
judging
by the ridiculous premise
, this was not exactly a wise move .
the movie attempts to capture the essence of alfred hitchcock 's ` the birds ' , but fails miserably .
done right , it could have been adequately amusing halloween cinema .
unfortunately , ` bats ' is a prime example of a formula movie done terribly , terribly wrong .
the only thing amusing about this festering pile of guano is in how intelligible the filmmakers anticipate their core audience to be .
i will recite the following paragraph in a manner that will reach the audience of individuals to whom ` bats ' is aimed toward .
those guys in hollywood have made a movie about bats .
these bats are not very nice , because they eat a lot of people .
boy , are these bats ugly .
they are infected with this bogus virus that makes them super - duper smart .
they 've got big claws and red eyes and they are not very friendly at all .
a whole bunch of people in texas get killed , so a sheriff guy and a scientist lady are brought in to kill the bats .
they have big guns and other cool things to fight them with , but the bats are pretty smart , so it 's sorta hard to do .
the bats swoop down and they shoot at them to make they go away for good .
but no , ` bats ' is probably too violent for pre - schoolers .
the film , directed by louis morneau , should have ventured straight into video stores .
on the small screen , perhaps more fun could have been derived with lower expectations . but sitting through this crapper on the big screen is almost awkward ; although at a few moments it becomes a guilty pleasure , the film is poorly written , poorly acted and executed with glaring ineptitude .
even the bats themselves are cheesy , and the attack sequences too rushed and jittery
to be properly enjoyed .
the sheriff in the story is emmett kimsey ( lou diamond phillips ) , who embodies every pathetic stereotype a small - town authority figure
usually portrays ( he chomps on a cigar , struts contentedly in his boots , etc . .. ) .
the scientist is dr .
sheila casper ( dina meyer ) , who specializes in flying mammals and is classified as ` the best in her field ' .
meyer uses a lot of technical terms designed to make the movie seem more intellectually capable , but everything about dr .
casper is recycled beyond recognition .
her memories of how she became hooked on the topic of bats sounds suspiciously like oceanographic student matt hooper 's tale of how he became infatuated with sharks in ` jaws ' .
everything revolving around ` bats ' is tired drivel , which desperately requires some directorial style or acting capabilities to spruce it up .
the supporting cast could have been constructed out of straw , with voices dubbed in later .
in fact , that may have worked out better in the end .
take one glance at casper 's bat - loathing sidekick jimmy ( leon ) , and you 'll have immediate deja vu
- he 's the exact same humorous buddy caricature from every other movie , constructed specifically for timed comic relief .
unfortunately , none of his comic interludes are funny .
in the role of deranged mad scientist dr .
mccabe , the reliable bob gunton gets cornered with the most hideously idiotic character in the bunch .
mccabe ` accidentally ' released two experimental test subjects , and the virus spread to other bats .
the entire town of gallup , texas is under attack from an enormous swarm of the creatures , but gunton appears to be inconspicuously contemplating something else .
something like : ` when is the damn movie going to be over
? ?
i just want my money . '
the bats are ugly , i must say .
there 's the occasional moment where they look moderately convincing , but mainly , the swarm is represented in cheesy digital imagery .
only bits of the bloody action even hint at the campy fun the film could have been , but by the absurdly stupid climax , it 's way too late in the game for a decent recovery .
characters experiment in slaughtering the bats with gunfire .
let 's explore the logic there : is this really a very efficient way to decrease the bat population ? ?
you could empty an entire clip at the flying winged serpents and not even wound one , and after that there are only 18 , 000 more of them .
this kind of behavior represents the regular level of intelligence behind ` bats ' .
[A]: N


[Q]: every once in a while a movie comes along that completely redefines the genre : with dramas , it was citizen kane , with arthouse it was pulp fiction , and with comedy it was , well , that jim carrey guy ( okay
, so he 's not a movie , but he did have a huge influence on the genre .
not to mention an expensive one . )
sometimes a movie even combines them all into a big , sprawling motion picture event , as did forrest gump four years ago .
with action films , it was aliens ,
whic was released to much hype seven years after it 's equally - innovative parent ,
alien ( 1979 ) .
directed and written by james cameron ( t2 :
judgement day , the abyss , true lies ) , the authority on action films , it was a masterful encore to his sci - fi thriller the terminator ( 1984 ) .
while the original alien film was a dark , enclosed horror film that featured one alien slowly massacering a horrified crew , james cameron took the big - budget action film with aliens , which featured multiple aliens doing basically the same thing , although on a much - larger scale .
and boy , did he take that route !
i 'd say at about 165 mph or so . . .
the film opens 57 years after the original , with lt .
ripley ( weaver ) being found in her ship in a cryogenic state by a salvage vessel .
if you 'll recall , at the end of alien ripley , the only surviving member , cryogenically " hibernated " herself after expelling the rogue alien from her ship .
unfortunately , she thought she 'd only be out for a couple of weeks . .
.
once she 's returned to earth , ripley is quickly interrogated by " the company " , who quickly dismiss her and her stories as lunacy .
in truth , they believe her , as they soon approach ripley with an offer to travel with some marines to a new colony planet as an " alien advisor " .
it seems that the colony planet was a once - breeding ground for the nasty aliens , and now all communication with the planet has been lost . . .
it does n't exactly take a genius to guess what happens next : ripley agrees , and before you can say " big mistake " , she and the half dozen marines , plus the slimy corporate guy ( reiser ) , who has more than it looks like up under his sleeve , are off to the colony .
when they arrive , they find the planet in ruins .
only one survivor is found , a little girl , newt , who confirms that , yes , the aliens were here and that she only managed to survive by hidding in the ventilation system .
and soon enough , the marines come under attack from the aliens . . .
what happens for the next hour and a half or so is what completely sets this movie apart from any other standard alien sci - fi movie : the action scenes .
cameron directs them so skillfully , and so suspensefully , that you 're literally ringing your hands by the time the finale rolls around . which features , in my opinion , the best fight scene ever recorded on film , as ripley straps herself into a huge robot and battles the nasty queen alien to the death .
many people will tell you that this film , while being a great action film , has no real drama and is all cliches .
well , they would be wrong , my friends .
if this film had no " drama " , then why was sigourney weaver nominated for best actress at the 1987 academy awards ?
that 's right , best actress .
you know that any action film that has an oscar nomination attached to it for something other than technical stuff like editing and f / x has got to be good
.
in short , aliens combines all the right elements ( great action and f / x , drama , a good plot , good dialogue , and great villains ) into what could arguably be called the best action film of all time .
then again , maybe not .
movies rise and fall from glory and , sad to say , aliens was wrestled from it 's throne of best action movie by another cameron film , t2 :
judgement day , in 1991 .
so who will be the next king ?
well , let 's wait until december 19th and see yet another james cameron film - the highest budgeted film of all time - titanic to make that decision .
i ca n't wait .
[A]:
P