TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
PROBLEM: any remake of an alfred hitchcock film is at best an uncertain project , as a perfect murder illustrates .
frankly , dial m for murder is not one of the master director 's greatest efforts , so there is ample room for improvement .
unfortunately , instead of updating the script , ironing out some of the faults , and speeding up the pace a little , a perfect murder has inexplicably managed to eliminate almost everything that was worthwhile about dial m for murder , leaving behind the nearly- unwatchable wreckage of a would - be ' 90s thriller .
almost all suspense films are loaded with plot implausibilities .
the best thrillers keep viewers involved enough in what 's going on so that these flaws in logic do n't become apparent until long after the final credits have rolled .
unfortunately , in a perfect murder , the faults are often so overt that we become aware of them as they 're happening .
this is a very bad sign .
not only do such occurrences shatter any suspension of disbelief , but they have the astute viewer looking for the next such blunder .
of course , in the case of a perfect murder , at least that gives an audience member something to do besides concentrating on the inane plot and the lifeless , cardboard characters .
a perfect murder is n't a strict remake of dial m for murder , but it does borrow heavily from frederick knott 's play ( which was also the source material for hitchcock 's version , as well as a 1981 made - for - tv retelling ) .
emily hayes ( gwyneth paltrow ) is the wealthy wife of powerful wall street mover - and - shaker steven hayes ( michael douglas ) .
their marriage is n't going well -- emily resents steven 's controlling instincts , and , as a form of rebellion , she is having an affair with a penniless painter , david shaw ( viggo mortensen ) .
when steven learns of the relationship , he decides to confront david , but his approach is n't that of a typical cuckolded husband .
instead of yelling or threatening , steven offers david a proposal that 's too good to resist : for $ 500 , 000 in cash ( $ 100 , 000 before , the rest after ) , he is to break into steven 's new york apartment and kill emily .
( of course , after getting the first payment , david never bothers to ask how he 's supposed to get the rest . )
ultimately , i 'm not sure which of the three main characters we 're supposed to be sympathetic to : the cold - hearted husband , who wants his wife dead so he can get his hands on her fortune ; her mercenary lover , who is willing to do the deed for half - a - million ; or the woman , who is happily carrying on an extramarital affair .
not only are these individuals all profoundly dislikable , but they 're not interesting .
( it 's possible to make a good movie with detestable characters -- see reservoir dogs -- but there has to be something compelling about them , which , in this case , there is n't . )
steven , emily , and david are all lifted directly from the screenwriting 101 text book on stereotypes .
the actors in this film are obviously just on hand to get their paychecks .
michael douglas is playing the kind of heartless tycoon that he can do in his sleep -- he 's gordon gekko with an unfaithful wife .
gwyneth paltrow , who was recently delightful and appealing in sliding doors , is simply awful here .
she now has the dubious distinction of have starred in two of 1998 's worst thrillers ( the other being hush ) .
at least viggo mortensen ( g .
i .
jane ) has a little fun with his part , but then he usually does interesting things even in bad movies .
the thin supporting cast includes david suchet , the star of " poirot , " as a police inspector , and sarita choudhury ( kama sutra ) as emily 's best friend .
a perfect murder is a plodding production that generates almost no suspense from beginning to end .
there are n't many twists and turns in the unexpectedly linear script , which makes the ending inevitable almost from the start .
it 's surprising to see director andrew davis , the man behind the fugitive , involved in this mess
, but , like his stars , he too needs to earn a living .
it 's just that remaking hitchcock , and doing it so badly
, hardly seems to be an honorable way to go about getting the dough .

SOLUTION: N

PROBLEM: "
what 's your favorite new york moment ? "
" this one 's climbing the charts .
" starring john cusack , kate beckinsale , eugene levy , molly shannon .
directed by peter chelsom .
rated pg-13 .
there 's no doubt that 95 % of romantic comedies follow a distinct pattern
: guy sees girl , guy wants girl , guy goes through unreasonable obstacles to get girl , guy gets girl .
in rare cases , the genders are flipped .
predictability is a given .
rarely , though , is a romantic comedy as cheap , as obvious , or as pointless as serendipity , a film that uses its " theme " as an excuse for its plot contrivances .
" lightweight " does n't begin to describe it .
this is like anti - gravity .
it begins in a new york city bloomingdale 's , a product placement that rivals cast away 's fedex for sheer blatancy .
jonathan trager ( john cusack ) and sara thomas ( kate beckinsale ) both go for the same pair of gloves .
after going through the perfunctory motions , jonathan gets to keep the gloves and the two of them go out for ice cream , followed by ice skating .
jonathan falls hard , and sara is charmed . when she writes her name and number down on a piece of paper , a truck rumbles by and blows it out of her hand .
she takes this as a sign from fate that they should n't be together ; jonathan is flabbergasted . to pacify him , she comes up with an idea : jonathan will write his number on a 5 dollar bill , which she will promptly spend .
when she gets home , she will write her name and number inside a book ( " love in the time of cholera " ) and sell it to a used bookstore .
if the bill gets back to her or the book to him , it will mean that they are meant to be together .
three years later .
both sara and jonathan are now engaged to other love interests .
both realize they are n't content .
both go looking for the other .
what happens now is so absurd that i 'm almost tempted to recommend the film for the sake of seeing it .
the two of them run circles around each other in a set of incredible " coincidences " that i would describe as contrivances if it were n't for the film
oh - so - cleverly dismissing that criticism by building its plot around " serendipity .
"
of course , since the movie is about fate , the screenwriter can do anything he damn well pleases .
i 'm not buying it .
there 's no suspense in any of this because we know exactly what 's going to happen , but serendipity insists on drilling its purportedly " adorable " non - story into our heads .
instead of " will they meet ?
"
the question we 're asking is " when will they meet already ? " to make matters worse , every " coincidence " is telegraphed from a mile away ; by the last reel
i was bored enough to actively look for signs that something else " incredible " was going to happen .
cusack is fine and beckinsale , at least , is n't saddled with another lumbering , clunky screenplay ( she 's had bad luck , what with brokedown palace and pearl harbor on her resume ) , just an inanely pointless one .
serendipity also relieves the tedium with the amazing eugene levy , who plays a snarky bloomingdale 's salesman .
what 's the interest in watching a movie that spirals around and around a predestined
( no pun intended ) conclusion ?
serendipity wants to tug at the heartstrings , but it only tests our patience .

SOLUTION: N

PROBLEM: since director steven zaillian previously wrote the powerful screenplay for 1993 's steven spielberg drama " schindler 's list " and directed 1993 's intelligent " searching for bobby fischer , " his new film , " a civil action , " should most likely be looked upon as an unfortunate misstep in an otherwise prosperous career .
what does n't make sense is how such high - profile and superb actors as john travolta , robert duvall , william h . macy , and kathleen quinlan got involved in this project , which is both dull and completely ineffective .
the film , which involves a small community of children who mysteriously died of leukemia , certainly contains the type of story to be emotionally - charged , but somehow all signs of feeling have been completely removed from the proceedings , leaving us with nothing more than a poorly - done courtroom drama .
based on a book by jonathan hart , which was consequently based on a true account , " a civil action " is set in 1982 in the town of woburn , mass . , where personal injury lawyer jan schlictmann ( john travolta ) decides to take on the case of eight families who simply want an apology for their children 's death from leukemia due to unknown causes .
jan originally decides to drop the case , but when he stumbles across to corporate giants , grace and beatrice foods , who have plants located near the families ' homes , he sees all of the pieces suddenly fall into place : the two companies have been leaking harmful chemicals into the nearby lake which , thus , goes into the city 's drinking water .
suddenly , after hearing about the families ' heartbreak and personal stories , he begins to care for them and becomes determined to get to the bottom of the mystery , even though he is warned by his staff accountant ( william h . macy ) that no money is coming in to them , only going out .
also figuring into the story is jerome facher ( robert duvall ) , beatrice foods ' corporate counsel , who finds himself in heated waters when jan will not accept his $ 20-million offer to settle the case .
coming from such a talented writer , director , and cast , not to mention one of the most interesting film composers , danny elfman , " a civil action " is an astoundingly empty - headed drama , one that includes an intriguing story and somehow transforms it into an admittedly tiresome and occasionally even boring experience .
perhaps one of its major problems was that in its attempts to be a relatively uncommercial motion picture , zaillian has misplaced its refreshing unconventional attitude with an absence of magnetism and even meaning .
watching the film , i could n't help but notice its similarities with 1997 's far , far superior film " the sweet hereafter , " which dealt with a lawyer , played brilliantly by ian holm , investigating a school bus accident that killed a number of children .
in his attempts to find someone who may have been responsible for the accident , holm interviews the grieving parents , as well as the sole surviving passenger , a teenage girl , which starts to remind him of his own teenage daughter , a young drug - addict who has run away from home .
not only was the plotting similar to " a civil action , " but it also had the same exact running time of 115 minutes .
considering this , it is amazing how fulfilling and truthful " a sweet hereafter " was , not only concentrating on the school bus accident , but delving deeply into ian holm 's character and his own personal demons , as well as the teenage girl .
in " a civil action , " however , i have no idea where the running time went , since the film is virtually two hours of nothingness .
we do not get to know the parents very well , nor any of the main characters .
through its whole duration , i did not learn one thing__not one thing__about travolta 's lawyer character , jan schlictmann , who does n't appear to have any sort of life or purpose outside of his job .
every scene is tediously related directly to the premise , and therefore , there was no one for me to care about or root for .
you 've got to work pretty hard , actually , to not get an audience to become involved in the parents ' plight , since their children are dead , but that is exactly what " a civil action " does .
to be honest , i would be fairly hard - pressed to state an aspect of the film that i actually liked .
aside from one flashback to when a man 's young son died on the way to the doctor , i remained unmoved and passive about what was going on in the scenes , and more than once found my mind wandering .
i could say the performances were good , but who 's fooling who ? since every character is one - dimensionally written , no one 's acting abilities are challenged in any way .
travolta plays a lawyer well enough , but that 's about all he does .
duvall
virtually sleepwalks through his role , apparently only appearing to give one - liners at every chance he gets .
and what in the world is kathy bates doing in the picture 's final scene , as a judge ?
she appears unbilled , since it is just a cameo , but why did she even agree to do it in the first place ?
finally , when the conclusion arrived and the end credits began to role , the film left me with another question : what was the point ?
abruptly ending without any susceptible momentum , where none came before that to begin with , " a civil action " seemed to me , at least , to be an example of how not to make a courtroom drama , and it certainly did not do justice to the very serious subject matter the film deals with .

SOLUTION:
N