TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
PROBLEM: note : some may consider portions of the following text to be spoilers . be forewarned .
on december 20 , 1996 , amidst all the year - end oscar bait releases from the major studios , miramax 's genre label dimension films quietly released a sly little ensemble slasher flick titled scream .
although the teen horror market had been given up for all - but - dead in recent years , the film shocked industry observers by scoring consistently high box office returns , eventually topping $ 100 million domestic and becoming one of the most successful films of its type in history , while delighting audiences by finally presenting a set of knowing slasher flick protagonists who were aware of the all the standard cliches associated with the genre .
the sleeper success of scream sent shockwaves through the industry -- suddenly , everybody was looking for hip , inexpensive fright films that might be able to reap similar fortunes .
the strategy of casting young tv stars to draw the youth demographic was given a boost .
scream director wes craven , previously best known as the creator of new line 's a nightmare on elm street film series , was thrust back into the limelight .
and scream 's rookie scribe , kevin williamson , burst onto the film scene in stunning fashion .
it 's hard to understate this last point .
mr .
williamson has , based upon his produced screenplays as of this writing ( scream , i know what you did last summer from october 1997 , and now scream 2 ) , enjoyed a meteoric rise to fame , quickly become the most well - known screenwriter amongst the entertainment weekly - reading , box office figure - watching youth culture since -- well , since that quentin tarantino guy ( whom , it is said , has also achieved some renown as a director ) .
indeed , in a singularly freakish oddity , it is the screenwriter , mr . williamson , and not the director that has been receiving the lion 's share of acclaim for the success of scream , and the print advertisements for scream 2 's theatrical release are similarly indicative of his increasing prominence : while the traditional " a film by wes craven " drapes the film 's title in the ads , right below it ( in equal sized font , yet ) reads " written by kevin williamson " , an affirmation of the screenwriter 's contribution to the project which may be unprecedented .
( i can envision the board of wga , licking their chops at this coup and counting the days until their goal of " a film by " is attained . )
and , much like mr .
tarantino 's screenwriting , mr .
williamson 's work is vaguely unconventional , incorporating both contemporary pop culture references and allusions to other films into the dialogue of his characters .
in scream , they satirically discussed other horror films ; here in the sequel , the characters discuss the relative merits of film sequels .
scream was written in 1995 during the infamous bob dole rampage against hollywood , and mr .
williamson 's rejection of this tirade clearly influenced the writing in both that film and this sequel .
while the sequel was planned from the outset -- a treatment of scream 2 was included when mr .
williamson sold the screenplay for scream -- the basic premise for the film and the reunion of the surviving characters
nevertheless seems extremely artificially contrived , and it 's only at about the film 's midway point when it becomes engaging .
like its predecessor , scream 2 opens with a splashy , eye - grabbing prologue which only vaguely ties into the film 's principal narrative ; this time around , we 're following the exploits of a young couple ( jada pinkett and omar epps ) attending a riotously gleeful sneak preview screening of stab ( a running film - within - a - film gag where the " true life " events behind the first film has been turned into a movie ) .
however , although it tries hard and has some good ideas -- the nightmarishly enthusiastic audience in the film vaguely reminded me of the one i was sharing the theatre with , and i was certainly thinking about gutting the overly - noisy person a few seats away myself after about fifteen minutes -- the prologue is a pale imitation of the bravura opening sequence in the original with drew barrymore ( where her performance not only convinced me that she * could * act , but was so good that it would rank among the best performances in a horror film that i 've ever seen ) .
there are too many knowing , hip pop - culture references crammed into the scream 2 sequence , and the setup is n't nearly as cleverly frightening as scream 's ; while the first film 's preface dizzyingly built up to a final shot that was exhilaratingly terrifying , the payoff here is almost campily theatrical .
flash to the campus of a smalltown ohio college ,
where returning characters sidney ( neve campbell ) and randy ( jamie kennedy ) have relocated for their studies and to escape the notoriety from the events in the first film .
the murders which open this film result in reuniting the survivors -- single - minded tabloid tv reporter gale weathers ( courteney cox ) roars into town to cover the breaking story , while ever - awkward former deputy dewey riley ( david arquette ) flies in to protectively guard over sidney .
they 're joined by cotton weary ( liev schreiber ) , who was falsely accused of homicide in a cameo appearance during the first film ; his role here is significantly expanded .
the film incidentally provides surprisingly little backstory , although i suppose a good case can be made that it really is n't necessary -- not because so many people have seen the first installment , but because this is , after all , a sequel to a slasher film : what do you * think * happened to these characters in the prior movie ?
there 's a lot of new faces on the scene too : sidney 's new boyfriend , derek ( jerry o'connell ) and her new roommate hallie ( elise neal ) , randy 's fellow film student mickey ( timothy olyphant ) , gale 's newly - assigned nervous cameraman joel ( duane martin ) , omnipresent local journalist debbie salt ( laurie metcalf ) , co - ed cici cooper ( ms .
buffy herself , sarah michelle gellar ) , and a pair of simpering sorority sisters ( rebecca gayheart and sirens ' portia di rossi ) .
any of these characters could be the killer -- or for that matter , could be the next victim .
as is seemingly becoming a regular staple of a kevin williamson screenplay , the narrative is once again framed around the increasingly - flimsy premise of a whodunit .
one problem that scream did n't have was keeping you interested in the identity of the killer . here ( and to some extent in i know what you did last summer ) , mr .
williamson 's screenplay seems slightly hampered by trying to turn the identity of the killer into a mystery .
the film occasionally becomes so bogged down with misdirection that you can sense it straining at the seams to try and drop red herrings left and right at the expense of its thriller elements .
( it does n't help matters any that the killer 's alter - ego is fairly obvious from the get - go . )
indeed , the finale plays as full - out camp when the villain is finally unmasked , frothing at the mouth with glazed eyes .
this is one of those cases where the villain goes on such an endless diatribe about their machinations , scheming , and motivation , that you actually get bored listening and just want them all to get on with it .
while the basic setup and premise for the film is fairly contrived , the aspect where it 's head - and - shoulders above its predecessor is in its suspense sequences .
they 're staged much more imaginatively here
( save for the first post - prologue murder , which is handled in such a mediocre , conventional fashion that it seems to be culled directly from the predictable 1980s slasher flicks that the first film satirized ) , and are much more fun to watch .
it 's hard to hold back a smile during a giddy scene where sidney and her companion have to climb over the incapacitated killer in order to escape from a car wreck , and a cat - and - mouse chase involving gale and dewey in a campus sound lab is very nicely staged , although its ultimate resolution is hilariously overblown .
in terms of its characters ,
the strong part of the film is the interesting relationship between gale and dewey ( who ambles onto the screen accompanied by his very own theme music ) .
their verbal sparring at the outset provides much humour -- an exchange where dewey defensively rebukes charges of a perceived aura of incompetency is well - written -- and there 's a curiously endearing aspect about their relationship amidst all the mayhem and bloodshed .
on the other hand , sidney is pretty dull here .
she does n't have any compelling presence , and there 's nothing particularly interesting about her this time around to make us care about her other than that she 's the returning heroine .
given this , and the fact that there 's no strong second banana character for sidney ( elise neal 's role is n't nearly substantive enough to adequately fill rose mcgowan 's shoes ) , it 's no wonder why the roles for gale and dewey have been significantly augmented for this installment of the film .
what surprises me the most about scream 2 is its zealousness in decimating its cast .
the film 's mounting body count bears out the fact that * no * character is safe ( well , * almost * )
; while in principal i applaud this bold policy , at some point you 've got to be wondering about just how many characters will make it to the next sequel .
( i was particularly surprised with the untimely demise of one in particular , whose casting for the next installment of the series would 've seemed obvious . )
but hey , as rose mcgowan 's character said in the first film : " no , please do n't kill me , mr .
ghostface
-- i want to be in the sequel !
" look what that got her .

SOLUTION: P

PROBLEM: another formula ' feel good ' quirky comedy from the british isles , much like " waking ned devine , " and a host of other popular low budget movies that turned a nifty profit off a thin story line .
it is filled with likable establishment types living in a quaint town , such as tolerant vicars and policemen , plenty of eccentrics , and of locals who stick together through thick and thin .
the strength of this film lies in its rational theme , that smoking pot should be legalized since it is even less dangerous than drinking alcohol .
the film is tolerable until after its first hour , it then falls completely apart , becoming just too absurd to consider as anything but
sitcom fluff gone completely bananas .
but its long overdue message of decriminalization for certain drugs is on target and allows the film to , at least , be viewed as containing a pertinent message .
its message is especially appropriate nowadays considering the ' war on drugs '
is about to be escalated into colombia .
the drug war has been a total failure so far and with no hope of it being won by law enforcement methods in the future , it has so far just ended up causing america 's jails to be overcrowded with non - violent drug prisoners and offers zero hope of curtailing america 's drug usage and drug supply .
billions of dollars have just been allocated by congress to get officially involved in the colombian civil war , by backing a corrupt government ( remember vietnam ! )
with the idea that military might could stop the cocaine and marijuana harvests in that country .
everything about this proposed action smacks of vietnam , with this scenario closer to home , so
what probably awaits such an effort is a more futile result than the other war .
the film 's mild theme of showing squares getting into the weed business and finding it acceptable by the public , something that should have been accepted some 40 years ago , is a theme long overdue for public acceptance , but one that is better received late than never .
there has to be some common sense in distinguishing what drugs should be legalized and how to educate the public on this , rather than making it a police matter altogether .
the film opens in a quaint cornish seaside village at the funeral of the husband of a middle - aged woman , grace ( brenda blethyn ) , who fell out of an airplane , evidently committing suicide .
the widow soon finds out her husband was a bigger bastard than she imagined .
he left her with a stack of enormous bills and put up , without her knowledge , their comfortable 300 year old house as collateral for a failed business venture by taking out a second mortgage .
the widow finds herself bankrupt and with no marketable skills to pay back her husband 's enormous debts and prevent her from losing the house and becoming homeless .
she also knows that he was having an affair with a sophisticated woman from london , honey ( quick ) .
what makes the affair doubly unsatisfying , is that when conferring with honey , she finds out that he was a tiger with her in bed but refrained from having sex with her .
even though the locals try to help the bankrupt widow out as best they can , the creditors swoop down on her like vultures .
her gardener and handyman , matthew ( ferguson ) , decides to stay on with her , despite his last check bouncing . since she is an expert amateur horticulturist , he convinces her to help him revive his hemp plants , which he grows for private use .
the two soon see this as a possibly big business opportunity , as grace works miracles with the plants which turn out to be high - quality stuff .
for grace , this is a way to save her house and get her out of debt ; for the scotsman , matthew , it offers a chance for him to continue to live in this beautiful village and earn enough money to marry his fisherman girlfriend nicky ( valerie ) .
the locals all let the illegal activities go on undisturbed :
the police sergeant ( campbell ) pretends not to notice what the bright lights in grace 's greenhouse is for , the friendly vicar ( phillips ) counsels about the wisdom of not taking action over something that you ca n't control , and the doctor ( clunes ) enjoys smoking the weed for recreation .
the story becomes incredulous when grace decides to go to london and score with a big - time drug dealer instead of having matthew go , because she finds out nicky is pregnant and does n't want matthew to end up in jail .
it is interesting to note , that no one thinks smoking grass is bad for you , only that one can go to jail .
the scene with grace on portobello road in the notting hill section of london , trying to find a drug dealer , while dressed out of place , in a white dress and hat one would wear to a tea party in cornwall but not on the streets of notting hill while looking to make a drug deal , was completely hokey and the film descended into a huge black hole , whereby it never recovered its dignity .
the film moves into the formula mode , whereas grace beats the odds against her failing to survive , as she meets an international drug dealer , a frenchman ( tcheky karyo ) , who is first seen threatening to cut off her fingers but later becomes her business partner and husband as she becomes a millionaire and writes a best selling fiction book about her experiences , thereby becoming a celebrity .
things work out in a ridiculous way , where there is a total breakdown in the character development of grace , where this matronly figure suddenly becomes merely a cartoon figure instead of live flesh and blood .
there are a lot of silly giggles that come forth and the film has just enough of an acting performance by brenda blethyn to breathe air into it before it comes to its belated finale , as it drones on with its transparently gratuitous upbeat tone , until it makes the audience feel good that the sweet old lady succeeded .
this ' unhip ' film leaves one with the impression that smoking and growing pot is silly , but should be tolerated as something
naughty middle - aged widows screwed by their terrible former husbands must do in order not to remain destitute .
ummm !

SOLUTION: N

PROBLEM: few films in 1999 have divided the critical consensus as sharply as alan parker 's adaptation of frank mccourt 's memoir angela 's ashes .
many dismissed it as an humorless , sentimentalized , uninteresting version of the hugely popular novel ; others hailed it as a heartfelt , sincere portrait of the human spirit .
i 'm somewhere in between , leaning strongly towards the latter .
it 's certainly well - made and it never becomes tedious like some literary adaptations have a tendency to be .
but i have a feeling that parker filled the movie with pseudo - lyrical shots of rain falling on the homely streets of ireland just so it can have the two - and - a - half hour running time that screams " i 'm important !
" mccourt 's book of the same name was about him and his family moving from the us to ireland in the early 1900 's , a time when most people were desperately trying to get into the us .
as he comments , " we were the only irishfolk to say goodbye to the statue of liberty .
" in ireland , frank ( played by joe breen as a small child ) , his 3 brothers , his mother angela ( emily watson ) and his father malachy ( robert carlyle ) get financial help from angela 's mother , a stereotypically strict catholic who chides her daughter for marrying a northern irishman .
she helps them get a rat - infested apartment and malachy goes looking for a job .
positions are scarce and when he does finally find one , he is unable to hold on to it because of his fondness for drinking .
meanwhile , frank goes to an uptight catholic school , where the instructors beat students with blunt wooden objects as often as their heart desires .
two of frank 's brothers soon die , crippled by the dreadful living conditions and malnutrition .
as if the poverty and the suffering were n't intense enough as it stood , malachy and angela have another baby , worsening the situation further .
i imagine this does n't sound like much of a plot .
that 's probably because it is n't one .
these are people .
this is their story .
director alan parker ( the commitments ) knows how to tell a good story and angela 's ashes , despite its relentlessly literary tone remains interesting .
though the film occasionally indulges too much in its gloomily picturesque irish setting , it avoids looking like a glorified travelogue . supplementing parker 's able direction are the engaging , often poignant performances of the leads , some of them seasoned thespians , others relative beginners .
carlyle , the charismatic british actor who has shown astonishing range by hopping from the lead in a rowdy slapstick comedy to the villain in a james bond movie and now to sentimental melodrama , perfectly portrays his rather pathetic character .
we empathize with the guy , but we do n't like or admire
him .
emily watson turns in a heartfelt , sincere supporting performance .
it is mostly she who implants that lump in our throats .
also worthy of mention is little joe breen , whose face graces the film 's superb poster .
it is breen 's first feature film
and he 's extraordinary as young frank .
not unlike sudden oscar darling haley joel osment of the sixth sense , you can peer into the character 's soul through breen 's sad eyes .
on the flip side , one thing that could have vastly improved angela 's ashes is a more decisive editor .
while gerry hambling sure makes the most of the scenery , he and parker also leave in at least a half an hour of unnecessary footage .
the first half , especially , could have been trimmed down , bringing the film to a more reasonable running time and doing our bladders a favor in the process .
things pick up at about the halfway point , sort of dismissing a lot of the criticisms i accumulated during the opening hour , but i maintain that the aggressively deliberate pace parker and co. set in the first half was ludicrously unnecessary .
* spoiler warning !
skip next paragraph if in suspense !
* the film 's final message is somewhat conflicted , as frankie , in effect , leaves his family famished in ireland while he himself goes back to america .
what , exactly , are we supposed to make of that ?
his mother does n't seem to mind because she wants the best possible future for her son , as any mother would , but it still seems inconsiderate of him .
i have n't read the book , but i 'm sure that mccourt justifies his actions therein
; therefore , i 'm suspicious .
another thing that 's never made clear in the movie is the meaning of the title , which , i 'm sure , is also explained in the memoir .
if seen as a film onto itself , rather than an adaptation , angela 's ashes stands tall .
despite a few minor setbacks , it is a captivating story of people forced to live in the trenches by an merciless society where those of weaker character are shoved to the bottom of the financial ladder .

SOLUTION:
P