instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
susan granger 's review of " the musketeer " ( universal pictures ) hollywood launches another assault on classic literature with this $ 50 million adaptation of alexandre dumas 's novel
that 's strong on action
but weak on drama , fusing hong kong martial arts with 17th century swordplay .
the story chronicles the adventures of the dashing d'artagnan ( justin chambers ) as he leaves his village of gascogne , headed for paris , to join king louis xiii 's elite guard , the royal musketeers , and to search for the man who killed his parents 14 years earlier .
this puts him in conflict with the formidable febre ( tim roth ) , vicious henchman for conniving cardinal richelieu ( stephen rea ) .
the traditional musketeer trio - aramis ( nick moran ) , athos ( jan gregor kremp ) and porthos ( steve speirs ) - do n't offer much help
so he turns to the feisty francesca ( mena suvari ) , chambermaid to the queen of france ( catherine deneuve ) .
scripter gene quintano and director - cinematographer peter hyams are primarily interested in the derring - do , as evidenced by choreographer xin - xin xiong 's elaborate - but not original - stunts , including a fast - paced stagecoach chase , a tavern brawl on rolling barrels , high - wire acrobatics with the combatants dangling from ropes , and a ladder - fight sequence . filmed in southern france , the scenery , sets and costumes are spectacular , but the lighting is too dark and editing is filled with choppy , restless mtv'ish cuts .
as the swashbuckling d'artagnan , bland calvin klein model justin chambers buckles where he should be swashing , totally lacking on - screen charisma , not to mention acting skill .
mena suvari , so impressive in " american beauty , " seems like a contemporary interloper in the royal court .
on the granger movie gauge of 1 to 10 , " the musketeer " is a cinematic but shallow 3 .
" all for one and one for all " ?
not this time ' round .
answer:
N


question:
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 .
answer:
N


question:
urban legend surprised me .
based on the last few films the genre has produced ( including but not exclusive to the likes of
i know what you did last summer , disturbing behavior and the disappointing halloween : h20 )
, i was positive that i was in store for another mildly entertaining but silly and ultimately boring rehash of the scream phenomena .
thankfully , legend rose above
it 's soggy premise
to become not only a hip , scary and stylish entertainment , but also what will probably become one of the best films of the year
.
you 're all familiar with the plot ; a bunch of overly horny teenagers get systematically slaughtered by a masked maniac who 's identity is not revealed until the closing moments of the film when it turns out to be , you guessed it ; everybody 's favorite veteran of the whodunit flicks . . .
the only person you did n't suspect !
however , just because legend does n't really break any new ground as far as literary or even technical achievements go does not mean that it ca n't qualify as first - class entertainment .
it was , believe it or not , one of the funnest times i 've had at the movies all year .
the thing is , i 'm not really sure what made this particular stab ( pardon the pun ) at the genre seem so fresh and alive .
maybe it was the above - par performances by the movie 's two leads ( jared leto and " cybil " actress alicia witt ) .
or , it could have been the on- target direction by jamie blanks .
more likely , though , it was because of the inspired premise .
i do n't think i need to tell you that a killer hacking people up ala urban folklore is much more frightening than a killer fisherman .
urban legend begins with a sequence that reminded me of the classic scream opener , not so much in plotting as in attention to detail that makes for an absolutely chilling teaser for the rest of the film .
a pretty young coed is driving down a deserted road when ( gasp ! )
a gas problem ( hee - hee ) forces her to stop at an equally deserted gas station for a refill .
one problem , though . would you want to stop at a station run by brad dourif ?
i thought not .
predictably , the attendant ends up coaxing her into the main building to sort out a problem with the credit card company .
it 's odd , though , when you pick up a phone to realize that nobody 's on the other line .
naturally , the potential victim escapes into her car and drives off .
and the when we least expect it . . .
whack ! ! !
a decapitation .
it turns out that the creepy looking attendant was just trying to warn her about the maniac in the back seat of the car .
so who is it this time ?
the obvious candidate is the slightly off - kilter professor at the college the girl went to ( none other than freddy kruger himself , robert englund ) , who teaches a class on urban legends .
a - ha .
or could it be the fame - hungry local journalist ( leto ) looking for a meaty story to put on his resume ?
like all movies of this nature , one of the chief pleasures is trying to guess whodunit .
and it turns out to be , of course , the one you did n't suspect .
i 'm not going to pretend urban legend is anything more than it is ,
but i must give credit where credit is due .
and this flick definitely deserves credit for being what not many other recent horror films have been . . .
fun .
* complimentary movie ticket courtesy of valley cinemas in lodi , ca
answer:

P