instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
jean - claude van damme movies tend to be , if nothing else , a lot of mindless fun .
his latest film , " knock off , " skips on the fun part leaving a wildly incoherent exercise that is , well , simply mindless .
you ca n't really blame van damme .
no one , i suspect , has ever expected " the muscles from brussels " to contribute a heartfelt performance brimming with introspection and delicate shades of gray .
and even his sidekick co - star , " saturday night live " alumnus rob " makin ' copies " schneider , does what 's expected of him , although neither appear to want the role of straight man .
no ,
the problem with the film is its direction .
the first five minutes of the film are incomprehensible . . .
and it goes downhill from there !
five hundred characters , it seems , are introduced within the first fifteen minutes .
van damme does n't land his first kick until after thirty -- too late for most action fans -- and by the time the hour mark has rolled around ,
your jaw will be on your cup holder and you 'll be wondering why you elected to spend seven dollars on this mess
.
director hark tsui , whose previous film was the van damme / dennis rodman teamed " double team , " films at such a frenetic pace that it 's hard to know what 's going on
, who 's on whose side , and what the point of all this is .
faster than you can yell " fruit stand !
"
we 're watching a crazed rickshaw race with schneider being bounced along by an energetic van damme .
when schneider starts whacking van damme in the behind with a four - foot eel while enthusing " move your beautiful big ass , " the movie takes an unprecedented turn to the bizarre .
every now and again " knock off " will deliver some truly ingenious directorial flourishes -- inventive camera shots and angles , wild rides down gun silencers and from the tops of buildings to the sprawling street below , revealing cut - ins within the frame -- but they all happen too quickly , and within such a furious frame of reference , that they 're wasted . if only hark could have slowed things down just for a minute . if you 're interested in the plot , you 're better off reading a capsule review than trying to extract any meaning from the on - screen shenanigans : " jean - claude van damme plays a shady bluejeans manufacturer who uncovers a russian mafia plot to terrorize the world with " nanobombs " hidden in cabbage patch knock - offs .
maybe .
with paul sorvino .
"
a more accurate summary would be " jean - claude van damme bums around hong kong failing to avoid large , blatant coca - cola product placements .
"
the fact that the film is staged during hong kong 's last days under british rule gets some lip service but does n't figure in at all .
perhaps " knock off " 's most intriguing credit is that ron and russell mael composed the frenzied music score .
some of you might remember the mael brothers as the ' 80s synth pop duo sparks ; their contributions here are as confused as the accompanying action-- " kimono my house " indeed !
like the cheap jeans and " pumma " sneakers manufactured in hong kong , van damme 's latest is a real phony .
answer:
N


question:
best remembered for his understated performance as dr .
hannibal lecter in michael mann 's forensics thriller , manhunter , scottish character actor brian cox brings something special to every movie he works on .
usually playing a bit role in some studio schlock ( he dies halfway through the long kiss goodnight ) , he 's only occasionally given something meaty and substantial to do .
if you want to see some brilliant acting , check out his work as a dogged police inspector opposite frances mcdormand in ken loach 's hidden agenda .
cox plays the role of big john harrigan in the disturbing new indie flick l .
i .
e . , which lot 47 picked up at sundance when other distributors were scared to budge .
big john feels the love that dares not speak its name , but he expresses it through seeking out adolescents and bringing them back to his pad .
what bothered some audience members was the presentation of big john in an oddly empathetic light .
he 's an even - tempered , funny , robust old man who actually listens to the kids ' problems ( as opposed to their parents and friends , both caught up in the high - wire act of their own confused lives . )
he 'll have sex - for - pay with them only after an elaborate courtship , charming them with temptations from the grown - up world .
l .
i .
e . stands for long island expressway , which slices through the strip malls and middle - class homes of suburbia .
filmmaker michael cuesta uses it as a ( pretty transparent ) metaphor of dangerous escape for his 15-year old protagonist , howie ( paul franklin dano ) .
in his opening voice - over , howie reveals a morbid preoccupation with death on the road , citing the l .
i .
e .
highway deaths of filmmaker alan
j .
pakula , songwriter harry chapin , and his own mother on exit 52 .
he 's both fascinated and disturbed by the l .
i .
e . , and those feelings are projected onto big john ( who follows howie around in his bright red car , but never makes a move to force the boy to do something he does n't want to do .
this makes him much more complex than the usual child molesters seen in movies -- he 's a beast , but ashamed of it . )
l .
i .
e . would have worked best as a half - hour short film about howie 's ill - advised foray into big john 's haven .
there is unnecessary padding with howie 's miserable dad ( bruce altman ) in the hot seat for a white - collar crime , degenerate youngsters who get their kicks from robbing middle - class houses , and some homoerotic shenanigans with wise - ass gary terrio ( billy kay ) , a handsome artful dodger . rather than add to the themes of suburban ennui ( not that we needed another movie on that subject ) , these awkward subplots pad out the running time to adequate feature length .
concurrently , the relationship between howie and big john is evenly paced and exceptionally well acted .
cox , sporting a baseball cap and a faded marine tattoo , is all bluff and bluster .
dano is quiet and at first glance seems so withdrawn as to be transparent .
we 're so used to child actors whose dramatic choices are broad and obvious ( calling haley joel ! ) , it 's surprising to see one who actually listens throughout any given scene .
the restraint is admirable .
but l . i .
e . 's
screenplay does n't always give them the best material .
when howie reads big john a walt whitman poem , the moment feels a bit too precious .
director michael cuesta lingers on an ecstatic reaction shot of big john , who may as well be hearing glenn gould performing bach 's goldberg variations .
it 's too much .
there are also some obvious dramatic contrivances involving big john 's other boy toy ( walter masterson ) , jealous over the newbie .
this plot thread predictably leads to violence .
not content to be a haunting , observational portrait of teen alienation in a royally screwed up world ( like terry zwigoff 's superb ghost world ) , cuesta lacks the confidence in his own work to end on an ambivalent note .
it 's typical of unimaginative cinema to wrap things up with a bullet , sparing the writers from actually having to come up with a complex , philosophical note .
in this regard
, l . i .
e .
( and countless other indie films ) share something in common with blockbuster action films : problems are solved when the obstacle is removed .
how often does real life work this way ? to extend the question : if a movie is striving for realism , do dramatic contrivances destroy the illusion ?
answer:
N


question:
the general 's daughter is a heartless , absurd film , a movie so hopelessly dedicated to its inane plot that it forgets entirely about its own characters .
director simon west treats issues like rape and sexual fetish with ham - handed obscenity , creating a film that banks almost entirely on exploitation and offensive pseudo - depth .
what 's worse is that the movie is haphazardly glued together by two characters who are neither interesting nor sympathetic --
the ridiculous story requires them to do unbelievable things in the interest of reaching a dark conclusion in a sudden rain storm .
john travolta finds himself in the middle of the mess , playing warrant officer paul brenner ; brenner is assigned to find the murderer and rape of captain elizabeth campbell ( leslie stefanson ) , daughter of general joe campbell ( james cromwell ) .
brenner is teamed up with ex - spouse sarah sunderland ( madeline stowe ) , and they check out all the suspects on the base , including elizabeth 's mentor , colonel moore ( james woods ) .
soon , it becomes apparent that elizabeth was into kinky sexual stuff , but the question comes down to why -- and , of course , who .
ebert 's law of the economy of characters can be applied here ; one interesting thing i noted is that not only are all the characters suspects at some point ( including the two protagonists ) , but almost all of them end up directly intertwined with the story .
perhaps i should have issued a spoiler alert before mentioning that , but it 's painfully obvious from the beginning that everyone in the film is hiding something .
on a story level , the general 's daughter is ineptly constructed .
the film , adapted by christopher bertolini and william goldman from nelson demille 's novel ( which was apparently based on a true story ) , plods along to its conclusion , filling in the blanks with stale , unrealistic dialogue and " shocking " plot developments .
having not read the novel , it 's difficult to determine if these problems are the fault of the adapters or the original author , but i suppose they all are guilty to some degree .
scene after scene stumbles with pointless insincerity ; minutes after finding the dead young woman , brenner and sunderland engage in sarcastic dialogue , which includes endless strings of forced lines .
( sunderland actually asks brenner , " why was she killed ?
"
to which i would have answered , " if i knew , then the movie would already be over . " ) only after we 've spent twenty minutes or so with these characters
do we learn that they have a sordid history together ; this angle , though apparently present to develop their characters , is never explored .
not that it really matters , since the characters consistently do ludicrous things for no other reason than to drive the plot .
in one scene , sunderland is attacked by a man in a mask .
she sees one of his rings , and she and brenner find the man later that day based on the ring .
instead of questioning him like as they would a real suspect , they take him to brenner 's houseboat , beat him up , and pour hot coffee in his lap .
this scene really pushed me over the edge , not because it 's gratuitous and mean - spirited , but because it illustrates the film 's complete disregard for the characters and the audience .
it was impossible for me to feel anything for these people beyond this scene , mostly because nothing they do comes as a surprise .
i realized that these constructs on screen are n't actually characters , but devices present only to serve the story .
this would have been bad enough without the west 's need to hose his movie down in tasteless images of rape and sexual misconduct .
compelling films about sexual crimes do n't spend a lot of time on rape flashbacks , and they certainly do n't show as much skin and sweat as a typical pornographic picture .
these scenes are not the least bit powerful ; on the contrary , they 're intended simply to provide the audience with the necessary resentment for the villain , whomever that may turn out to be .
in addition , the movie treats sexual fetishes -- and sadomasochism in particular -- as if it 's a perversion of everything we know to be pure .
this standpoint is certainly allowed , but only in accompaniment with well - developed themes to back it up .
as it is , the film forgets that a lot of people have sexual fetishes , and that putting on a pair of handcuffs does not make a person insane .
perhaps the only positive elements in the general 's daughter are a couple of the performances .
james woods has a few terrific scenes , and plays his role with sharp , witty subtlety .
i also liked james cromwell , mostly because he comes across as slightly sympathetic despite the obvious intent of west to make him villainous .
nonetheless , these performances are undermined entirely by the dreary , obligatory atmosphere and the senseless neglect of characterization .
the general 's daughter is the worst kind of hollywood film -- it pretends to have a soul , to be of strict moral code , when in fact
it has nothing more than a group of cardboard cut - outs force - feeding the audience a toxic landfill of plot contrivances and one - sided moral judgments .
answer:

N