instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
with the opening scene of a young couple in a van pulling up , loading their guns , kissing each other and uttering what sounds like " rock and roll !
"
( actually , it 's " lock and load " ) , you ca n't help thinking tarantino .
and of course with its storyline of a crazy girl and boy in love who turn to violent bank robbery , the film unapologetically takes its place alongside all those other films from bonnie & clyde to natural born killers .
but if most of those movies have their roots in pulp fiction , exploring a modern myth of the doomed rebels on the run , normal life takes a much more psychologically realistic look at the phenomenon .
" inspired by true events " -- we 've heard that one before , and yet in no other tale of violent couples has it seemed so solidly demonstrated . . .
or so strangely poignant .
for this is a story of real people whose lives take on a steadily unreal quality , who in their search for a normal life find themselves increasingly unhinged .
beginning with their final arrest , the film goes back to trace the relationship between chris ( luke perry ) , a policeman , and pam ( ashley judd ) , a factory worker .
they fall in love and marry , but pam 's increasingly erratic behaviour ( going on spending sprees , slashing herself with a knife after an argument ) begin to trouble the solid and stable chris .
when chris gets sacked , they find themselves heavily in debt and near breaking up .
then , chris begins to rob banks . . .
luke perry accomplishes the not - inconsiderable feat of making us nearly forget that he was ever in beverly hills 90210 or buffy the vampire slayer .
moustached , with a tough paternal look and yet a voice and eyes that suggest sadness verging on exasperation , he is perfectly cast as the long - suffering husband .
( it 's another of john mcnaughton 's coups of casting - against - type , after transforming robert de niro into nerd and bill murray into gangster in mad dog and glory ) .
but it is the character of pam who commands centrestage , and ashley judd rises to the challenge with great alternating currents of ferocity and tenderness , making pam into a fascinating yet often infuriating person .
if the performance falls short of greatness , however , it is perhaps because the role of the mad woman has been done so often before it is virtually a staple of cinema , whether it 's in betty blue , tom & viv or georgia .
as in those movies , there 's the danger that the performance seems mannered , a collection of screwy tics and tantrums designed for the oscar presentation piece .
judd does n't entirely avoid this pitfall , but pam 's ' craziness ' is best and most movingly presented in counterpoint to the more ' normal ' chris .
when pam reacts to her father - in - law 's death by showing up at the funeral in rollerblades and blaring headphones , chris ' face is the picture of pained restraint .
of course , it 's the question of what is ' normal ' that is asked in normal life .
mcnaughton constantly offers up the ironies of the aspirations for the average domestic life and its kinship with insanity .
it is the rational chris that loves guns ( " shooting is about precision , control " ) and the ' crazy ' pam that loves astronomy and yearns for a dog ( who is then called chaos -- " chaos and you and me . . .
we 're a real family " , she notes wryly ) .
it is chris ' methodical mind and his knowledge of police procedure that allows him to be such a successful bank robber ( his well - planned disguise as a bearded , roaring man of terror is another piece of method in madness ) .
in the carpark where he sets out for his first robbery , a huge sign on a shopping mall stands out in the background : " buy - more " -- the perfectly respectable consumption - crazy american dream that has driven pam to her extravagant purchases , and both of them into desperate situations .
it 's not a perfect film .
some of the dialogue is a touch too banal ( perhaps intentionally ? ) .
the use of the punk hardcore soundtrack in pam 's crazed scenes comes rather too close to making emotional disturbance seem glamourous and sexy an image which only detracts from the rest of the film .
indeed , as in mcnaughton 's seminal film henry : portrait of a serial killer , it is the avoidance of glamour or sensationalism , the denial of some of the standard thrills of the outlaw film genre
, that gives this determinedly unflashy , moving film its great strengths .
mcnaughton has filmed this story with a quiet , coolly ' realistic ' method that works far better than any nbk theatrics at unsettling the viewer .
the suburbs , with their miles of white - fenced houses and identikit malls , take on a sense of claustrophobic blankness .
in its very different way , this makes for as haunting a backdrop as the wide open spaces in terence malick 's badlands .
while pam shares the yearnings of malick 's heroes to escape from ordinary life , chris takes up crime precisely so that they can lead a ' normal life ' - their little house on the suburbs is financed by his violent robberies .
but these are dreams defined by , constrained by , and even doomed by , the limitations of the ' normal ' , conventional world .
pam 's final scene takes place at the edge of the suburbs , where wild bushes grow -- symbolically the frontier , the outer limits of her society , but also quite literally the end of the road , where there is nowhere left to go but to the final tragic denouement .
the flying inkpot 's rating system :
* wait for the video .
*
* a little creaky , but still better than staying at home with gotcha !
*
* * pretty good , bring a friend .
*
*
* * amazing , potent stuff .
*
*
*
* * perfection . see it twice .
answer:
P


question:
studio expectations must not have been high for " great expectations " -- the film 's release date was pushed from late december to late january at what appeared to be the last minute , therefore putting any academy awards chances it has off until this time in 1999 .
it 's actually a smart move , because while this updated take on the charles dickens tale is n't quite oscar fodder , it * is * strong enough to be distinguished from the cinematic dumping ground that usually makes up the first five or six weeks of any given year .
" great expectations " also demonstrates how to modernize a classic story right , especially after the excruciatingly wretched excesses of baz luhrmann 's " william shakespeare 's romeo + juliet .
" " great expectations " opens somewhere in 1970s florida ( the original story is set in 19th - century england ) , as eight - year - old finn ( jeremy james kissner ) meets a trio of people who will have a profound effect on his life in the future .
there 's icy , 11-year - old estella ( raquel beaudene ) , a pseudo - playmate of finn 's ; ms .
dinsmoor ( anne bancroft ) , estella 's auntie who 's quite off - kilter over a past romance that never took off ; and a mysterious prisoner ( robert de niro ) whom finn saves the life of .
finn , who lives with his sister 's affable boyfriend ( lone star 's chris cooper ) , fancies himself an aspiring artist , and proves his prowess by whipping up an unusual portrait of estella using only ms .
dinsmoor 's lipstick , eyebrow pencil and the wallpaper from her dilapidating mansion .
flash forward into
the ' 90s ( after a brief stop in the ' 80s ) , and finn ( now played by ethan hawke ) , despondent over a strange hot - and - cold relationship with the elusive estella ( gwyneth paltrow ) , receives quite a bit of money from an unknown benefactor ; it 's enough cash to send him to new york to focus on a career in art .
there , finn seems to gain everything he could ever want -- wealth , prestige and a high place in the glamorous art world .
when estella resurfaces -- albeit with an aloof fianc ?
( hank azaria ) --
finn also sees the chance to renew their mutual attraction .
but she 's not the only ghost from finn 's past that 's going to be paying him a visit .
comparisons with the afore - mentioned " romeo + juliet " seem inevitable since these films are the only ones in recent memory to plop classic drama into a current setting .
" great expectations " is a much better venture , though , because it treats its source with even - handed respect , where " romeo " was never quite sure whether to be a spoof , a homage or both .
the movie is a visual banquet thanks to emmanuel lubezki 's sexy cinematography ; notably , he captures a revisited fountain kiss between the two leads with a luscious , erotic charge that 's steamier than the film 's ( surprisingly muted ) love scenes .
the eclectic rock soundtrack compliments the on - screen action beautifully , especially new songs by tori amos , mono and duncan sheik .
acting credits are first - rate , often hiding the screenplay 's occasional slip - ups .
hawke is sincere and solid as a leading man ( something we also learned from " gattaca " ) , and his finn is quite a likeable guy .
paltrow 's estella , on the other hand , is rather underdeveloped .
while the actress is at her icily seductive best , we 're not told very much about her character , and as a result , it 's often hard to understand why finn would appreciate her beyond a physical level ( but , oh , * what * a physical level ) ; sometimes , we root for finn although we do n't quite understand why she 's fueling his fire .
robert de niro is nice and sophisticated in the benevolent kind of role he rarely gets to play ; on the other end of the acting spectrum is bancroft , a macabre , throaty delight who mambos and sucks down cigarettes with an eerie enthusiasm that would make norma desmond jealous .
alfonso cuaron 's visually elegant direction helps to distract from the dry moments that pop up more frequently around the movie 's climax .
another problem is predictability ; you can guess your way through the plot even if you are n't familiar with the story .
despite its script flaws , though , " great expectations " is undeniably romantic without being corny or gloppy .
and frankly , it 's nice to see a film that embraces softened sensuality other than explicit sexuality .
perhaps that renovated release date , awfully close to valentine 's day , will end up helping " great expectations " ' seemingly average box office chances after all .
answer:
P


question:
" flubber " is the second best example of how to take all the life out of
a film remake an adaptation , and hysterically enough both were distributed by disney .
it 's the kind of film that may be slightly entertaining to tiny kids , but anyone else will feel left out as it 's boring , slow , and incredibly lifeless .
what could be a film with cinematic magic is instead dead in the water , and it 's a shame because it could have been a great film .
hypothetically , i mean .
" flubber , " as you probably know , is a remake of the disney classic i never saw , " the absent minded professor , " where a , well , absent minded professor played by fred mcmurray created an erratic substance known as " flubber , " you know , flying rubber ?
the new one keeps the basic plot , but appears to have added a lot else , like more absent - mindedness on the part of the proffessor , some more villains , and several " show - stopping " moments , like a big rumba with the flubber , and some more elaborate setups ,
none which really make it any better , but instead make it worse .
the basic plot revolves around a college professor , philip brainerd ( robin williams ) , who creates lots and lots of inventions , but is sadly absent minded .
in fact , he 's forgotten his wedding to the college 's president , sara jean reynolds ( indie actress marcia gay harden ) , two times before he forgets it again at the beginning .
does n't this warrant some kind of mental treatment ?
anyway , on his wedding day ( the third one ) , he invents the flubber , which not only bounces off of everything like a super ball on speed , but can also change shape like the aliens in water form in " the abyss .
" philip believes that this invention , once fully realized , will save his college , which is in threat of being shut down by a millionaire tycoon / villain , chester hoenicker ( raymond j . barry ) , which is ironically enough the same college his brat son ( will wheaton - thought he was dead ) goes to .
through a plot twist , hoenicker 's goons , named smith and wesson ( ha ha - what a great sense of humor this film has ) who are played by clancy brown and ted levine ( both who needed the pay check ) , discover it the hard way , and try to steal for hoenicker , who wants it just 'cause he 's evil enough .
a sub - plot involves philip 's attempts to win back sara , who 's angry at him ( and with good reason ) , but who is being seduced by who is basically philip 's belloq , wilson croft ( christopher mcdonald , playing the hysterically suave - yet - unsuave asswhole once again ) .
and in another subplot , philip 's day - timer robot , weebo ( voiced by the one - and - only jodi benson ) , falls in love with him .
yuckity - yuck .
what 's most pathetic about this film is how dull it is .
you do n't need to be a cynical college student to be able to see right through this film , which is another in a long line of cheap attempts at making a quick buck by disney , who have essentially become the puff daddy of the film industry , half - assedly re - mixing classics ( or non - classics ) for distribution to the general public , who sadly eats it all up .
earlier in ' 97 , they released " jungle 2 jungle , " an adaptation of a really awful french film , " un indien dans la ville , " which , yeah , improved over the original , but not by much .
disney 's in about as bad shape as warner brothers right now , only creatively .
in the rush to ship out a film for distribution , disney has forgotten to give this film a little thing called " magic .
" such scenes as dancing flubber , a flying car , a basketball team that pretty much sucks flying all around thanks to some carefully placed flubber , and an elaborate ending
all fail to amaze , delight , or even cause people to laugh .
i sat there the entire film stone faced , chuckling perhaps twice , and shaking my head at all the bad jokes
.
who could really laugh at a scene where philip enters the wrong classroom and starts teaching chemistry ?
did n't think so .
it does n't help that our protagonist is essentially unfunny or even really respectable .
philip is not a lovable absent minded professory , just a really dumb man being played by robin williams .
williams is a brilliant comic actor .
. .
okay ,
a brilliant actor in general , but here
he 's given very little to do but occasionally get hyper over something , and other times act sad .
those times , he 's not bad .
but what are we supposed to think of a man who 's forgotten his wedding thrice ?
maybe it was funny and/or respectable in the 60s . . .
i like disney , and i usually enjoy their films , not only animated but live action , and their recent films ( save for " hercules , " which was good , but not great ) have been worse than lackluster
, they 've been pathetic .
" jungle 2 jungle " is probably the worst film i saw last year .
" flubber " 's probably second .
what do they need to do ?
perhaps create something new .
get writers who can write something that 's universally entertaining .
films like " the parent trap " and " mary poppins " are films that are live action ( or in the latter case a mix of both ) , but even i can still watch them because they 're not only written to be magical to children , but to be fun to adults .
what 's more torturous that taking a child to a film that insults you and annoys you at every turn ?
and my god , could n't they have done something else with edie mcclurg ?
answer:

N