instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
i can imagine how good krippendorf 's tribe must have looked on paper .
it does not surprise me in the least that a group of extremely talented actors , led by the great richard dreyfuss and a good director ( todd holland ) , all wanted to make this film .
in fact , it is only the expertise by which this excruciatingly bad script has been executed that keeps me from suggesting that you stay as far away from krippendorf 's tribe as possible .
in retrospect , i can imagine how bad this film could have been .
i shudder at the possibilities of awfulness
had it starred an actor less able than dreyfuss .
dreyfuss plays james krippendorf , an anthropologist who is granted $ 100 , 000 by his university to find an undiscovered tribe in new guinea .
halfway into his two - year expedition , his wife ( apparently ) dies .
i say apparently because when or how she dies is never truly established .
later , we find out that much of the grant money was spent on big - screen tvs and other such pleasures .
so , when krippendorf finds out what happens to professors who do not use their grant money wisely , he decides to construct an elaborate lie .
he makes his own tribe , using his three children as actors in a video .
he simply makes up certain incredible facts about this tribe ( which he calls the shelmickedmu ) .
audiences at krippendorf 's lectures are amazed by his findings that the shelmickedmu practice circumcision .
and proof that the typical family unit is led by a single father is truly amazing to the anthropological community .
like all films like this , the lie becomes more and more complex , and the suspense is generated with us wondering at what point it is all going to fall out from under our hero .
dreyfuss is a funny , talented man , and he is funny in this film .
he has lots of positive energy and , unlike most comical actors , really manages to play people like this realistically .
this film also requires a lot of physical humor that i 've never seen dreyfuss perform , and he does a great job .
jenna elfman , who plays veronica mecilli , a scientist who wants in on krippendorf 's work , is also very funny and appealing here .
and the kid actors are great , as well .
but we 're talking about the script from hell .
this is one of those stories that requires such extreme suspension of disbelief that they might as well have established that the story just takes place in an alternate universe where things like this can happen .
but the ridiculousness of the story is not really
what is so bad about it .
all the cliches and the irritating plot devices could have easily been overcome by dreyfuss and crew .
no , the script is plagued with so many clueless stereotypes and mean - spirited characters that i was in disbelief as i watched .
furthermore , the manor in which all of this material is covered up is truly shameless .
take , for instance , the scene in which krippendorf gets veronica drunk so he can tape them having sex .
they get all decked out in the tribe getup , complete with paint to darken their skin .
krippendorf does this because he needs footage of the mating rituals of his tribe .
now , i saw this scene coming from a mile away , but i said to myself , " no , that would be far too tasteless .
there 's no way they 'll do that . . .
oh god !
"
they did do it .
it 's there .
i was almost more appalled by the fact that this did n't bother the other audience members with whom i saw this film .
i found it deplorable .
and when krippendorf is forced to admit that he did it , he simply apologizes without the slightest hint of conviction in his voice .
the film is filled with scenes like these .
they not only insult the audience , but they insult the types of people that the film portrays .
it would take some truly professional work to create videos convincing enough to fool an entire community of scientists , yet krippendorf
does it easily in an afternoon .
and watching dreyfuss stumble over a completely unprepared speech is funny and entertaining , but i think that most members of the on - screen audience would be able to see that he is making everything up as he goes .
if i were an anthropologist , this film would insult me immensely .
moving right along , the film plays off every stereotype our culture has ever learned regarding african tribes .
sure , dreyfuss dressing up like a chief is really funny , and it allows for some entertaining scenes , but the heart of this material is deeply clueless as to the themes and thoughts that it provokes .
it is because of dreyfuss as an actor that i was able to watch this film .
his character here is not a good subject for a film because he is a shameless liar , and never once does he show any kind of penance for what he does .
i suppose it was interesting to see the formula defied in this case , but for the purposes of good taste , i would have expected something .
no , this man sets a terrible example for his kids and colleagues , and the writer of the film ( charlie peters ) did n't include a single scene in which krippendorf takes his kids aside and tells them that what he is doing is very bad .
in fact , it 's his eldest daughter that frequently tells him that he is doing the wrong thing , and he continually shrugs off her warnings .
i suppose it 's important to admit that this is a funny film .
dreyfuss and elfman , and many of the contrived and insulting scenes , add up to a picture that is anything but boring .
and if you 're less serious than i , you probably will enjoy it .
i , however , ca n't get past these elements .
krippendorf 's tribe is being marketed as a family comedy , but this is the kind of film that teaches the kids of our society faulty lessons that they should n't be learning .
with a little more insight into its story and themes , this could have been a good movie .
answer:
N


question:
seen august 8 , 1998 at 6 p .
m .
at rotterdam square cinemas ( rotterdam , ny ) , theater # 6 , by myself for free using my sony / loews critic 's pass .
[ theater rating :
*
*
* : good seats , sound , and picture ] war is a topic that ca n't help but be glorified any way it is portrayed by the media .
movies , documentaries , and even history books have a way of making the darker side of humanity exciting since the most general aspects are focused on , such as strategy , politics , and victory .
it 's easy to forget war , in its most basic form , is a battle of armies out to slaughter each other .
forgotten more easily is the fact that each soldier , no matter what his rank or importance , is a real flesh - and - blood person and not just a number . " saving private ryan " is one of the few films that dares play up this aspect , especially in its unapologetic , realistic delivery .
it proves there 's a huge difference between battling and killing .
the film opens with one of the most graphic , disturbing scenes in recent memory .
it 's world war
ii , d - day to be exact , and the u . s .
military is invading omaha beach where the nazis are more than ready for them .
spielberg uses many techniques to create for a total sense of reality . instead of positioned cameras , the footage here seems to have been shot by camera operators running alongside soldiers as if they were just as scared .
there is no sense of stability , but of constant , anxious , and confusing motion , giving us the feeling of being in the middle of the battle , and just a vulnerable as the poor troops .
" poor " is a proper word to describe how pathetic and yet innocent the men fighting are .
there is little to no dialogue throughout the loud battle and no prologue to define any characters .
we do n't get the feeling these are handsome actors playing heroic roles , but that these are men about to kill and be killed for reasons beyond their understanding .
the nazis are not portrayed as enemies to be hated , but as people that must be destroyed because they 're there .
in the movies , the good guys can run through a firestorm of bullets and bombs and not get a scratch , but in reality that would n't happen .
the men have nothing to shield or protect them besides some metal flanks and dead bodies .
they are sitting ducks and we realize this through the perspective of the well - secured germans who can actually see who , what , and where they 're shooting , unlike the americans who must fire in a general direction to avoid getting their heads blown off .
perhaps the film is flawed by not providing any backstory on the war itself and who the men really are , but that seems to be part of the theme .
the film seems to rely on the audience 's sense of patriotism , that the american military is " right " and good and that the nazis are " inherently evil .
"
the battle scene eventually focuses on a group of men who have miraculously survived and made their way close to the enemy stronghold ( a whole 50-foot progression ) , and begin to inflict some damage .
i have to admit that once the first glimpse of victory over the nazis sprang up , i could n't help but feel some sense of joy and relief .
to triumph against all odds is a cliche to be sure , but there 's nothing cliche about the graphic , detailed , atmosphere here because it really happened .
one of the most surprising aspects of the film is how little story construction there is , and yet the events that take place make sense and are interesting
.
the plot is practically irrelevant since the film is more concerned with the reality of the war and the soldiers we meet .
tom hanks stars as captain miller , a relatively average man who happens to be the leader of a platoon .
he 's never obsessive or any such generic , cartoonish characteristic that might dominate a character like this .
he does n't want to be there any more than his men , but when he is given a mission he intends to carry it out .
the mission the film is concerned with is , as the title states , saving private ryan .
through a series of command started by an ordinary clerical worker , it is brought to a general 's attention that three brothers from iowa have been killed in action and their mother will receive notices of each 's death simultaneously .
when they learn a fourth brother is stationed somewhere in europe , they make it a top priority to have him returned safely to his mother .
it 's easy to sympathize with this situation , after all , no one should have to lose all their children at once .
but finding one man in this war is , as miller puts it , " like trying to find a needle in a stack of needles .
"
the saving of private ryan is n't just a dramatic device , but a thematic one .
his salvation represents the sense of innocence the country , the world even , was trying to convince itself it still had .
when miller 's company hears of the mission , they scoff at the idea assuming he is dead , but miller is n't so quick to shrug it off .
he knows the only thing that can really save soldiers from death is hope , and now he has the opportunity to make someone 's sense of hope a reality .
the mission to find ryan gives miller 's group a destination , but not direction .
along the way many things happen to them , both good and bad .
a few battles are fought , not to be major accomplishments for the war , but because they encounter german soldiers and have no other choice .
the act of killing itself becomes one of the film 's major philosophical metaphors .
the soldiers do n't mind killing other soldiers in blind battle , but when they come across a lone survivor who begs them to let him go , they can barely stop themselves from killing him in cold blood as some kind of vengeance for their losses .
unfortunately , death is a fact of war , and most films try to avoid it when it comes to the main characters , but here spielberg does n't want us to think these men are invincible .
in fact , only a small amount of color and personality is sketched into each man , and the performances are good enough to make this method work .
although the characters are somewhat typical , the actors maintain control over the material at all time . whether they 're arguing with each other , telling stories of back home , or fighting the germans ,
they never go overboard and always seem believable
.
sure , there 's a zinger here and there , but war does n't change the fact boys will be boys .
if and when one dies we too can feel the loss , even though we hardly knew them .
the final act brings the story full circle with another tremendous , violent battle sequence .
private ryan has been found , but facing four to one odds , can the americans defeat the germans and keep ryan alive ?
that 's not a premise for thrills , it 's symbolic of everything the film has worked for .
it would be wrong to say the film has either a happy or sad ending , it ends the way it must end .
i remember reading a " calvin & hobbes " comic strip where calvin asked his dad something like , " dad , how do armies of men killing each other solve problems ? "
" saving private ryan " is the adult version of that question .
answer:
P


question:
city of angels is the kind of love story that i enjoy the most : thought - provoking , moving , and completely unsentimental .
i find it interesting that this film has been released the same day as my giant , which is a film that is undone completely by its wretched sentimentality .
city of angels is a wonderful film , enhanced by interesting and well - rounded characters and some of the most immersive imagery of the last couple of years .
it 's a love story that takes the familiar angel themes and makes them new and necessary to the story , and avoids most of the cliches we 're so used to seeing in films like this .
city of angels is an apparently loose remake of wim wenders ' 1988 film wings of desire .
i have yet to see wings of desire , so i am , unfortunately , unable to make a comparison of the two .
i have heard , however , that city of angels is dissimilar from the original in numerous ways , which makes me glad that this film is n't a rip - off of its source material .
nicolas cage stars as seth , an angel who , like all of his angel counterparts , is present to lead the dying to heaven ( or somewhere just like it ) .
one day , he is forced to take the life of a patient of dr .
maggie rice ( meg ryan ) , and his attention is called to her .
the angels can make themselves seen to humans , but they ca n't experience any of the senses ( most importantly , touch ) .
he shows himself to maggie , and she falls for him , unaware that he is slightly unavailable because of his apparition status .
seth wants to become human so he can feel her .
that 's when he meets nathaniel messinger ( dennis franz ) , " former celestial messenger and recent addition to the human race .
"
( as a side note , i found messinger to be the most fascinating character , for i can only imagine how incredibly liberating it must be to live knowing what lies beyond death . )
messinger explains to seth that it is possible for angels to become human .
seth manages to convince maggie that he is an angel ( i know , it sounds ridiculous , but
the scene in which she finds out is exceptionally well - done ) ; after much deliberation , she tells him that she could only be with a man who can feel .
this , of course , is when seth decides to take the plunge ( literally ) from a building ; when he wakes up from the fall , he is human , and happy to feel what it 's like to have a split lip and blood oozing from his forehead .
since i love this film so much , i 'll make a minor note that it certainly is n't perfect .
although it is original and mesmerizing , it does fall prey to a few of the cliches of the genre .
the plotting of the story by writer dawn steel is rather formulaic ( though the details are what make the story excellent , and steel has done a great job with them ) .
the ending , too , could have been more powerful and less predictable .
these elements are minor , though , and barely detracted from my overall enjoyment of city of angels .
the acting is superb from everyone involved .
this is perhaps my second - favorite performance from cage ( my favorite being the rock ) .
he 's quiet and pensive , and his eyes are engaging when he speaks his softly - toned words .
he 's perfect for a role like this , and at the same time he reassures us
he 's not bound by playing the psycho ( though he is good at it , as he shows in face / off ) .
meg ryan is a powerful , enticing , and appealingly - chirpy actress , and her work here is some of her best .
dennis franz , however , steals all of his scenes as the energetic former - angel .
what i admire most about city of angels is its overall presentation .
director brad silberling is a talented man , and he knows that a story like this is driven by the characters , rather than forced sentimentality .
his direction is steady , and he shows this in just about every scene : near the beginning , maggie has to tell a mother and her two children that their father is dead .
there is no music or elaborate camera work ; we simply see the reactions of the characters to the information .
this is the way stories should be told , and the strength of scenes resonates more completely when the emotions are real .
the film also appeals to the senses in a way that few love stories do .
cinematographer john seale ( the english patient ) provides some of the most stunning images
i 've seen on the big screen : hundreds of black - clad angels stand on a dim beach in the early morning hours ( just as an example ) .
the music , by gabriel yared ( also of the english patient ) , is perfect for this film :
it 's quiet and moody music ( but not sentimental ! ) , and adds to the atmosphere and tone nicely .
the visual presentation of city of angels is easily the best of 1998 so far .
all of this adds up to a film that is instantly set apart from other members of this genre .
it 's a film that relies on character development and imagery to get the story across -- the excellent actors and the professional production values make city of angels
one of those rare films that both entertains and instigates thought simultaneously .
answer:

P