In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.

you know , i never really wondered what the tarzan films would have been like had tarzan been an old man .
while watching instinct , i could n't help but acknowledge the way the film carelessly rehashes the well - explored themes of those earlier movies .
even beside the tarzan comparison , instinct just is n't a very good film .
it 's painfully idealistic , manipulative , and silly .
i did n't hate it -- it 's simply impossible for me to hate any film starring anthony hopkins ; furthermore , most of the acting is quite good .
but i can recognize instinct for what it is beyond my subjective admiration for the actors involved .
i can also recognize reasons for wanting to make instinct , and it 's pretty clear that this could have been a good film with a massive script overhaul and a director less interested in imitating movies like patch adams .
things start off in the predictable way , as director jon turtletaub introduces us to our hero , theo caulder ( cuba gooding , jr . ) , an ambitious , young psychiatrist under the supervision of an experienced , old psychiatrist ( donald sutherland ) .
caulder soon finds himself involved in the case of his life , the one he thinks will make him famous .
the subject is ethan powell ( hopkins ) , an anthropologist who has been living among gorillas in africa for the past two years .
powell has been charged with the brutal murders of several men in africa , and it 's now caulder 's job to find out of he 's mentally competent enough to stand trial .
through a series of short sessions , caulder tries to put together the complex psyche of powell .
even though it really is an old man version of tarzan , much of this central idea is rather interesting .
as i said , hopkins is captivating for every second he 's on screen ; he has a way of convincing us that he 's not acting , that he 's actually a man who has just spent two years of his life living with a family of wild gorillas .
the character himself is n't very interesting -- he 's just an anthropologist who really likes gorillas -- but hopkins makes him interesting with subtleties both in speech and action .
gooding jr .
does strong work opposite hopkins , playing caulder as an intelligent and flawed individual .
the screenplay , written by gerald di pego and " suggested by " a novel by daniel quinn , gives us no background information on caulder , but that seems to be the point
( he has no time for friends because he 's obsessed with his work ) .
nonetheless , these two actors are essentially the entire list of things that are good about instinct .
unfortunately , filmmaking this inept can mangle the effect of even the best acting .
turtletaub and di pego are both guilty of instinct 's artistic failure , for they work together to make the dumbest , most cliche - ridden environment in which their characters are to live , and they do so by means of brainless subplots .
first , we have the prison warden subplot .
the prison warden is evil and wants to stop caulder 's progress at any cost ; if this means taking caulder off the powell case , then that 's fine .
there 's also the prison guard subplot .
the prison guard is played by john ashton ; the prison guard seems to enjoy mercilessly beating upon the psychotics under his supervision , and he 's instrumental in helping the story along to its obvious conclusion .
then there 's the daughter subplot , in which maura tierney ( playing the daughter ) must look very upset a lot of the time ; after all , she is the daughter of a deranged man .
if some of this stuff sounds familiar , that 's because they 're all devices that have been used and reused in countless other films .
the evil doctor in patch adams is not unlike the evil warden here .
the offensive caricatures of mental patients lack the depth that the similar portrayals in one flew over the cuckoo 's nest had .
ashton 's evil prison guard pales in comparison to clancy brown 's in the shawshank redemption .
hopkins ' performance will undoubtedly remind audiences of his turn in the silence of the lambs .
and then there 's the whole tarzan thing , which is more than a little bit obvious through the entire film .
perhaps what irritates me most about instinct is the half - hearted attempt at philosophical depth .
the message powell brings back from the wild is not a subtle one : he thinks that humans are " takers , " that they expand and kill and that we should all just live like gorillas .
i can sympathize with that , but only when it 's in a compelling film .
this is the kind of stupid movie -- just like patch adams -- in which a big group of characters ( psychotic inmates , in this case ) rise against the evil forces oppressing them by tearing up playing cards .
what does any of this have to do with a man who has just spent two years of his life with gorillas ?
if all the subplots of instinct had been left on the cutting room floor , we would have had a thirty - minute movie far superior to the two - hour one that i watched today .
if the central idea had been developed beyond the old man tarzan premise , then we would really have had something interesting -- a movie that does n't rely on the strength of its actors .
N

sometimes , when i decide to write a short story or a poem , i think of a title first , and then think of a subject to go with it .
it seems that the makers of disturbing behavior had a similar train of thought when it came to the title sequence .
i would n't be surprised if a couple of guys got together and created the opening credits , and then someone saw it and made up a story to go along with it .
the title sequence is so good , so ominous and original , that it had me engrossed before the picture even began .
of course , my attention dwindled shortly into the film .
disturbing behavior , like so many thrillers , starts off interesting and ends up
laughably ridiculous .
it 's a teen horror film with no interesting violence or sex .
it 's a suspense film with no suspense .
it 's an evil small town story with no story to speak of .
it 's a disaster , a listless and uninspired disaster , that just barely misses one - stardom because of a few good sequences , a mercifully short running time , and one terrific set of opening credits .
our main man is a fellow named steve clark , blandly played by jimmy marsden .
he moves to a small town with his family after , tragically , his brother shoots himself .
steve is very upset about the untimely death of his brother ; we learn this through strange home - video like nightmares that he has occasionally .
the big trial for steve is , of course , to fit in at school and make new friends .
marsden looks like your stereotypical jock down to the last detail , so he seems a poor casting choice for a social reject .
as a social reject , he falls in with some pretentious dope - smoking philosophers , gavin ( nick stahl ) and rachel ( katie holmes ) .
gavin informs steve that the local group of jocks , known as the blue ribboners , are actually a bunch of zombies , assimilating new members into their group , while sporadically killing innocent people .
so , it 's up to our group of mismatched protagonists to 1 ) solve the mystery , and
2 ) do something about it .
by the end of it all , something has happened and things have been explained , but the film still does n't make any sense .
disturbing behavior was written by scott rosenberg .
i 've seen his name around recently ( he was one of the toucher - uppers on the armageddon script ) , and i imagine that , for the most part , he knows what he 's doing when it comes to screenwriting .
he did , however , have a complete lapse in judgement when he got the idea for this film , and then decided to actually take the time to write it out .
evil small town films are pretty common ( the last one , phantoms , is also a dismal failure ) , but it takes a lot of skill to make the formula work .
rosenberg 's script is a complete mess , lacking in even the most basic attempts at characterization .
and it makes no sense , nor is their any purpose when things are finally " explained .
"
there is supposed to be an element of surprise when we see what is happening to the jocks , but the film never explains exactly what * is * happening .
they get strapped to chairs , a microchip is inserted into their eyes , and -- poof -- they become sex - crazed , superviolent , machine - like creatures .
the doctor responsible for all this , dr .
caldicott ( bruce greenwood ) , must be pretty nuts for thinking that this kind of behavior is a step up from the way high school jocks actually behave ( or , perhaps , this is the only realistic element in the film ) .
much of the writing is simply bad , and rosenberg has no intuition when it comes to the way high school kids act . in one terrible scene , gavin explains to steve all of the high school cliques , while pointing them out in the cafeteria .
up front , i should say that , in four years of high school , i did not eat in the cafeteria even once .
that aside , the various social groups he points out are general , uninteresting , and poorly - shown .
for instance , he points to the " nerds , " who are all wearing glasses and playing with their laptops .
it 's such an obvious cliche that i ca n't believe rosenberg even bothered .
most of the dialogue is forced ( no one says , " bite me !
" anymore ) , and none of the scenes have any degree of wit .
this picture is not inspired , and most scenes flop from one to the other , with no sense of momentum or energy .
the blame for this can be placed on director david nutter , who apparently likes his films dry .
horror films should at least exploit violence , but this one is shockingly timid .
there are a few good scenes , though , such as an interesting trip through an insane asylum ( this is , however , the most forced scene in the film , for how our heroes get there or why they bother are things we never learn ) .
i also liked the school janitor character , played by william sadler .
he has a few lines that are surprisingly thought - provoking .
the acting is largely a waste of talent .
marsden is , as i said , bland ( thought not particularly bad ) .
bruce greenwood is shamelessly wasted .
stahl and holmes both show they have talent , but the direction is n't good enough to hone in on their skills
( stahl 's performance seems more like a parody of high school potheads ) .
none of these characters expand beyond their one dimension , and , frankly , watching cardboard cut - outs of human beings run down hallways while screaming just is n't all that cool .
disturbing behavior is a wreck of a film , and it started out a wreck before shooting even began .
i 'm surprised there were producers who read this script and thought that it would make a good film , or that it would make a lot of money at the box office .
it 's not boring , or even blatantly awful , but
it 's an uninspired lump of a film .
it sure starts off nicely , but the regression into total absurdity is so consistent that the very last scene is outright laughable
.
so , if you go to see this film , take my advice : appreciate the credit sequence , and pray it never ends .
N

copyright 1996 graeme huggan carry on henry is all about henry viii and his eight wives !
sid james plays henry , who no sooner has the film started , is getting rid of his present queen and hopes to find another one soon .
as part of his alliance with france , he requests the hand - in - marriage to the queen of normandy ( joan sims ) .
she comes to england in the hope of marrying henry
but when he finds out that she loves garlic and has a reeking garlic breath , he is totally averse to the idea of marriage .
henry 's court is very corrupt , with the cardinal ( terry scott ) trying to bribe cromwell ( kenneth williams ) and cromwell trying to bribe the king .
there is a state of crisis when the king puts marie the queen ( sims ) in the tower of london ready for execution .
the queen is pregnant but she has not liased with the king before , so fingers are pointed at sir roger de lodgerley played by charles hawtrey , who has a rather lecherous character to play this time .
the cardinal and cromwell decide to get a signed confession from sir roger by using all kinds of torture devices !
owing to circumstances , sir roger is sometimes needed to sign that he is the father and
sometimes that he is n't .
this is because of renewed threats by the king of france ( peter gilmore ) to come over himself , which in the end he does .
by then , henry has found himself a new queen , played by none other than barbara windsor !
it looks like he has some explaining to do !
there are stand - out performances by sid james as henry , joan sims as marie , and terry scott in an unusual role as the cardinal .
also there are cameos from kenneth connor and peter butterworth , who plays barbara 's father .
the set and costume design is first class and the overall production of this film is good .
there is even an early appearance from david prowse , who later became the green cross code man and darth vader .
the film does have it 's downsides though , as it is getting pretty routine for the carry - on team to stage historical films and the inventive streak of the script seems to run out pretty quickly .
there is also the absence of hattie jacques and bernard bresslaw , who could have helped the film along . however ,
overall the film is funny and there are plenty of laughs and saucy
jokes
, so that is why i mainly recommend it to carry on fans only , but there is enough humour in the film to make it worth anyone 's
while to sit down and watch it .

P