instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
when i first heard about scream in 1996 , i was told that it was a spoof of horror movies .
from the master of the horror himself , wes craven , it ridiculed the cliches of the genre by overemphasizing them , by making the teenagers do what they know they 're not supposed to do when a serial killer is stalking them ( do n't run up the stairs when you can easily go out the front door , never say " i 'll be right back , " etc . ) .
when i first heard this description , i figured that it was an easy way out of making a bad movie .
how hard is it to make an extremely terrible film but claim it is actually a mockery of other bad movies .
was this wes craven 's remedy from making " real " bad movies such as vampires in brooklyn ?
it just seemed cheap to me .
then i actually saw the movie and the first twenty minutes , involving drew barrymore and a nail - bitingly intense phone conversation , completely changed my attitude .
scream is not only a clever parody of your standard horror flick , it 's also a pretty scary movie .
if you 've seen a million of these kinds of films , you know exactly what is going to happen .
this is part of the fun of watching scream .
the movie reminds avid horror fans how similar and repetitive the genre is and it also reminds them how great a guilty pleasure it can be to watch pointless and predictable violence to innocent , attractive teenagers . to those who rarely see these types of movies , scream is a thrilling unpredictable ride that could be mistaken as a serious slasher film .
there 's nothing wrong with that misjudgment though .
i have witnessed viewers from both sides of the audience , the newbies to horror and the fanatics .
their opinions on the film were so different but
both very positive .
from these varied reviews , i am convinced that scream has not only revived the teen horror movie and the normal teen romance movies but also the hilarious parodies of these and other categories .
films that both deride and celebrate genres like galaxy quest and the big hit would not have existed , in my opinion , if it was not for the outstanding success of scream .
the low - budget 1996 gem may , alongside pulp fiction , be the most influential film of the 1990 's .
this influence may exist to the chagrin of some moviegoers who despise movies like teaching mrs .
tingle or television programs such as dawson 's creek but to others such as myself , we congratulate the movie that has opened new doors for excellent young actors , screenwriters , and directors .
scream is also an extremely funny movie thanks to its quickly - paced script by kevin williamson .
within the film are characters who tell other characters , as well as the audience , the basic rules and cliches of a horror movie .
mainly from the rants of randy ( jamie kennedy ) and stu ( matthew lillard ) , we are reminded not only of the obvious and hilarious rules but also some of the more subtle stereotypes that when thought over are mostly true as well ( the virgin always survives ; have sex and you 're dead meat ) .
not only are we treated these rules on a plate but also the rules are referenced to a number of different films and actors .
the script feels like an obsessive essay from a college film geek who has nothing better to do but find every little blunder from every little film for his own self - satisfaction .
in this case , williamson finds these errors for the audience 's satisfaction and amusement .
i hear there is a new movie coming out called scary movie which is a spoof of scream , which is a spoof of scary movies .
i will certainly see the film
but i have the feeling that this parody will be more obviously ridiculing the genre rather than scream 's perfect subtlety .
however my last gut feeling about this stuff , scream , was dead wrong .
.
. so who knows .
answer:
P


question:
no , it is not a bad film , in fact
it is so good in achieving its purpose
, i actually wished for the film to end itself quickly .
event horizon is not your run - of - the - mill sci - fi film , i 'm sure many who have watched this will agree with me .
it is not even original in that sense , and it does borrow heavily from films like alien , hellraiser and even blade runner .
the magic of this film lies in its unorthodox setting and methodical build - up that makes it wonderfully horrifying .
the story brings us to the year 2050 , where space travel have since enormously progressed .
the event horizon is actually a ship built for a secret experimental purpose ; it has the ability to fold time and space thus making it possible for travelling distances not reachable in a man 's lifetime .
the ship disappeared as soon as it went into operation but after 7 years , it reappeared again within the orbit of neptune .
a search and rescue team led by miller ( fishburne ) is given the task to check for survivors of the event horizon .
the designer of the ship , dr .
weir ( neill ) follows along to satisfy his curiosity on what actually happened to his otherwise technologically impressive ship .
event horizon is a sci - fi horror film , much truer to the word than say , alien would ever be .
while in alien , the crew has to cope with a ferocious creature while encased within tight spaces , in event horizon , the forces which goes against the crew is undefined but yet so powerful and horrifying .
the story unfolds itself slowly and the suspense buildup is superb , up till the point where i really felt like saying out loud ` enough !
i ca n't stand this anymore ! ' .
there are more than enough jolts to send your adrenalin pumping overtime .
the story in itself is not exactly something very exciting and also , the acting is only at most , average by most commercial standards .
even so , the essence of horror is carried out very well in this film , thanks to its well - paced storytelling , disturbing set designs and some really gory sequences ( which incidentally , has been quite generously removed by our censorship board ) .
director paul anderson ( who did mortal kombat ) and his team of ` atmosphere ' creators have done well in keeping event horizon within the bounds of the term ` horror ' .
this picture did not do very well in the us box - office most probably for the dread - factor impact it has on most audiences ; people will not see it again and not many would recommend their friend to watch this .
although on the face of it , event horizon is mostly molded for mass - entertainment ; many thrills , spills and suspense to keep audiences in focus .
however , the offbeat horror element which it ultimately convey audiences is very disturbing .
my friend and i could not say a word to each other for quite a while after going through the ` experience ' of event horizon .
i guess it was just the immense feeling of dread which the film had cast upon us .
be forewarned , this film is not for the faint - hearted nor for pure entertainment . be prepared to be disturbed if you should decide to watch this film !
event horizon is highly recommended ? ?
but at your own risk !
it has been a long time since good - horror embraced the big screen , and event horizon is one .
answer:
P


question:
the recent onslaught of film noir that has popped up in multiplexes , with everything ranging from " l . a . confidential " to " palmetto " to " the big lebowski , " has proved to be an artistic commodity for veteran , talented directors .
with this particular genre , directors are able to collate the sleazy underworld of the lower - class and the glamorous , opulent upper - class , while maintaining the noirish , ambiguous ambience , the staple of film noir .
" wild things " could be classified as a black comedy , a sultry film noir or a plain ol' erotic thriller , but the one category it does n't qualify for is that of a quality motion picture . overacted , overwrought and overlong , " wild things " is a confused mess , a movie that wants to have its cake and eat it too .
with its incalculable twists , turns , more twists and more turns , it soon becomes a tedious exercise in pointlessness .
in spite of game efforts by kevin bacon and matt dillon , who manage to sustain straight faces throughout the ordeal , " wild things " not once jells in its eroticism , unpredictability , character motivation , sense of the world , plot , etc .
there 's not one redeeming quality in the picture that is not technical .
directed by john mcnaughton ( " henry : portrait of a serial killer " ) ,
" wild things " follows sam lombardo ( matt dillon ) , a hunkish , suburban florida high school teacher who 's the dream of every spruced up female in the community .
particularly one .
kelly van ryan ( denise richards ) adores him to such extent that she offers to wash his jeep with a partner .
soon , her tiny shorts are soaked and tells the other girl to take a hike , enabling her to come into his house .
next thing , she cries rape .
and the so - called " roller - coaster ride " ensues .
a second accuser comes front , suzie toller ( neve campbell ) , a booze - drinkin ' , tattooed piece of trailer trash that charges lombardo of sexually molesting her , virtually guaranteeing a trial where preposterous confessions , asinine occurrences and laughable courtroom procedures are bound to happen .
even bill murray gets into the act as lombardo 's zany lawyer .
he wears a fake neck- brace , waves the finger at the other client and infuses the script with some billy murray .
you can tell mcnaughton knew he had nothing to lose assigning murray to this role .
as ridiculous as it sounds , he 's the most sane character in the movie .
the community is astonished .
reporters flee to the scene .
there 's an 8 .
5-million settlement for a libel suit against kelly 's mother ( theresa russell ) .
there 's the ambiguous cop ( kevin bacon , who also executive produced ) who sniffs something iffy in this concoction of deceit , murder and lust .
we , the audience , sniff something not so lustful .
like so many thrillers these days , including " the usual suspects " and " the game , " " wild things " eschews character for plot .
mcnaughton knows how to handle the camera , and he keeps the campy fillings of the script flowing with workmanlike ease , as if he knows the territory he 's covering is a harmless appetizer to accompany " henry , " a furious , unsettling film directorial tour- de - force .
george clinton 's score is a delight to behold .
but it 's the humans .
the characters are mere devices for the " nasty " twists .
what writer stephen peters does not grasp is this becomes tediously uninvolving , almost unbearable , if those who inhibit this twisted world are not interesting , do n't feel real or we do n't care for them .
not even the unintentionally funny moments work .
the people in " wild things " are not so much people as they are caricatures .
then there 's the erotic content , which nearly earned the film an nc-17 , for
a sexless , badly edited , poorly lit menage - a - trois .
and in what has to be one of the most flabbergastingly inept scenes that has graced this country , kevin bacon 's member makes a cameo appearance with ten minutes to go .
ironically , the wildest elements of " wild things " are not wild at all .
answer:

N