instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
( dreamworks skg ) running time : 2 hours starring robert duvall , tea leoni and elijah wood directed by mimi leder the first of the two asteroid movies coming out this year ( the second is the macho armageddon ) is actually a dull affair .
elijah wood plays leo biederman , who during astronomy class discovers that a large asteroid is heading for earth .
tea leoni plays a ( rather crap ) news reporter , jenny lerner , who soon discovers about this asteroid through a very long winded and boring way , and robert duvall plays the leader of a space crew , spurgeon tanner , who are planning to blow the asteroid out of the path of earth .
also featuring is morgan freeman as the president , and maximilian schell and vanessa redgrave as jenny 's father and mother . while many people will walk into the film expecting a big special effects fest with the asteroid blowing everything up ( as the trailers seem to promise ) , the film is actually more of a character study , if a very poor one .
the main problem is that there are too many characters in the film , and not enough time to explore them all .
only the space crew are given any depth , jenny lerner , leo and the president are surprisingly 2d , and we never get to know these characters .
and because i could n't care for them , i did n't really give a crap if the asteroid killed them or not .
the script by bruce joel rubin and michael tolkin is horribly simple , and never really makes any interesting statements .
mimi leder , the former er director and director of the average the peacemaker ( 1996 ) , again directs in a ho - hum style , and never really gets any emotion out of a scene , which is a shame .
the cast are seemingly on autopilot , although tea leoni does gives a rather good performance , even if she acts a bit too dorky for her own good .
she seems uncommonly stupid for a journalist .
robert duvall is on autopilot with a underwritten role , he just seems to be in this film for the money .
elijah wood , one of the best child actors working today , is surprisingly average , although his choice of roles lately have n't exactly been brilliant ( i .
e .
flipper , 1996 ) .
his role is also vastly underwritten .
morgan freeman , again , is utterly wasted with a ridiculously underwritten role .
like duvall , he just seems to be in the film for the money .
the supporting cast are all o .
k , none making much of an impression .
ok , so deep impact may have messed up character wise , but surely the special effects are good ?
well , yes and no .
although the special effects should be impressive , with a massive tidal wave destroying new york , the special effects look like , well , special effects .
sadly , the waves looks like it 's been drawn on computer , and does n't look too good at all . surprising really , when the effects are done by industrial light & magic , who did the effects for the lost world and twister .
in the end , deep impact is a wasted opportunity .
what could of been a moving movie with good effects turns out to be a dud in both characters and effects .
the 2 hours the film had could have been used to much greater effect .
once again , dreamworks has churned out another average movie .
let 's hope armageddon is a bit better .
overall rating= review by david wilcock web space provided by geocities
answer:
N


question:
[ note that followups are directed to rec .
arts .
movies .
current - films and rec .
arts .
movies .
startrek .
current only , not to rec .
arts .
sf .
movies .
-moderator
] star trek : first contact a film review by michael
dequina copyright 1996 michael dequina star trek :
first contact ( pg-13 ) anyone familiar with the series of star trek movies knows of the " even - odd pattern " --the even - numbered installments of the series are good while the odd - numbered ones are , well , not - so - good .
the pattern continues with the new star trek : first contact , an energetic sci - fi adventure that
( coincidentally ? ) is the eighth entry in the hugely popular series .
in this first trek feature to feature only cast members from the late star trek : the next generation television series , captain jean - luc picard ( patrick stewart ) and the rest of the 24th - century crew of the starship enterprise -- commander will riker ( jonathan frakes , who also directed ) , android lt .
cmdr .
data ( brent spiner ) , lt .
cmdr .
geordi laforge ( levar burton ) , lt .
cmdr .
worf ( michael dorn ) , dr .
beverly crusher ( gates mcfadden ) , and counselor deanna troi ( marina sirtis )
--travel back to 21st - century earth while doing battle with the borg , a race of cybernetic beings that share a collective mind with the borg queen ( alice krige ) .
the borg intend to alter history and assimilate all of humankind into their race -- starting with the earth - orbiting crew of the enterprise and a 21st century stowaway ( alfre woodard ) .
this is an interesting plotline that is sure to mesmerize trekkers everywhere and engage everyone else , but , unfortunately , it only makes up the star trek half of the script by brannon braga and
ronald d . moore .
the other half of the title -- first contact -- refers to a subplot that takes place on 21st - century earth , where riker , troi , and laforge meet legendary scientist zephram cochran ( james cromwell ) , who is about to embark on the first warp speed flight in human history , which directly leads to the first contact with extraterrestrials .
while this story does tie into the main plot and pays off interestingly in the end , it is nowhere near as involving or exciting as the borg battles on the enterprise .
not helping matters is the tiresome cochran character , an eccentric whose drunken schtick starts out funny but becomes too one - note after a while .
in the end , though , the first contact subplot does n't detract from the enjoyment of the film as a whole .
the story is typical sci - fi fantasy , but the conviction of the cast -- most notably the always - phenomenal stewart -- makes you believe and care .
frakes , making his feature directorial debut , keeps the action swiftly rolling along and delivers the action goods , even upping the violence a notch ( this is the first trek film to bear a pg-13 rating ) to greater effect .
st : fc has a bigger budget than the last trek outing , the middling star trek generations , and it definitely shows on screen -- the production design and especially visual and makeup effects are outstanding
( in particular those involving the borg queen ) .
braga and moore 's mostly sharp script will please both trek devotees and the rest ; the references to the borg storyline in the tv series , the continuity with the previous film ( e . g .
the ongoing saga of data 's emotion chip ) , and a fleeting star trek : voyager crossover will make trekkers squeal with delight , but such points are made easily accessible to those less familiar to the trek mythos .
paramount was reportedly worried about the staying power of its trek franchise with the next generation cast now carrying the helm .
based on the entertaining success that is star trek : first contact , i 'd say the studio has nothing to worry about
( at least not until this cast retires and the crew of the wan star trek : deep space nine takes over . . . ) .
answer:
P


question:
if anything , " stigmata " should be taken as a warning against releasing similarly - themed films relatively close to one another .
of the four supernatural horror flicks released this year , it is clearly the worst .
i suppose i should have seen this coming . after all , " blair witch
"
thoroughly creeped me out , " sixth sense " was mildly spooky , and then " stir of echoes " had its moments , but was n't anything i 'd lose sleep over . clearly ,
the quality of the horror this summer has slowly been dropping .
is it then any surprise that " stigmata " is
the dullest , most horribly executed piece of mtv - influenced tripe i have seen in a long while
?
no , not really .
patricia arquette plays frankie page , a hairdresser from pittsburgh who receives a rosary as a gift from her globe - trotting mother .
as it turns out , the rosary belonged to a recently - deceased brazilian priest .
the priest 's church had been under investigation by father andrew kiernan ( gabriel byrne ) because of the mysterious appearance of a bleeding statue .
father kiernan is an investigator who has made a career out of disproving supposed religious signs , but this time he believes there is something to the bleeding statue .
his investigation is soon called off , however , when the frankie starts exhibiting signs of the stigmata , in which a person is inflicted with wounds like that of jesus christ .
father kiernan is initially skeptical of frankie '
s story , considering she 's an atheist , but once he witnesses the stigmata attacks himself , he dedicates himself to finding out what is going on .
he eventually begins to suspect that his boss , cardinal houseman ( jonathan pryce ) , is concealing something that could bring down the catholic church .
as it turns out , the dead priest had been working on the translation of a " fifth gospel " before they were excommunicated .
the new rupert wainwright music video .
..
i mean film " stigmata " is the sort of film that starts off ok and only gets worse .
indeed , it would have been good if it were a music video , because it 's only interesting for about five minutes .
i 'm not sure what wainwright is trying to prove with his endless parade of slow - motion , double - exposure , and extreme close - ups
( whoaaaaaa ! ! ! ! ) , other than the fact that he has the most swelled head of any director in hollywood and , yes , he has been to film school .
his camera trickery is interesting for a little while , but eventually , it becomes headache - inducing .
what this film needed is a second audio track to be played over the dialogue ( such as it is ) , with wainwright screaming at the audience , " see ?
look at what i can do !
i 'm an ex - cellent dir - ect - or .
"
maybe then he 'd explain why he decided to start half of his scenes with slow - motion shots of water dripping in reverse , or why he included random superfluous shots as that of an egg frying ( ooh , scary ! ) .
if there was some underlying meaning behind all this camera trickery , i did n't see it .
just when you thought it was safe to get involved in the story , here comes a double - exposure shot of two patricia arquettes collapsing into bed for no reason whatsoever .
arrrrrrrghhhh .
.. then again
, the superfluous camera trickery would n't bother me if " stigmata " had a story or characters that were remotely engaging .
though wainwright 's vanity certainly does n't help , he does seem to have been given a nearly unworkable script .
where are plot continuity and character development when you need them ?
case in point : frankie page is the character that ( i assume ) we are supposed to identify and sympathize with ,
but we are n't given any back story on her character , or any reason to like her .
the extent of her character development seems to be that she is a hard - working hairdresser ( who can somehow afford a cavernous apartment on the top floor of her building )
and she 's kind of cute , so let 's start the bleeding !
the fact that she 's clearly not the brightest bulb in the drawer does n't help , either . according to frankie page , what is the first thing to do after receiving mysterious wounds on your wrists and back ?
go clubbing !
sure , that makes sense . arquette , byrne , and pryce give it the old college try , but their characters are so one - dimensional that they just appear to be sleepwalking .
scenes between arquette and byrne that were probably supposed to be sexually charged fall almost embarrassingly flat , because the setup of the romantic subplot is so clumsily handled that it almost reaches the point of becoming laughable .
even though frankie page 's life is falling apart before her very eyes , she still finds the time to hit on a priest who wanders in to her hair salon .
even more curiously , he seems to be interested in her advances .
father andrew 's religious doubt pops up so suddenly that it seems more silly than dramatic .
as for pryce , he may as well wear a curled mustache and cackle , " i 'll get you , my pretty , " for all the depth his cardinal houseman is afforded .
trust me , i 'm not revealing anything by telling you pryce turns out to be a villain .
what 's worse , after being faced with dull characters and the prospect of having annoying camera tricks and loud music jammed down our throats , we now have to contend with a story that starts off in one direction , veers off in another , then another , and ends up being totally incomprehensible .
first of all , the film does n't even bother to explain what should be very simple plot details .
how does frankie get the stigmata merely by touching a rosary ?
how come an atheist like her was chosen , since father andrew mentions that only very devout believers have ever received stigmata ?
actually , i 'm not sure what frankie was posessed by .
supposedly , stigmata occurs when one is posessed by the holy spirit , but
the film later has her being posessed by the dead priest , and later by some evil spirit ( i think ) .
which one is it ?
the answer to this question , of course , is very simple : the possessing entity in each scene is determined by whichever effects and flashy camera work mr .
wainwright wants to use this time .
furthermore
, the ending is a ridiculously neat little wrap - up , and the filmmakers compound this problem by ultimately turning the film into a diatribe against the catholic church .
if you do any research at all about the gospel of st .
thomas , you 'll find that it is not being suppressed by the church ( as the film seems to claim ) , but that it is readily available at your local library .
there 's nothing the catholics need to worry about , though .
" stigmata 's " religion is so off - base that it ca n't be confused for anything remotely resembling the real catholic church .
if they wanted to portray catholic priests as mobsters , they should have gone all - out and equipped them with sharkskin suits and tommy guns , which would have been far more interesting .
i 'm not catholic ; in fact , i don ' t care much for the catholic church , but its cartoonish misrepresentation in this film should not be considered realistic by any means .
it 's rare to see a film that fails on as many levels as " stigmata " does .
it ' s not thought - provoking , though it would like to be , and it is definitely not scary , though it pretends to be .
i 'm not sure why they tried to pass this off as a horror film , because there is absolutely nothing scary about the story .
maybe it 's an attempt to cover up the fact that none of the scenes have any dramatic weight whatsoever .
the initial shock of seeing arquette covered with blood is dulled by the fact that it happens over , and over , and over .
like so many films of the mtv generation , this one suffers from overkill .
so much is overdone in " stigmata , " that it eventually has no effect on the audience , leaving us to pick
out the film 's ( many ) flaws .
i 'm also still trying to figure out why the quotation they take from the gospel of st .
thomas is so earth - shattering .
when we finally hear it , the saying sounds like something every five - year - old learns on their first day of sunday school , which means that for all its flash , the whole film is really much ado about nothing .
the dog days of summer usually produce one monstrous dog , and " stigmata " is it .
answer:

N