instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
steve soderbergh 's " sex , lies , and videotape , " which won the grand prize at the cannes film festival in 1989 , arguably began the resurgence of independent films .
made on a shoestring budget of $ 1 . 2 million , with then relatively unknown actors , it is a provocative , thoroughly original drama .
the film mostly focuses on the four central characters , all in their late 20's - early 30 's .
ann ( andie macdowell ) , an unfulfilled housewife , is married to john ( peter gallagher ) , an insensitive lawyer , who , unbeknownst to her , is having an affair with her younger sister , cynthia ( laura san giacomo ) .
complicating matters even worse is graham ( james spader , who won best actor at cannes ) , john 's old college buddy , who comes to stay at their house .
ann is absolutely won over by him , even though she clearly has stated that she has very little interest in sex .
that is the set - up for the last hour of the picture , and since the film is entitled , " sex , lies , and videotape , " it is best to keep the rest of the story developments at bay so that they will come as a genuine surprise .
director steven soderbergh has proven to be a wildly offbeat filmmaker , ranging from the independent , to the mainstream ( 1998 's " out of sight " ) , to the downright kafkaesque ( 1997 's " schizopolis " ) .
he is the type of director who obviously takes a lot of chances , and believes in the work that he does , and , " sex , lies , and videotape , " is probably his most confident , and maybe even best , to date .
the performances are superb from all four leads , but macdowell stands out in what is probably the main character .
she is always a very winning actress , but this is probably her most three - dimensional role that she has had ( with a close second being altman 's 1993 mosaic , " short cuts " ) .
the other parts are perfectly cast as well , from spader 's ominous graham , to gallagher 's self - involved john , to giacomo 's outspoken cynthia .
the final act of the film , especially , comes right out of left field , and turns out to be both shocking and oddly touching , and it would be criminal to give away the film 's secrets .
suffice to say that , through one powerful sequence , ann is able to somewhat come out of her shell , and john learns a valuable lesson about honesty , as well as deception .
the film has one fault , however .
the characters are almost all emotionally cold and isolated from one another , and often unlikable .
if there had been a few extra scenes with gallagher , it probably would have helped , since his relationship with macdowell is n't quite as explored as i would have liked .
"
sex , lies , and videotape , " although minorly flawed , is still easily a brave and adult motion picture that is far more mature and honest about its subject matter than the usual film .
soderbergh clearly knew what he was doing while he was making it , and the final product certainly proves this .
answer:
P


question:
i can hear the question already .
what on earth do these two movies have in common ?
to most people , not a lot , except that both are by renowned directors .
as i saw them , however , both movies have flawed romantic scripts wrapped in distinctive packaging of lavish visuals musical numbers .
but oh , how differently the packages affect their films .
while " everyone 's " production numbers make an otherwise ordinary woody tale something special , jane campion 's imaginative visuals only serve to emphasize how pompous and uninvolving laura jones ' script is .
i left " everyone says i love you " not remembering a lot about who loved whom , but its infectious happiness put a grin on my face .
i left " the portrait of a lady " not remembering a lot about who loved whom , and i could have cared less .
" everyone " features nothing allen has n't done before storywise .
woody is again desperately in love with a beautiful woman ( roberts ) , and against the odds they manage to click for awhile before allen is left wondering what went wrong -- again .
similar situations happen to his family and friends .
some of the more outlandish comedy scenes even hark back to his " early , funny " films .
the scenes between tim roth and drew barrymore could have come out of " take the money and run , " his directorial debut .
however , nothing allen has ever done prepared me for this one - of - a - kind display of sheer good spirits .
in fact , in this movie , the feeling itself is what 's most important .
yes , the movie would have been better -- among his very best , i think -- if it had a meatier story .
but what it lacks in substance it makes up for in feeling .
and what better way to express feeling than through music ?
love is often best expressed in a song , and the numbers the cast break into here cut straight to the heart .
some are a tad too goofy , such as the number where a lot of ghosts prance around in a funeral parlor ,
but i admired allen for even putting them in there .
it also helps that as usual , allen has a top - flight cast working with him .
their singing voices range from quite good ( goldie hawn ) to not quite good ( allen ) to literally unlistenable ( barrymore , whose real voice was dubbed by a professional ) .
but while their vocal abilities differ , all the actors do a great job of putting joy up there on the screen , and making it rub off on the audience .
granted , some people will simply never accept characters singing in movies , but for those attuned to it , this film should work wonders .
jane campion , too , has a top - flight cast working for her in " portrait of a lady , " too , but even their considerable skills can do nothing to keep the film from being a stilted , virtually lifeless mess ,
albeit a visually interesting one . campion and her cinematographer stuart dryburgh come up with a great variety of eye - filling images that linger in the mind .
unfortunately , what did n't linger in the mind for me
was the story the visuals were supposed to be reflecting .
i remember very well shots of a train with its light beaming and shots of men vanishing around nicole kidman , but i can remember very little of what happened between all these people .
even worse , i do n't find myself feeling bad that i 've forgotten .
the problem , i think , lies not with the cast , which seemed to be trying very hard for the material .
it was the script that could n't convince me to care about anyone .
the characters were putting out all kinds of emotion , but i found no reason to connect with any of them .
i understood that the story was about cold , emotionally vacant characters , but for me to care about them , i have to identify with them somehow and want them to inject feeling into their lives .
jones ' script never simply gave me that opportunity .
in the end , it almost seemed as if campion was trying to inject some life of her own into the proceedings with her visual flourishes . unfortunately , as she kept painting these dazzling pictures , they only served to push me further away from the material and remind me that there was no connection between me and the film .
in the end , the movie 's one strength ended up hurting it .
so here we have two films with pretty uninteresting plots , and
yet i was able to truly enjoy one of them .
why ?
with both films , my head cared about neither story , but
only " everyone says i love you " was able to make my heart sing .
answer:
P


question:
i was originally going to give the spanish prisoner two and half stars .
from my first viewing , i noticed that david mamet 's film was intense and clever at times but boring and cliched at other times especially at the beginning .
from my second viewing however , i noticed that mamet 's script was actually a masterpiece .
the spanish prisoner , like the usual suspects or chinatown , begs for the viewer 's complete attention .
miss a scene or even a small detail , and you could miss the meaning of the entire film .
also like the aforementioned films , it rewards its viewer for paying attention by delivering
a surprising and memorable ending
.
mamet is success doing again what he once tackled in 1987 when he wrote and directed house of games .
like his past gem , the spanish prisoner fools the audience as much ( or even more ) than the victim . because we were deceived just like the victim , we feel a strong attachment to the main character and consequently are more interested in the film .
mamet has the talent of not completely ending a film gift wrapped , but rather leaving some ambiguity towards the end .
the power that he has in forcing the viewer to determine who the good guys and bad guys are once the film is over , without giving a right answer , is unique and ingenious .
the spanish prisoner will leave you seriously puzzled and intrigued .
after seeing the film again , i noticed that the details mamet uses are so incredibly accurate it is frightening .
his direction is very subtle ; as he leaves so many clues explaining what is going on and who is who
but it is still very difficult to tell what exactly is happening even if you see all of them , or think you see all of them .
the story follows a young up and coming businessman , joe ross , ( campbell scott ) who has just created a mysterious and lucrative " process " that everyone is trying to get their hands on .
soon ross does not know who he can trust or who is after his " process .
" through his journey ross meets a number of mysterious characters : the rich and popular jimmy dell , a secretary who has a huge crush on ross , and ross ' boss mr .
klein .
played by steve martin , rebecca pidgeon , and ben gazarra respectively , the supporting cast is very solid especially martin , who deserved an oscar nomination for his commanding and manipulative role .
the most interesting character in the film , though , was campbell scott 's joe ross .
the character 's transformation from an ingenuous and polite rookie to a paranoid veteran is very apparent and justifiable .
david mamet 's script is so interesting because we know people do n't actually talk like the characters in the film , yet we feel so connected to some of them .
his beguiling style could fool any viewer up for the challenge .
this is a must see , for those interested in solving a complex puzzle of a movie .
answer:

P