instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
another formula ' feel good ' quirky comedy from the british isles , much like " waking ned devine , " and a host of other popular low budget movies that turned a nifty profit off a thin story line .
it is filled with likable establishment types living in a quaint town , such as tolerant vicars and policemen , plenty of eccentrics , and of locals who stick together through thick and thin .
the strength of this film lies in its rational theme , that smoking pot should be legalized since it is even less dangerous than drinking alcohol .
the film is tolerable until after its first hour , it then falls completely apart , becoming just too absurd to consider as anything but
sitcom fluff gone completely bananas .
but its long overdue message of decriminalization for certain drugs is on target and allows the film to , at least , be viewed as containing a pertinent message .
its message is especially appropriate nowadays considering the ' war on drugs '
is about to be escalated into colombia .
the drug war has been a total failure so far and with no hope of it being won by law enforcement methods in the future , it has so far just ended up causing america 's jails to be overcrowded with non - violent drug prisoners and offers zero hope of curtailing america 's drug usage and drug supply .
billions of dollars have just been allocated by congress to get officially involved in the colombian civil war , by backing a corrupt government ( remember vietnam ! )
with the idea that military might could stop the cocaine and marijuana harvests in that country .
everything about this proposed action smacks of vietnam , with this scenario closer to home , so
what probably awaits such an effort is a more futile result than the other war .
the film 's mild theme of showing squares getting into the weed business and finding it acceptable by the public , something that should have been accepted some 40 years ago , is a theme long overdue for public acceptance , but one that is better received late than never .
there has to be some common sense in distinguishing what drugs should be legalized and how to educate the public on this , rather than making it a police matter altogether .
the film opens in a quaint cornish seaside village at the funeral of the husband of a middle - aged woman , grace ( brenda blethyn ) , who fell out of an airplane , evidently committing suicide .
the widow soon finds out her husband was a bigger bastard than she imagined .
he left her with a stack of enormous bills and put up , without her knowledge , their comfortable 300 year old house as collateral for a failed business venture by taking out a second mortgage .
the widow finds herself bankrupt and with no marketable skills to pay back her husband 's enormous debts and prevent her from losing the house and becoming homeless .
she also knows that he was having an affair with a sophisticated woman from london , honey ( quick ) .
what makes the affair doubly unsatisfying , is that when conferring with honey , she finds out that he was a tiger with her in bed but refrained from having sex with her .
even though the locals try to help the bankrupt widow out as best they can , the creditors swoop down on her like vultures .
her gardener and handyman , matthew ( ferguson ) , decides to stay on with her , despite his last check bouncing . since she is an expert amateur horticulturist , he convinces her to help him revive his hemp plants , which he grows for private use .
the two soon see this as a possibly big business opportunity , as grace works miracles with the plants which turn out to be high - quality stuff .
for grace , this is a way to save her house and get her out of debt ; for the scotsman , matthew , it offers a chance for him to continue to live in this beautiful village and earn enough money to marry his fisherman girlfriend nicky ( valerie ) .
the locals all let the illegal activities go on undisturbed :
the police sergeant ( campbell ) pretends not to notice what the bright lights in grace 's greenhouse is for , the friendly vicar ( phillips ) counsels about the wisdom of not taking action over something that you ca n't control , and the doctor ( clunes ) enjoys smoking the weed for recreation .
the story becomes incredulous when grace decides to go to london and score with a big - time drug dealer instead of having matthew go , because she finds out nicky is pregnant and does n't want matthew to end up in jail .
it is interesting to note , that no one thinks smoking grass is bad for you , only that one can go to jail .
the scene with grace on portobello road in the notting hill section of london , trying to find a drug dealer , while dressed out of place , in a white dress and hat one would wear to a tea party in cornwall but not on the streets of notting hill while looking to make a drug deal , was completely hokey and the film descended into a huge black hole , whereby it never recovered its dignity .
the film moves into the formula mode , whereas grace beats the odds against her failing to survive , as she meets an international drug dealer , a frenchman ( tcheky karyo ) , who is first seen threatening to cut off her fingers but later becomes her business partner and husband as she becomes a millionaire and writes a best selling fiction book about her experiences , thereby becoming a celebrity .
things work out in a ridiculous way , where there is a total breakdown in the character development of grace , where this matronly figure suddenly becomes merely a cartoon figure instead of live flesh and blood .
there are a lot of silly giggles that come forth and the film has just enough of an acting performance by brenda blethyn to breathe air into it before it comes to its belated finale , as it drones on with its transparently gratuitous upbeat tone , until it makes the audience feel good that the sweet old lady succeeded .
this ' unhip ' film leaves one with the impression that smoking and growing pot is silly , but should be tolerated as something
naughty middle - aged widows screwed by their terrible former husbands must do in order not to remain destitute .
ummm !
answer:
N


question:
paul verhoeven , the dutch auteur who dragged his violent , sexually aggressive aesthetic into american film , has never been what i 'd consider a thoughtful director ( though some of his films , notably starship troopers , have been lauded as artistic achievements ) , but he is the kind of hollywood film maker who 's managed to , no matter what the budget , make his films distinctive and even sometimes smuggle stimulating themes into the lavish high concepts on which he toils .
starship troopers was essentially a b - monster movie remake of his enthralling dutch war film soldier of orange ( a great film that 's nearly impossible to find on video , yet showgirls is everywhere ) , in which he cast a troop of stunningly attractive mannequins ; the square jawed casper van dien and denise richards ( who may actually be 45 % silicone ) , in what feels like an american propaganda picture set to monotonous scenes of graphic carnage .
it 's not a completely successful film , but
as a failure
it 's certainly an interesting ( and mostly entertaining ) one .
my favorite verhoeven films were the ones he made before he hit our shores ; spetters , a dark near pornographic coming of age film set within the sub - culture of drag racing and the aforementioned soldier of orange ( have n't yet gotten around to seeing the 4th man or turkish delight ) .
i believe his best hollywood film to be robocop , a bleak super - hero satire with a robotic hero that 's as touching as schwarzenegger 's in t2 .
that movie was violent but not in the overdone cartoonish manner of more recent verhoeven pics .
its violence seemed to be there for a purpose , namely to create an atmosphere of unpredictable dread , not to simply titillate an attention deprived audience .
there 's a jaw - dropping scene within the first ten minutes of robocop wherein the lead villain toys with a cop before snuffing him .
he tortures the officer by taking glee in his victim 's every fearful tic .
it 's a startling moment of barbaric , maddening violence that effectively sets the tone for the film that could be designated as splatter punk - noir .
in hollow man kevin bacon brutally slays a dog because it just wo n't shut up , he impales a co - worker , drowns another and so on .
but why ?
his character is introduced as a smug genius , the kind who 's always impeccably dressed and races a sports car while generic rock tunes blare from his stereo for the world to hear , sort of like a scheming uber villain from dallas or melrose place , though once the character becomes invisible , this film has him pull a 180 shift into a psychotic movie monster .
the kind who just wo n't die .
hollow man 's protagonists are the completely bland but beautiful scientist linda ( elizabeth shue , acting as if she were rebecca of sunnybrook farm ) and her lover , a hunk of beef scientist played by josh brolin who 's saddled with the film 's worst lines
( " i 've lost cohesion again ! " ) .
they 're a typical aaron spelling couple , good - looking but as vacant as george
w .
bush 's republican national convention speech ( i .
e .
bush referring to clinton ; " ? ?
?
so much promise ? ? ?
but to what end ?
to what end ?
"
-- this actually got applause !
suddenly warren beatty does n't look so absurd ) .
the rest of the film 's characters are all well past thirty , though act like annoying high school party animals insulting one and other with a series of strained one - liners
; is it just me or have
labored insults become big budget hollywood 's new character developing technique ?
ahh , what a cynical time we live in ? ? ?
as the picture opens we meet cain ( kevin bacon ) , an egocentric scientist working with the crew of aforementioned irritating scientists on a top secret ( so top secret the government has only provided them with a dilapidated warehouse in which to perform their extensive experimentation 's ) project with the goal to make invisibility a possibility ( for what purpose is never hinted at ) .
they 've performed several experiments on animals and have nearly solved the quandary causing caine , in a twist worthy of the film 's 1950 's late show origins , to impulsively experiment on himself .
caine neglects to let the pentagon in on his plans and somehow gets two of his co - workers to lie for him
so the rest of the crew will think the pentagon gave the go ahead .
our mad scientist is turned invisible ( after several fx - heavy complications ) , then he inexplicably
( it 's hinted that the process of invisibility has made the animals into more savage creatures , but this is never explored , and if that was the case why the hell would anyone be stupid enough to test this out on a human ? ) begins raping , assaulting and murdering anyone he pleases , always with a lame wisecrack ready a la freddy krueger .
it grows abundantly clear with each new release that it 's verhoeven 's films that have become hollow .
like the rest , this one is cold , heartless , and full of contempt for humanity , but in addition to all that it lacks any trace of wit , insight and makes no statement other than " audiences will pay for anything these days " .
it 's an affront to anyone looking for something stimulating on an intellectual level , or even those hoping to spend a saturday night with a fun , thrill - a - minute ride .
verhoeven has instead served up an utterly routine mad slasher flick with nobody to root for and no reason to care .
the previews make hollow man look like an irresistible flick .
how can one not have a good time at a film that utilizes state of the art fx to illustrate an invisible man getting down and dirty with his bad self ?
a couple weeks ago , after seeing the trailer , a bunch of friends and i got into a long discussion of how invisible man flicks never go so far as to have the invisible individual indulging in their newfound ability .
hollow man looked like the first film to do so and whoa , in a serious manner to boot .
but oh yeah , it is directed by paul verhoven not atom egoyan or peter greenway .
verhoeven delivers the sleazy " goods " , but not in a watchable or thrillingly disturbing manner , here
it just feels icky and uncomfortable .
the director keeps his camera trained at his nubile actresses , caressing their breasts with his lens all while faux - psycho music strains in the background .
it 's plainly obvious that verhoeven is n't exploring voyeurism ( like in the classic peeping tom ) but exploiting it and not even doing that very well .
it 's funny that with all the technology $ 90 million can get you verhoven is stuck at trying to figure out how to show a woman 's naked breast manipulated by an invisible hand .
most vexing is that the invisibility aspect is used simply as gimmick in yet another slasher movie wherein characters do stupid things just so the villain can pop up for more attacks .
in fact it 's largely irrelevant that bacon is invisible since , by the end , most of his potential victims don infer - red glasses that track his body heat .
as in every mad slasher film we get the killers pov ( a scene where he spies on his neighbor while she undresses triggered unpleasant memories of slumber party massacre ) , and lots of scenes where people are unknowingly stalked .
the film only provides one moment that i found genuinely creepy .
it happens when a lab assistant ( kim dickens , who looks like she stepped out of playboy ) in the middle of a chit chat with an invisible bacon , suddenly pauses .
"
are you looking at me ? " , she queries , obviously haunted .
it 's a little moment in a big film with nothing to offer but
ground breaking special effects set to a plot that should have run its course by 1982 ( the apex of the mad slasher craze ) .
those special effects are so stunning they alone keep this from being as bad as urban legend or i still know what you did last summer .
and they 're the only reason to check out hollow man , preferably as a mid - week bargain rental .
you 've been warned .
but you probably wo n't listen , will you ?
tis ' a pity ? ? ?
answer:
N


question:
ladies and gentlemen , payback is the most expensive episode of " the equalizer " i 've ever seen .
gibson plays porter , a burglar shot and left for dead by his wife ( deborah kara unger , in an all - too - brief cameo ) and partner ( henry ) after a successful heist .
as a morgue attendant sets about removing the bullets from porter 's back , porter miraculously springs back to life .
he makes it his mission , as a walking dead man without a conscience , to exact revenge on those who screwed him and reclaim his share of the loot .
( in a running gag , porter demands $ 70 000 , but everybody mishears him and assumes he 's after the entire $ 130 000 haul . ) in his travels ( or travails ) , porter encounters several other one - named villainous cretins like fairfax ( james coburn as a white - haired , millionaire thief ) and carter ( kristofferson , as a brown - haired , millionaire thief - the kingpin of the obligatory " operation " ) .
helgeland 's film ( which was recut by mel the producer ) is devoid of an imperative dime store charm .
the novelty of seeing a big movie star mercilessly dispatching criminals wears off quickly : a ) because the bad guys can only be differentiated by their coifs , and b ) because mel 's schtick does n't evolve from act one - he 's the terminator stranded in a plot without a sci - fi hook to keep us interested after the initial sadistic thrill is gone .
payback should have been called playback : it 's a 102-minute loop of the same short sequence .
( mel : " i want my money .
" anonymous villain : " no .
" mel shoots gun .
anonymous villain dies .
mel meets up with his hooker friend ( bello ) .
second verse , same as the first . )
it 's not porter 's single - mindedness that robs the film of snap , crackle , and pop ; as a character who has already " died " once , he has nothing to lose and so much to gain .
the movie lacks danger .
the only thing porter is in jeopardy of is putting the audience to sleep .
payback has a gritty , metallic look to it that also becomes monotonous
; its cinematography would be more appropriate in one of those bleak urban psychodramas that come out of england every couple of months .
( director of photography ericson core should have been fired early on for lighting bello , so va - va - va - voom in permanant midnight , to look like a potato in a gregg allman wig . ) to analyze such mediocrity is to grant payback far more attention than it deserves .
perhaps only someone as experienced with antagonists - as - protagonists as tarantino - look what he did with the similar hero - less botched - robbery tale reservoir dogs - could have pulled off this material ( a loose remake of john boorman 's point blank ) .
the movie presents us with the conventions of pulp fiction ( all women are femme fatales ; even the cops are in on it , etc . ) and crosses them with the conventions of cheesy tv crime melodramas ( death is never in the cards for the main character , etc . ) but transcends neither .
answer:

N