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

[Q]: any remake of an alfred hitchcock film is at best an uncertain project , as a perfect murder illustrates .
frankly , dial m for murder is not one of the master director 's greatest efforts , so there is ample room for improvement .
unfortunately , instead of updating the script , ironing out some of the faults , and speeding up the pace a little , a perfect murder has inexplicably managed to eliminate almost everything that was worthwhile about dial m for murder , leaving behind the nearly- unwatchable wreckage of a would - be ' 90s thriller .
almost all suspense films are loaded with plot implausibilities .
the best thrillers keep viewers involved enough in what 's going on so that these flaws in logic do n't become apparent until long after the final credits have rolled .
unfortunately , in a perfect murder , the faults are often so overt that we become aware of them as they 're happening .
this is a very bad sign .
not only do such occurrences shatter any suspension of disbelief , but they have the astute viewer looking for the next such blunder .
of course , in the case of a perfect murder , at least that gives an audience member something to do besides concentrating on the inane plot and the lifeless , cardboard characters .
a perfect murder is n't a strict remake of dial m for murder , but it does borrow heavily from frederick knott 's play ( which was also the source material for hitchcock 's version , as well as a 1981 made - for - tv retelling ) .
emily hayes ( gwyneth paltrow ) is the wealthy wife of powerful wall street mover - and - shaker steven hayes ( michael douglas ) .
their marriage is n't going well -- emily resents steven 's controlling instincts , and , as a form of rebellion , she is having an affair with a penniless painter , david shaw ( viggo mortensen ) .
when steven learns of the relationship , he decides to confront david , but his approach is n't that of a typical cuckolded husband .
instead of yelling or threatening , steven offers david a proposal that 's too good to resist : for $ 500 , 000 in cash ( $ 100 , 000 before , the rest after ) , he is to break into steven 's new york apartment and kill emily .
( of course , after getting the first payment , david never bothers to ask how he 's supposed to get the rest . )
ultimately , i 'm not sure which of the three main characters we 're supposed to be sympathetic to : the cold - hearted husband , who wants his wife dead so he can get his hands on her fortune ; her mercenary lover , who is willing to do the deed for half - a - million ; or the woman , who is happily carrying on an extramarital affair .
not only are these individuals all profoundly dislikable , but they 're not interesting .
( it 's possible to make a good movie with detestable characters -- see reservoir dogs -- but there has to be something compelling about them , which , in this case , there is n't . )
steven , emily , and david are all lifted directly from the screenwriting 101 text book on stereotypes .
the actors in this film are obviously just on hand to get their paychecks .
michael douglas is playing the kind of heartless tycoon that he can do in his sleep -- he 's gordon gekko with an unfaithful wife .
gwyneth paltrow , who was recently delightful and appealing in sliding doors , is simply awful here .
she now has the dubious distinction of have starred in two of 1998 's worst thrillers ( the other being hush ) .
at least viggo mortensen ( g .
i .
jane ) has a little fun with his part , but then he usually does interesting things even in bad movies .
the thin supporting cast includes david suchet , the star of " poirot , " as a police inspector , and sarita choudhury ( kama sutra ) as emily 's best friend .
a perfect murder is a plodding production that generates almost no suspense from beginning to end .
there are n't many twists and turns in the unexpectedly linear script , which makes the ending inevitable almost from the start .
it 's surprising to see director andrew davis , the man behind the fugitive , involved in this mess
, but , like his stars , he too needs to earn a living .
it 's just that remaking hitchcock , and doing it so badly
, hardly seems to be an honorable way to go about getting the dough .
[A]: N


[Q]: writing a screenplay for a thriller is hard .
harder than pouring concrete under the texas sun . harder than building a bridge over troubled waters . and incidentally , a whole heck of a lot harder than writing a movie review .
thrillers are all variations on a theme .
you have a smart , resourceful , and powerful bad guy , who has a goal he has to meet .
you have a noble and brave good guy , who has to protect the innocent , kill the bad guy , and not get killed himself in the process .
the trick of thriller writing is doing all of this in an interesting and novel manner .
this simple formula can lead to classic movies like north by northwest , high noon , or silence of the lambs , or big summer blockbusters like men in black , the fugitive , or air force one , or it can lead to utter dreck like masterminds , event horizon , kull the conqueror .
.. . is anyone else getting depressed here ?
point is , it 's not enough to follow the formula .
you 've got to throw in something extra , something good and new and better than the last version .
something to surprise and move all of us people who buy the tickets and the popcorn and the happy meals .
this is a hard thing to do , but it is absolutely necessary in every way .
without that something extra -- whether it 's a great plot or a well - written screenplay , or great special effects or great locations or great casting or great performances or great big hungry dinosaurs -- the movie fails .
that 's why the jackal , with all its starpower , with all its budget , with all its hype , gets a big fat f. bruce willis is the bad guy , the jackal , a legendary killer for hire .
richard gere is the good guy , a former ira assassin with a vendetta against the jackal .
the jackal is trying to kill someone .
gere is trying to stop him .
will gere be able to stop the assassination in time and kill the jackal ?
( i 'll give you three guesses , and the first two do n't count . )
there are no surprises awaiting the audience in the jackal , no moment when you say to yourself , " i wonder what happens next ?
"
the script for the jackal is n't ripped straight from today 's headlines .
it 's ripped off , straight from an episode of millennium .
throughout the movie , we learn what the jackal 's plans are and how he intends to accomplish them .
no surprise .
the fun of a movie like this should come from richard gere figuring out what the jackal 's plan is and developing a clever plan to foil the bad guy .
instead , we get two ( count 'em , two ) scenes where gere is sitting in an fbi conference room somewhere and instantly divines the jackal 's plan just as if he 's frank black ( or more likely , just as if he 's been handed a copy of the script ) .
and we never get more than a superficial clue as to why gere has had this flash of insight .
it 's like gere 's character is psychic , but neither he nor the fbi ( or the screenwriters ) seem to know it .
and just like in millennium , the bad guy has an overwhelming need to go after the people the good guy cares about , whether or not they are important to what he 's trying to do or not .
what 's more , in the last half of the movie , the jackal , supposedly a super - smart professional terrorist who never makes a mistake , comes down with a major case of the stupids .
as for the performances .
.. bruce willis manages to get through the whole movie without a wisecrack , which is a major achievement , but not enough reason to see the movie .
his disguises are good , but not as good or as interesting as val kilmer 's in the saint .
richard gere is made to talk the entire movie in an irish accent , which detracts from his otherwise lifeless and dull performance .
sidney poitier is probably the most disappointing element in a overwhelmingly disappointing movie -- not that his performance is bad or anything , it 's not , but it is sad that hollywood wo n't use this talented actor in any part other than an fbi agent ( shoot to kill , sneakers ) .
writing a good plot and a good screenplay , like i said , is hard , but it can be done .
it was n't done here .
it is our job as consumers to reward good screenplays and to denounce bad and uninteresting ones .
do not go see this movie .
you 'll only encourage the producers to make more just like it .
instead , stay home and rent day of the jackal , or in the line of fire , or a fire safety video , for crying out loud .
anything other than the jackal , which lives up to its name by gnawing the dead bones of other , better movies .
[A]: N


[Q]: retrospective : city of the living dead ( 1980 )
a film review by mike watson copyright 1997
mike watson
i once heard someone describe the films of italian schlock horror director lucio fulci as " dim - witted " .
and by golly , just about all other words fail me when confronted with a dog like city of the living dead .
although the late fulci managed some rather good thrillers in his career , this is not one of them .
two points in the movie 's favour -
the impressive camerawork of sergio salvati and occasionally evocative score by fabio frizzi - keep things from falling totally into the abyss , but by and large city of the living dead is a failure .
and like most cinematic failures , it comes down to bad writing , dumb performances and lousy direction .
the story starts in new york when , during a seance , a medium ( katherine mccoll ) sees a vision of a priest hanging himself in the town of dunwich , massachusetts .
for reasons we wo n't go into here , this opens the gates of hell which must be closed by all saints day or the dead will rise and walk the earth .
the medium apparently dies of fright during the seance , but awakens in her coffin in the graveyard the next day and is rescued by a crusty old journalist ( christopher george ) .
that scene in itself is a howler
: why would you bust open a coffin with a large pick axe when you know someone is alive inside ?
and do n't cadavers have various things stuffed in them and drained out of them before they 're buried ?
anyway , off the two of them go to dunwich to save the world , where various grisly goings - on are already happening as all saints day approaches .
fulci 's
graphic gore is in evidence once again , but here it only serves to further highlight the film 's flimsy script and plodding direction .
the dialogue , in all manner of speaking , is unspeakable .
not bad in the quotable sense , like an ed wood film , but bad in its sheer dullness or blatantly obvious
" lets explain the plot " type approach .
mccoll does n't have a clue who her character is : deadly serious one minute , frivolous the next , she at times is genuinely hard to watch .
and the geezer ( the actor 's name escapes me ) who plays the town psychiatrist becomes even harder to stomach than mccoll as the film progresses .
christopher george 's performance is salvageable , but he gets his brains ripped out in the end by a zombie and we do n't care .
in fact we do n't care for anyone in city of the living dead , though in other fulci films that has n't mattered so much when he was on form as a stylist and an ideas man , as he was in the beyond .
as a director , some of fulci ' idiosyncrasies are incredibly silly and annoying here .
he constantly uses extreme close - ups of people 's eyes , a ridiculous technique which suggests an attempt to convey the emotion that his dialogue and actors are n't capable of .
and despite some gruesome violence , he barely manages a single scare in the entire film .
long - time collaborator fabio frizzi , talented but always erratic , offers a patchy soundtrack that veers between eerie , gothic death marches and woefully inappropriate electro - pop that 's quite frankly embarrassing
.
fulci 's other films of this period may be flawed - house by the cemetery ,
the beyond , the black cat - but they are nonetheless films with more inspiration , atmosphere and better dialogue than this turkey .
for completists
only .
[A]:
N