instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
i have no real tangible proof of this , but i swear that there are a lot of producers in hollywood who adamantly believe that if you take a bad script , written by a bad writer and give the project it to an equally bad director , then it is actually possible to make a good movie . using their logic , all that really needs be done to change the bad movie into a good movie is cast a bunch of super - famous actors and provide an almost unlimited production budget .
this is the only way i can fathom how 20th century fox hired jon amiel in order to direct this eighty million dollar waste of my time
( not counting the time it took me to get to and from the theatre ) .
now , before i continue to ferociously attack what 's wrong with this film , i just want to point out that one of the reasons it fails so miserably is because it does have the potential to be an exciting thriller .
catherine zeta - jones plays virginia baker , an insurance investigator tracking down an infamous art thief named robert macdougal ( sean connery ) .
if you 've ever seen any hollywood blockbuster before , i really do n't have to spend too much time on frivolous plot details : the two team up for various jobs , stealing various things for various purposes .
the problem we come to is that we 've all seen this a few billion times before and this film does n't break any new ground in the big - budget / hollywood / action genre .
the result is that the entire production feels contrived
.
i 'm going to be completely honest here : pretty much the only thing keeping me awake throughout the run - time was looking at catherine zeta - jones .
now while this may be a compliment for ms .
zeta - jones , it certainly is n't for either the writers or the director , who are not nearly as clever as they think they are .
just about the most profound thought they can inject into this film is when they have macdougal lecture baker on the semantic difference between " entrapment " and " blackmail " .
with an eighty million dollar budget , you 'd think that entrapment would at least feature edge - of - your seat action scenes or breathtaking special f
/ x . well , you 'd be wrong .
the action that is present in this film takes place in a huge skyscraper and is relatively unspectacular .
unfortunately for all those involved with entrapment , die hard narrowly beat it to the screen by ? 11 years .
the reality is that after 15 minutes of watching this picture , you know exactly what 's going to happen , despite rather pathetic attempts in the screenplay to throw in plot twists .
many scenes seem to exist merely as a reason to outfit zeta - jones in extremely tight - fitting clothing .
one particular scene features baker crawling around trying to avoid laser - beams while she tries to steal an ancient chinese mask .
nothing wrong with that , but she entered the room from the floor and knew exactly where the mask was -
so why did n't she and macdougal tunnel in directly under the mask instead of the other side of the room ?
i 'll tell you why : because it 's a great excuse to photograph zeta - jones ' posterior as it slides underneath those beams ( and it also allows a second scene of the exact same thing - the rehearsal ) .
ving rhames also makes an appearance in this movie , and though he has great screen presence ( although so do connery and zeta - jones ) and the most interesting character in the film , not even he can rescue this film from the depths of the boring film abyss
( a concept i invented just to describe this picture ) .
one last complaint : entrapment is littered of instances where macdougal will just slip into a shadow or behind a building , or he becomes obstructed by a moving vehicle and then in the next shot , he 'll spontaneously disappear in ninja - like fashion .
i can picture amiel patting himself on the back , thinking to himself " it 'll leave the audience wondering for days
: how did he do that ?
"
we know jon , it 's called editing .
answer:
N

question:
breakdown is an moderately entertaining , if underwhelming , thriller .
kurt russell and kathleen quinlan play couple jeff and amy taylor , taking the scenic route to california through redneck country .
however , while in the middle of nowhere , their jeep decides to break down , leaving them stranded .
a friendly truck driver , warren ( walsh ) , offers to give them a lift to town .
although jeff rejects the offer ( he wants to stay with his car ) , amy agrees , hops into warren 's lorry , and promptly disappears .
jeff wonders where the hell she is , and when he later catches up with warren and warren says he has never seen amy in his life , the plot thickens and jeff goes on a chase to find his wife .
although comparisons can be made with this film to deliverance ( 1972 ) and the vanishing ( 1993 ) plot wise , the latter two are far superior character and script wise .
kurt russell is o .
k as jeff , although he can seemingly only pull of one expression , which is angry .
throughout the whole film , he looks angry ( or just pissed off . )
quinlan is o .
k again , but again
she can only pull off one expression , which is looking dorky .
throughout the whole film , she looks dorky .
j .
t walsh ( who , sadly , recently passed away ) is fine as warren ( who we soon find out is a kidnapper )
although his actual character is pretty weak , and not really menacing enough .
the supporting cast do their best aswell , with rex linn as a doubting sheriff , and the other kidnappers .
the story , written by first - timer jonathan mostow ( who also directs ) is o .
k ,
if surprisingly familiar and sometimes extraordinarily stupid .
some of the things the characters do in this movie is beyond the bounds of idiocy .
there are some flaws with the plot also , as the characters do the complete opposite to logical ( presumably to keep the story ' exciting ' ) and also the fact that the story just is n't strong enough to sustain the audience 's attention .
the picture moves along very slowly also .
it almost threatens to drop dead .
the picture does pick up towards the end , but by then it 's too late .
mostow directs the action sequences well enough , however .
the film does n't really come to a satisfying conclusion , either .
the ending tries to be bleak , but just comes off annoying
.
breakdown could of been a far more enjoyable picture
had it had a stronger cast and director .
instead , it just turns out to be merely average .
a missed opportunity .
overall rating= review by david wilcock
answer:
N

question:
two party guys bob their heads to haddaway 's dance hit " what is love ? " while getting themselves into trouble in nightclub after nightclub .
it 's barely enough to sustain a three - minute _ saturday_night_live _ skit , but _ snl _ producer lorne michaels , _ clueless _ creator amy heckerling , and paramount pictures saw something in
the late night television institution 's recurring " roxbury guys " sketch that would presumably make a good feature .
emphasis on the word " presumably .
"
_ a_night_at_the_roxbury
_ takes an already - thin concept and tediously stretches it far beyond the breaking point -- and that of viewers ' patience levels .
the first five minutes or so of _ roxbury
_ play very much like one of the original " roxbury guys " skits .
with " what is love ? " blaring on the soundtrack , the brotherly duo of doug and steve butabi ( chris kattan and will ferrell ) bob their heads , scope out " hotties " at clubs , and then bump a select few with violent pelvic thrusts .
there is one crucial difference , however -- these guys speak .
that little fact has been used as justification for the film 's existence , that the butabis ' newfound capacity for speech would open up a whole new set of doors for the characters .
the doors opened by director john fortenberry and screenwriters steve koren , ferrell , and kattan are new , that 's for sure , but they all lead to comic dead ends .
there is no story per se , only a loosely structured and linked series of subplots .
the brothers literally run into ( or , rather , get run into , as in by car ) richard grieco of _ 21_jump_street _ fame , and through him they gain entrance into the exclusive roxbury club .
there , they meet a hotshot club owner ( chazz palminteri , conspicuously uncredited -- can you blame him ? ) , who takes an interest in an idea of theirs .
meanwhile , the bros ' overbearing father ( dan hedaya ) wants them to stop clubbing .
when doug refuses and the dimwitted steve obeys his father , a rift is created between the two .
the narrative messiness of
_ roxbury
_ would have been forgivable if all that went on were the slightest bit funny , but virtually none of it is .
the assembled press audience mostly sat stonily silent throughout the entire film , with the one big exception being a big laugh near the end .
alas , the joke -- a rather lazy takeoff on _
jerry_maguire_--will only strike a chord with people who have seen that film .
granted , a lot of people
_ have _ seen _ jerry_maguire _ , but the fact that the film 's best joke is completely dependent on one 's familiarity with another film says a lot about
_ roxbury _ 's lack of inspiration .
that lack of inspiration can be traced back to the insipid characters themselves .
like too many of the skits on the current incarnation of _ saturday_night_live _ , " the roxbury guys " is a one - joke sketch that never once suggests that the characters have enough comic life in them to survive outside of the sketch context .
after watching one of the " roxbury " skits on snl , this is what you come away with from the characters : they bob their heads to " what is love ? " , bump unsuspecting women , and .
..
that 's all .
after watching _
a_night_at_the_roxbury
_ , you 'll be left with exactly the same .
answer:
N