instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
weighed down by tired plot lines and spielberg 's reliance on formulas ,
_ saving private ryan _ is a mediocre film which nods in the direction of realism before descending into an abyss of cliches .
there ought to be a law against steven spielberg making movies about truly serious topics .
spielberg 's greatest strength as a director is the polished , formulaic way in which every aspect of the film falls carefully into place to make a perfect story .
but for a topic of such weight as combat in the second world war ( or the holocaust ) this technique backfires , for it creates coherent , comprehensible and redemptive narratives out of events whose size , complexity and evil are utterly beyond the reach of human ken .
in this way spielberg trivializes the awesome evil of the stories he films .
_ saving private ryan _ tells the story of eight men who have been detailed on a " pr mission " to pull a young man , ryan ( whose three other brothers were just killed in fighting elsewhere ) out of combat on the normandy front just after d - day .
ryan is a paratrooper who dropped behind enemy lines the night before the landings and became separated from his fellow soldiers .
the search for him takes the eight soldiers across the hellish terrain of world war ii combat in france .
there 's no denying spielberg came within shouting distance of making a great war movie .
the equipment , uniforms and weapons are superbly done .
the opening sequence , in which captain miller ( tom hanks ) leads his men onto omaha beach , is quite possibly the closest anyone has come to actually capturing the unendurably savage intensity of modern infantry combat .
another pleasing aspect of the film is spielberg 's brave depiction of scenes largely unknown to american audiences , such as the shooting of prisoners by allied soldiers , the banality of death in combat , the routine foul - ups in the execution of the war , and the cynicism of the troops .
the technical side of the film is peerless , as always .
the camera work is magnificent , the pacing perfect , the sets convincing , the directing without flaw .
hanks will no doubt be nominated for an oscar for his performance , which was utterly convincing , and the supporting cast was excellent , though ted danson seems a mite out of place as a paratroop colonel .
yet the attempt at a realistic depiction of combat falls flat on its face because realism is not something which can be represented by single instances or events .
it has to thoroughly permeate the context at every level of the film , or the story fails to convince .
throughout the movie spielberg repeatedly showed only single examples of the grotesque wounds produced by modern mechanized devices ( exception : men are shown burning to death with relative frequency ) .
for example , we see only one man with guts spilled out on the ground .
here and there men lose limbs ; in one scene miller is pulling a man to safety , there 's an explosion , and miller looks back to see he is only pulling half a man .
but the rest of the corpses are remarkably intact .
there are no shoes with only feet in them , no limbs scattered everywhere , no torsos without limbs , no charred corpses , and most importantly , all corpses have heads ( in fairness there are a smattering of wicked head wounds ) .
the relentless dehumanization of the war , in which even corpses failed to retain any indentity , is soft - pedaled in the film .
ultimately , _ saving private ryan _ bows to both hollywood convention and the unwritten rules of wartime photography in its portrayal of wounds and death in war .
rather than saying _ saving private ryan _ is " realistic , " it would be better to describe it as " having realistic moments .
" another aspect of the " hollywoodization " of the war is the lack of realistic dialogue and in particular , the lack of swearing .
anyone familiar with the literature on the behavior of the men during the war , such as fussell 's superb _ wartime : understanding and behavior in the second world war _ ( which has an extensive discussion on swearing ) , knows that the troops swore fluently and without letup .
" who is this private ryan that we have to die for him ?
" asks one infantrymen in the group of eight . rendered in wartime demotic , that should have been expressed as " who is this little pecker that we have to get our dicks shot off for him ?
"
or some variant thereof .
conversations should have been literally sprinkled with the " f " word , and largely about ( the search for ) food and sex .
this is all the more inexplicable because the movie already had an " r " rating due to violence , so swearing could not possibly have been eliminated to make it a family film . however ,
the most troubling aspect of the film is the spielbergization of the topic .
the most intense hell humans have ever created for themselves is not emotionally wrenching enough for steven spielberg .
he can not just cede control to the material ; he has to be bigger than it .
as if afraid to let the viewer find their own ( perhaps unsettled and not entirely clear ) emotional foothold in the material , spielberg has to package it in hallmark moments to give the war a meaning and coherence it never had : the opening and closing scenes of ryan and his family in the war cemetary ( reminscent of the closing scene from _ schindler 's list ) , the saccharine exchange between ryan and his wife at the close ( every bit as bad as schindler 's monologue about how his car , tiepin or ring could have saved another jew ) , quotes from abraham lincoln and emerson , captain miller 's last words to private ryan , and an unbelievable storyline in which a prisoner whom they free earlier in the movie comes back to kill the captain .
that particular subplot is so hokey , so predictable , it nigh on ruins the film .
nowhere in the film is there a resolute depiction of the meaninglessness , stupidity and waste which characterized the experience of war to the men who actually fought in combat ( imagine if miller had been killed by friendly fire or collateral damage ) .
because of its failure to mine deeply into the terrible realities of world war ii , _ saving private ryan _ can only pan for small truths in the shallows . .
answer:
N

question:
synopsis : al simmons , top - notch assasin with a guilty conscience , dies in a fiery explosion and goes to hell .
making a pact with malebolgia , a chief demon there , simmons returns to earth 5 years later reborn as spawn , a general in hell 's army donning a necroplasmic costume replete with knives , chains , and a morphing cape .
sullen , wise cogliostro and flatulating , wisecracking violator vy for spawn 's attention .
comments : when todd mcfarlane left marvel comics ( where he had made a name for himself as a first - rate comic book penciller on the " spider - man " titles ) to join the newly - formed , creator - owned image comics , a new comic book legend was born : spawn .
mcfarlane 's " spawn " immediately became a commercial and critical success and a defining comic book series of the 1990s .
mcfarlane created a hero who was not only original but visually intricate , allowing mcfarlane to utilize his knack for artistic detail to the max .
the early " spawn " issues brilliantly capture mcfarlane 's genius at illustration and show his early attempts at writing .
with the popularity of " spawn " and the success of the current warner bros . 's batman film franchise , a movie version of some sort seemed inevitable for spawn .
in the summer of 1997 , hence , new line cinema released spawn , a live - action film based on the groundbreaking series .
this topheavy exercise in violence and special effects
unfortunately topples quickly and leaves fans of the comic book , like me , numbed by how much spawn misses the mark .
what happened ?
why is spawn so bad ?
todd mcfarlane himself
executive produced this disappointing misfire and even appears in a cameo .
i do n't think , however , that his presence necessarily hurt ( or helped )
the film .
i place the blame , in part , on the recent hollywood trend , fueled by public demand apparently , for special effects blow - out movies utilizing the latest computer technology .
these films focus upon the effects at the expense of everything else : character , plot , dialogue , etc .
spawn , reflecting this trend , shows the audience one gratuitous scene after another populated with morphing characters and filled with unnecessary pyrotechnics .
hardly a minute goes by in this film without fires , explosions , knives and chains appearing out of nowhere , glowing eyes , or constantly transforming demons .
a lot of it is visually interesting and technically solid , do n't get me wrong , but , because the script and cast are n't engaging , spawn ultimately comes across like overwrought wallpaper ( the surface may capture the eye , but nothing exists underneath ) .
spawn 's translation of the comic book suffers the most at the storyline level .
mcfarlane 's spawn was a tortured hero .
a mercenary by trade , al simmons was nonetheless a warm man in love with the beautiful wanda .
having died and journeyed to hell , he made a pact to return to earth to be with wanda .
simmons , however , discovers that his memories are fragmented , his body a creepy mess , and his wife married .
despite his sometimes violent nature , readers could n't help but feel sympathetic toward his plight as the spawn of the underworld .
spawn attempts to show all of this but does not spend nearly the time it should to do so .
when the characters are developed , they seem absurd rather than touching .
the cartoonish dialogue and implausible subplot
( a general possesses the antidote to a supervirus called heat-16 which he wishes to unleash to enslave the world ) do not help matters .
spawn , in an apparent attempt to duplicate the success of batman , also unwisely spends too much time on a villain , the violator ( batman favored the joker over batman ) .
john leguizamo , like jack nicholson in batman , receives top billing in the cast as the violator ; michael jai white ( al simmons / spawn ) is second .
i ordinarily find leguizamo an intensely annoying presence in films which seems to make him a perfect candidate for the violator .
the film , however , spends so much time on the violator 's offensive antics that they grate on the nerves .
apparently meant to be the comic relief in the film ( as nicholson was in batman ) , especially when contrasted with the sullen spawn , the violator 's lines are oftentimes grotesque and unfunny , leaving the audience wishing he would leave .
leguizamo does a satisfactory job in the role , but he is seen far too often in the film .
michael jai white , a relative newcomer to theatrical releases , seems to be an appealing actor , and he handles his role adequately , but we see little of him without various masks on .
more time needed to be spent on white 's character before he became spawn for the movie to pull at the heartstrings .
a special note should be made about martin sheen as the over - the - top , obnoxious , evil general wynn .
easily the hammiest performance in the movie , it 's hard to imagine how sheen mucked up his role so much ; after all , he played a vietnam assasin brilliantly in the great apocalypse now .
sheen 's excessive demeanor do not help the audience accept him as a mastermind villain and comes as a surprise considering his extensive career in film .
many other elements conspire with the disappointing script and abundant special effects to drag spawn down
.
mtv - style , jerky , in - your - face editing is one of them .
flames , for example , roll across the screen sometimes to announce a shift in setting .
cogliostro , unlikely wannabe guide for spawn , serves as a poor narrator for the film .
he goofily tells the audience , at one point , that " how much of [ spawn 's ] humanity is left remains to be seen , " as if the audience really cares as one violent sequence leads to another .
the music , finally , assaults the audience as much as the manic violence and offensive dialogue .
loud and obnoxious hard rock fused with drum loops dominate some scenes .
to be fair , however , marilyn manson 's " long hard road out of hell
" effectively compliments spawn 's return to earth , while filter and the crystal method 's
" ( ca n't you ) trip like i do " proves a surprisingly fitting theme song .
for as good a comic book as it is , " spawn " did not spawn a good movie .
spawn , instead , suffers from too much pomp and circumstance , and too little plot and character development
.
it receives two stars for its technically well - done special effects .
many other films , though , have equal , if not superior , special effects and are much better .
rated pg-13 , spawn seems more violent than many r - rated movies and probably would n't be appropriate for the very young .
answer:
N

question:
of all the films i 've come to see this year ( 1997 ) , i think only chasing amy had as many " laugh - out - loud " moments
.
i 'm not saying that i was hysterically rolling on the floor while watching waiting for guffman , but my mouth burst open with at least a delighted guffaw at least every couple of minutes .
and i think i 'm the kind of person that laughs least at movies , even when i find them funny .
usually all you can get out of me is a warm smile , so to get me laughing out loud , and so frequently , is a really good sign .
waiting for guffman is the story of blaine , missouri , a town celebrating
it 's 150th anniversary , and the musical that is being put on for the big event .
the play is being directed by corky st .
clair ( christopher guest , who also wrote and directed this " mockumentary " as well as co - writing several original musical numbers ) , the effeminate broadway hopeful determined to make this production a smashing success .
teaming up with st .
clair are a handful of blaine residents : allan pearl ( eugene levy ) , a jewish dentist who spent his youth not as the class clown , but sitting right next to him and studying him , ron and sheila albertson ( fred willard and catherine o'hara respectively ) , a married couple setting their sights on hollywood , libby mae brown ( parker posey ) , the dense but fun queen of the dairy queen , and a few others .
everybody in this movie is brilliant , absolutely so , but levy particularly stands out .
these characters are portrayed with such saddening realism that you ca n't help but love them , as pathetic as they really are .
although levy stands out , guest , willard , o'hara , and posey are all wonderful and definitely should be commended for their performances ! if there was an oscar for an ensemble performance , this is the group that should sweep it .
some humor was a tad uneven from the rest of the film and , even after starting very humorously , they nearly lost me with the tad - too - long intros . as delightful as it was , it began to get monotonous .
thankfully , just as your about to say " ok , maybe i should run to the bathroom " , they finally get past the intros and onto the rehearsal scenes .
like a play , this film gives a very three - act feel , the intros ( funny , but almost too long ) , the rehearsals ( even funnier ) , and finally , the actual performance of the play ( excellent ! ) .
like i said , each character really shines , even when done with a subtle approach .
you ca n't really watch these people and not think they 're real people !
even they way they talk , with awkward pauses and stumbles that do n't feel staged at all , you feel like you 're watching a real , albeit funny , documentary .
and even with silly lyrics , the original songs when the play is finally put on , are absolutely wonderful !
as a word of note , despite it 's " r " rating , waiting for guffman is really quite clean .
this rating came from a brief , very brief use of the grand - daddy of all swear words .
even if that really bothers you , let me say that it 's not presented in a vulgar , cheap - laugh way .
it 's actually quite humorous and tastefully done !
it might be hard knowing what to expect with waiting for guffman .
it 's silly humor , but it 's also so dry , subtle , and intelligently done that you 're not insulted by it .
it 's always really nice to see a comedy that is n't all slapstick and vulgarity , and this film is one of the better ones of the better ones !
i 'd recommend seeing it !
answer:
P