instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
i want to be involved in show business one day .
and i refuse to do any sequels to any movie i may make because i believe they only get worse .
this movie proves it for me .
i was a little worried about the last batman film ,
as i thought joel schumaccer , taking over from tim burton , would screw it up .
i also assumed val kilmer would screw up as bruce wayne .
they did n't .
kilmer did a good job , and the cast was left to carry the movie , which they did ( even jim carrey as the riddler and i ca n't stand jim carrey ) , because schumaccer messed up the direction with his glitzy gotham and his awkward camera angles .
this film is different .
the cast is still impressive , but here ,
not only does schumaccer mess up with the direction
( he 's one of those directors who 's good with actors , terrible with camera angles ) , but writer akiva goldsmith does n't really give an impressive cast anything to do .
the cast is impressive : clooney is a surprisingly good wayne / batman , o'donnell is a crafty robin as usual , they could 've casted somebody better as batgirl ( my friend likes neve campbell ) , but silverstone is not bad , and thurman is a good poison ivy .
the major problem is schwarzenegger , who is a terrible freeze .
his accent is so heavy , you ca n't understand what he says , and the trouble with action stars like him is they can not act
,
and they know it , but they figure that if they flex their muscles , say a limited amount of stuff , and kill a bunch of guys , then they figure nobody'll notice .
that 's the trouble with me ,
* i * notice .
schwarzenegger does not deserve billing over clooney , or as much money as he got for this , but hollywood thinks he does .
patrick stewart was the person i 'd heard that was considered to play freeze , and he would 've been so much better .
or sean connery , but not arnold
" i 'm not an actor , but i play one in real life " schwarzenegger .
i realize that you must be a star to play a major role in a batman film , but it would 've been nice if they 'd casted a star that had talent for the role .
akiva goldsmith 's screenplay avoids some stuff that happens in a normal batman film .
in a regular batman film , they 'd concentrate on the relationship with the girlfriend a little more , but elle macpherson 's julie madison is so limited here that we never get a real sense of who she is .
there is talk of a fifth batman movie .
my interest to see it is low , but i hope it 's better than this .
if you do n't want to waste your time , rent any of the other batman movies from blockbuster .
any other .
answer:
N

question:
nicolas cage comes up with an ingenious survival mechanism for his role in the wink - and - a - concussive - nudge bombast - o - rama con air .
the opening credits sequence introduces us to cage as cameron poe , a gulf war veteran convicted of manslaughter and serving eight years in prison after an ill - fated bar - room brawl .
the prison scenes are accompanied by voice - overs in which poe , in a languid southern drawl , describes prison life to his wife back home and offers simple homilies for the daughter he has never met .
if the scene gives you a tickle of familiarity , it probably should .
cage appears to realize that con air is going to be utterly dim - witted and ridiculous , and that he 's going to have to do something to keep himself entertained .
and thus he slips into a familiar , surreal role as his own commentary on the proceedings -- cage plays cameron poe as a buffed - up version of raising arizona 's h .
i .
mcdonnough .
cage should have known what he was getting himself into .
he got a paycheck from jerry bruckheimer last year for the rock , and if there 's one thing you can count on from a bruckheimer production ( even without his late partner don simpson ) , it 's that you can count on seeing everything you saw in the _ last _ bruckheimer production .
the critical difference between the rock and con air is cage 's performance .
in the rock , cage appeared to be having the time of his life jumping into the action fray for the first time .
that sense of discovery has been replaced by a wry self - awareness .
while the plot of con air finds poe a parolee on board a hijacked prison transport plane whose goal is just to get home , cage 's goal is different but just as simple : to get out of the film with some measure of dignity intact .
audiences , too , should know what they 're getting themselves into with a bruckheimer production .
in fact , the marketing people are counting on it .
no one who loathed the rock for its swear - grunt - blast repetitiveness will be converted by con air ; no one who loved the rock for exactly the same reasons will be dissuaded .
director simon west ( yet another tv commercial auteur plucked by bruckheimer from the advertising equivalent of the schwab 's soda fountain )
delivers exactly the kind of adrenaline / testosterone cocktail which could launch an endocrinology lecture
( it 's perversely appropriate that one sympathetic con spends most of the flight nearing a diabetic coma ; like insulin , con air does the work of a gland ) .
what he does n't deliver is a moment of suspense .
a bruckheimer film has no use for hitchcock 's notion that showing you the bomb under the desk creates a more interesting scene than just blowing up the desk ; a really , _ really _ big desk and a really , _ really _ big bomb will serve the purpose nicely .
if either west or bruckheimer were interested in genuine tension , they might have done something with con air 's creepiest set - up .
at a desert stop for the plane - load of convicts , serial killer garland greene ( steve buscemi )
wanders of into a trailer park where he meets a little girl having a tea party in a drained swimming pool .
their tete - a - tete is eerie and menacing , providing a welcome shift in tone and giving buscemi a chance to stand out in a cast with too many villains ( danny trejo , ving rhames and a characteristically reptilian john malkovich among them ) .
in fact , con air usually opts for too much of something when the tiniest measure of restraint would have been an improvement -- too many characters , too much editing , too many dopey punch lines , too much of the cheap , ugly appeals to machismo which characterize too many bruckheimer efforts .
it is that kind of exhausting excess to which cage is responding with his detached performance .
while malkovich goes for the outrageous and john cusack ( as a u . s . marshal )
goes for
earnest , cage looks like he just wants to go to sleep .
his recycled raising arizona performance is a means of escape , his chase after a stuffed bunny a continuation of his pursuit of that big box of huggies .
it does n't bode well for cage 's appearance in face / off later this month ; perhaps he already realizes that all he can do in action films is more of the same over and over .
there 's a word for people like you , nicolas .
that word is called recidivist . . .
repeat offender .
answer:
N

question:
please do n't mind this windbag letting off a bit of steam .
.. i just want to warn all of y' all not to waste your hard - earned $ $ $ on anaconda .
it 's not even worth a 99-cent video rental .
do n't listen to ebert on this one ( he has no clue what he 's talking about ! )
btw i accompanied my friend to this one because she was * required * to watch it on assignment ( she reviews movies for a local paper ) .
now i 'll actually back up my huffing and puffing .
here goes : movie : anaconda rydain 's bottom line : wait for it to come on usa up all night .
even then , i doubt it 's worth the price of jolt ( to help you stay up that late ! )
why do i hate anaconda ?
let me count the ways .
..
first of all , this movie gets way too many snake facts wrong .
as an ophiophile ( snake lover ) , i can tell you that a ) anacondas would never reach a length of 40 feet , b ) they 're scared of people , c ) cases of snakes eating adult humans are extremely rare because human shoulders are too wide to fit in a snake 's mouth , and constrictor snakes do n't kill what they ca n't eat , d ) people can outrun snakes with no trouble , especially heavy ones like anacondas , e ) if an anaconda did eat a human , it would need at least 6 months of sitting on its butt to digest the huge meal , therefore it could n't run around gobbling up everybody else in the cast , and f ) snakes have no vocal cords , so they ca n't make funny squealing noises .
whew .
i was prepared to suspend reality if the movie would have been worth it .
unfortunately , anaconda was about as suspenseful and exciting as watching paint peel .
my friend and i even successfully predicted who would live at the end .
anybody can tell the bad guy is going to die eventually .
that was a pity because his character was one of the few reasons
my friend and i did n't give up and fall asleep .
he was the most likable character in the movie .
who would n't enjoy somebody who looks like a deranged walt whitman ?
anaconda did have its cute moments : arguments between ice cube 's character and the british guy , for instance .
however , those small flashes of wit were not worth the other hour and twenty - eight minutes of boring schlock .
the writers had - and blew - a multitude of opportunities to insert funny lines .
i was quite disappointed with a scene where a young guy tells a young lady that the jungle makes him horny .
did she retort with a clever , ego - withering comeback ?
of course not !
"
i 'm trying to work !
" gee
, that 's even dumber than the crap comebacks
i come up with .
she could have told him to go find a knothole or something .
.. ; p
but i will admit , there was just one scene where i was surprised at the outcome ( hint : it involves the evil guy and miss crap comebacks ) .
as for the plot , i 'm still trying to find one .
this movie was basically an excuse to get a boatload of people into dangerous territory where they could get snarfed by ridiculous , computer - generated anacondas with the eyes and fangs of vipers and the faster - than - gravity downward acceleration of a harrier jet .
( harrier snake ? ) not to mention instant digestion so they could go snarf countless other victims .
the writers tried to throw in some sort of plot twist ( should i call it a plot knot because it made no sense ? ) in which the sick guy 's g - friend kisses the evil dude and suddenly everybody hates said evil dude and starts trying to kill him .
that was about as clear and understandable as mission : impossible .
( if someone could explain that movie to me , i 'd be most grateful !
all the old - guy double agents looked the same ! ! )
i was n't inspired by the acting , save for the evil dude .
i ca n't blame the actors , though .
it 's not their fault they had a cruddy script to work with .
this concludes rydain 's diatribe on a shameless exploitation ( and perpetuation ! ) of public fear of snakes .
comments , flames , anyone ?
-rydain the atomic cheese , fresh from chernobyl dairies !
answer:
N