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

eric rohmer 's " pauline at the beach , " is one of those small , deliberately paced , but charming foreign films in which not much happens plot wise , but a lot happens to the characters emotionally .
the film takes place during a few weeks of august at the normandy coast , and centers on six different characters , primarily pauline ( amanda langlet ) , a wise beyond her years 15-year - old who has come to stay for the summer with her older cousin , marion ( arielle dombasle ) .
on the first day at the beach , marion runs into an old high school flame ( fedoore atkine ) , and although he wants to rekindle their relationship , she is more interested in an older , more seductive womanizer ( pascal greggory ) , who is also secretly having an affair with a candy vendor ( rosette ) .
while pauline watches as an outsider at what is happening between all of the adults , she forms a relationship of her own with a young teenage boy ( simon de la brosse ) .
" pauline at the beach , " is not a film in which big dramatic things occur , and there is not a clear - cut , tidy conclusion to the story .
instead , it is a picture that simply observes its characters in every day life , and the surprises come from little character details .
the film is quite talky and slow moving , and so it is pretty safe to say it is n't for those who are only a fan of action movies , but is a treat for those viewers who often like to venture outside of the big - budget genre and see a good art film .
this is the first film by acclaimed director eric rohmer ( 1969 's " my night at mauds , " and 1971 's " claire 's knee " ) that i have seen , but his direction is assured and intelligent , as is the screenplay , which he also wrote .
" pauline at the beach , " is a film worth seeing .
P

andrew lloyd webber 's musicals , preferably his early work with lyricist tim rice , present a musical which is totally unlike any musical before its time .
webber and rice do not subscribe to the gaity of such musicals as " oklahoma ! , " or the slapstickness of shows like " a funny thing happened on the way to the forum .
"
they instead tackle hot issues from our past , and view them differently , and pack them together with redundant , catchy music , as well as thoughtful lyrics .
like " jesus christ superstar , " which examined the rise and fall of jesus in his last days from a fame perspective ( in the cool tune " superstar , " a dead judas comes back from the dead to ask jesus why he did n't spread his message wider ) , " evita " takes an inventive stance on its topic , this time being the famed wife of argentinian dictator , juan per ?
n ,
eva , who slept her way to the top and became famous chiefly because she got attention , much like the woman playing her : madonna ( although i think madonna did rise to the top for her musical talent , among other things ) .
" evita " deals with the rise and fall of eva per ?
n , a woman who captured the heart of the nation after marrying juan ( jonathan pryce ) , then died at the young age of 33 , creating an international stir of mourning not unlike that of princess di ( the two do share a bit in common , although it was n't like di slept to " the top " ) .
webber and rice sure chose bizarre topics for their musicals , but they always have a point for doing it .
here , they wish to expose her for what she is , but still show that despite all of her many drawbacks , her lying , and covering up for her fascist husband , but show that she was still a good woman with fairly good intentions , and her death was very sad .
it 's also a musical , with almost no words not unsung .
the film plays like a rock opera , much like their " jesus christ superstar , " with many giant musical sequences just like the old musicals , even if they do possess very intelligent lyrics , which create not only an intellectually enlightening experience , but also a very entertaining one . after all , this is a musical , and webber 's musicals never undermine this .
they are a balance of energy and intellectual depth , walking on a fine line between the both , and never stumbling on either side .
this is why the beginning of " evita " is kind of a let - down .
okay , it is a let - down .
i 'm not saying the opening moments are bad , because they 're pretty good .
but what comes after is a lifeless , un - entertaining , and totally unrewarding sequence where she cons a singer ( jimmy nail ) into taking eva to buenos aires after a one - night stand .
in the musical , it 's a fun , energetic sequence , culiminating in the show stopper , " buenos aires , " which is also lifeless .
then a punch is pulled as we see eva being screwed over by the singer , instead of her leaving him , where she ends up singing the sad tune , " another suitcase in another hall , " which was meant for a later character , screwed over by eva .
the portrayal of eva in the beginning is too soft , seeming like parker and oliver stone , who adapted it for the screen , are afraid to present her for what she is , even while it 's being narrated by a hater of eva 's , the omnipotent ( antonio banderas ) , who presents her in a negative light .
for a while , it looks like alan parker ca n't pull it off . however , the film pulls itself together in a flash , and after that song is over , and the giddily nihilistic song " goodbye and thank you , " where we see eva go through a long line of lovers who help her ascend , is magnificent , darkly comical , and just gleeful .
from this point on , the film is hypnotic , satisfying , and satirical .
no more punches are thrown , and the basic outline of the original musical are in tact .
we see eva woo and marry juan , get him out of jail , rise to stardom , falter a bit , come back , and then gradually die of cancer ( i think it was because of cancer ) .
more importantly , many of the themes from the musical carry on with this , as well as some filling - in - the - gaps reconnassaince work .
juan , who is pretty underwritten in the musical , is given some extra scenes , and exposed as what he was for eva : an accessory .
a muted scene where he tries to visit her respective room but is shunned allows us to learn more about juan , and understand his sadness more than we did before .
> from the " goodbye and thank you " number on
, the film shows eva trying to cover up for the horrible government by doing cheap and petty things which wooed a nation , and saved a government , even while it left the nation 's people downtrodden .
but despite this , the nation still loved eva , and when she slipped into death , the world mourned her because she was a star .
that 's when our narrator , ch ? , comes out to show that she was n't the great woman she really was , and expose her fame .
describing this character is difficult , mainly because he has no real realistic background ( he 's said to be based on the revolutionary ch ?
guevera , but the two probably could have never met , like they do in the film ) , but he serves as a perspective on eva , but even his perspective ca n't help us from feeling bad when eva dies a pathetic death .
alan parker , no stranger to bizarre musicals ( he 's done " fame , " " the committments , " " bugsy malone , " and " pink floyd the wall " - the latter which is absolutely brilliant ) , nails the film , exposing everything for what it is .
we cry for evita at the end because we feel we should , by the way it is presented .
his direction is manipulative for a reason : to show the mourning for what it is .
and there is energy throughout ,
with lots of bright colors , and scenes which are cinematically entertaning , as well as enriching and deep , such as the balcony scene where she sings " do n't cry for me , argentina , " and her death sequence , which is poignant becuase of how sad it is .
madonna 's golden globe winning performance is much like the movie : starts kinda downhill then goes up quickly , remaning there for the rest of the film .
at the beginning , she looks like she 's too busy concentrating on her singing to act , but she eventually gets it right , though never really getting the presence of , say , patti lupone ( who did the role in its american premiere back in the late 70s ) .
her death , though , is brilliant .
her singing could be better though .
i know she took lessons to improve her range and all , but it still sounds like she 's trying to hard .
she sounds way too soft in several places where she should be comanding ( like . . .
patti lupone - i heard her sing on an old " evita " cd , and you could just feel her stage presence without even seeing her ) .
but it 's generally very good , although not up to the brilliance the role really requires .
antonio banderas , who is almost like a guilty pleasure these days ( i 'm one of the few people who thinks he rocks ) , is
extremely comanding in his performance , presenting a lovable narrator .
his singing is very good , though nothing compared to the original , mandy patinkin .
he does have a pretty good singing voice , and a great range . and jonathan pryce is pretty awesome , although very brief at times , in his role as juan , seeming to put on a poker face for his melancholy facade .
although it gets off to a rocky start ( " rocky " 's polite for what it really is ) , it soon picks up and becomes a wonderully poignant musical .
like the other musical released in ' 96 ( woody allen 's
" everyone says i love you " ) , it 's a reminder that the hollywood musical may be dead , but it can come back every now
and then for a brief performance .
P

" flubber " is the second best example of how to take all the life out of
a film remake an adaptation , and hysterically enough both were distributed by disney .
it 's the kind of film that may be slightly entertaining to tiny kids , but anyone else will feel left out as it 's boring , slow , and incredibly lifeless .
what could be a film with cinematic magic is instead dead in the water , and it 's a shame because it could have been a great film .
hypothetically , i mean .
" flubber , " as you probably know , is a remake of the disney classic i never saw , " the absent minded professor , " where a , well , absent minded professor played by fred mcmurray created an erratic substance known as " flubber , " you know , flying rubber ?
the new one keeps the basic plot , but appears to have added a lot else , like more absent - mindedness on the part of the proffessor , some more villains , and several " show - stopping " moments , like a big rumba with the flubber , and some more elaborate setups ,
none which really make it any better , but instead make it worse .
the basic plot revolves around a college professor , philip brainerd ( robin williams ) , who creates lots and lots of inventions , but is sadly absent minded .
in fact , he 's forgotten his wedding to the college 's president , sara jean reynolds ( indie actress marcia gay harden ) , two times before he forgets it again at the beginning .
does n't this warrant some kind of mental treatment ?
anyway , on his wedding day ( the third one ) , he invents the flubber , which not only bounces off of everything like a super ball on speed , but can also change shape like the aliens in water form in " the abyss .
" philip believes that this invention , once fully realized , will save his college , which is in threat of being shut down by a millionaire tycoon / villain , chester hoenicker ( raymond j . barry ) , which is ironically enough the same college his brat son ( will wheaton - thought he was dead ) goes to .
through a plot twist , hoenicker 's goons , named smith and wesson ( ha ha - what a great sense of humor this film has ) who are played by clancy brown and ted levine ( both who needed the pay check ) , discover it the hard way , and try to steal for hoenicker , who wants it just 'cause he 's evil enough .
a sub - plot involves philip 's attempts to win back sara , who 's angry at him ( and with good reason ) , but who is being seduced by who is basically philip 's belloq , wilson croft ( christopher mcdonald , playing the hysterically suave - yet - unsuave asswhole once again ) .
and in another subplot , philip 's day - timer robot , weebo ( voiced by the one - and - only jodi benson ) , falls in love with him .
yuckity - yuck .
what 's most pathetic about this film is how dull it is .
you do n't need to be a cynical college student to be able to see right through this film , which is another in a long line of cheap attempts at making a quick buck by disney , who have essentially become the puff daddy of the film industry , half - assedly re - mixing classics ( or non - classics ) for distribution to the general public , who sadly eats it all up .
earlier in ' 97 , they released " jungle 2 jungle , " an adaptation of a really awful french film , " un indien dans la ville , " which , yeah , improved over the original , but not by much .
disney 's in about as bad shape as warner brothers right now , only creatively .
in the rush to ship out a film for distribution , disney has forgotten to give this film a little thing called " magic .
" such scenes as dancing flubber , a flying car , a basketball team that pretty much sucks flying all around thanks to some carefully placed flubber , and an elaborate ending
all fail to amaze , delight , or even cause people to laugh .
i sat there the entire film stone faced , chuckling perhaps twice , and shaking my head at all the bad jokes
.
who could really laugh at a scene where philip enters the wrong classroom and starts teaching chemistry ?
did n't think so .
it does n't help that our protagonist is essentially unfunny or even really respectable .
philip is not a lovable absent minded professory , just a really dumb man being played by robin williams .
williams is a brilliant comic actor .
. .
okay ,
a brilliant actor in general , but here
he 's given very little to do but occasionally get hyper over something , and other times act sad .
those times , he 's not bad .
but what are we supposed to think of a man who 's forgotten his wedding thrice ?
maybe it was funny and/or respectable in the 60s . . .
i like disney , and i usually enjoy their films , not only animated but live action , and their recent films ( save for " hercules , " which was good , but not great ) have been worse than lackluster
, they 've been pathetic .
" jungle 2 jungle " is probably the worst film i saw last year .
" flubber " 's probably second .
what do they need to do ?
perhaps create something new .
get writers who can write something that 's universally entertaining .
films like " the parent trap " and " mary poppins " are films that are live action ( or in the latter case a mix of both ) , but even i can still watch them because they 're not only written to be magical to children , but to be fun to adults .
what 's more torturous that taking a child to a film that insults you and annoys you at every turn ?
and my god , could n't they have done something else with edie mcclurg ?
N