In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
--------
Question: i came to an epiphany while watching the bachelor , an innocuous - enough - on - the - surface romantic comedy .
it 's not the sort of film in which one would expect to achieve any moment of clarity , but there it was nonetheless .
i sat there watching this marshmallow of a movie unfold when suddenly i realized what is so ridiculously wrong with the entire romantic comedy genre circa 1999 .
in a word , it 's the same thing that 's wrong with so many movies circa 1999 : writing .
more to the point , it 's the refusal to acknowledge that characterizations matter when you 're telling a story about a relationship .
the bachelor is merely the latest in a long line of films where we 're expected to get dewy - eyed over any pairing of attractive , pleasant people just because they 're attractive and pleasant .
in this particular case , attractive and pleasant exhibit a is jimmy shannon ( chris o'donnell ) , a single guy who has been watching his friends slowly but surely sucked into marriage .
it 's a scary notion for jimmy , even though he dearly loves attractive and pleasant exhibit b anne ( renee zellweger ) , his girlfriend of three years .
convinced despite his reservations that it 's time to " sh
* t or get off the pot , " jimmy proposes to anne -- very badly .
anne refuses , which leaves jimmy in a very odd position when his eccentric grandfather ( peter ustinov ) dies and leaves a very specific video will .
jimmy stands to inhereit $ 100 million if he is married by 6
: 05 p .
m .
on his 30th birthday , stays married for 10 years and produces a child .
there are only a couple of minor problems : 1 ) jimmy 's 30th birthday is the next day ; 2 ) anne is nowhere to be found , meaning jimmy has to find another willing bride from among his many ex - girlfriends .
it 's a wacky , brewster 's millions - esque premise ( acknowledged as such in one of the film 's better , more self - aware lines of dialogue ) , the kind where a shallow and materialistic guy learns what really matters .
at least that would be the case if jimmy were n't already a world - class altruist .
screenwriter steve cohen slides into the story an even more draconian condition in the will : if jimmy does n't get married , not only will he lose all the money , but the family billiard table buisness will be sold out from under him , costing hudreds of jobs .
from the outset , jimmy 's motivation is n't cash ; it 's the livelihoods of his devoted employees .
it 's almost embarrassing for his marital misgivings to play a role in the bachelor 's plot development .
by any human standard , the guy is impossibly selfless .
and that 's the essence of the gutlessness endemic to films like the bachelor --
the fear of giving the characters flaws to overcome on their way to happiness .
there 's never any tension between the two star - crossed lovers , because there 's no sense that anything remotely significant is at stake .
the blandly nice o'donnell could n't pull off a randy cad if he tried , so the filmmakers do n't even let him ; zellweger 's anne may have issues with her sickeningly affectionate parents as an impossible standard to live up to , but no one dares make her anything but the woman ( lightly ) wronged . and forget about seeing enough of jimmy and anne together to feel invested in their potential reconciliation .
the parade of sit - com set pieces had better be damned funny , since they 're all that stands between us and a blissfully sweet foregone conclusion .
i 'll admit a couple of those set pieces are amusing , including ustinov 's rantings about procreation and a restaurant full - to - bursting with men popping questions and champagne corks .
far more of them are either tedious or downright ghastly
, like the shudder - inducing sight of brooke shields as an icy fortune - hunter or the hideous collection of stereotypes when hundreds of potential brides gather in a church .
you 're never going to get too many raucous belly laughs from a film like the bachelor , but that 's not the real problem .
nor is it the real problem that you know exactly the kind of warm - n - fuzzy conclusion it 's leading up to .
the problem are a beginning and middle that are equally warm - n - fuzzy --
there 's no spark , no energy , no humanity .
it 's an emotional pudding guaranteed not to offend any consumer 's digestions .
we 've reached a point where our proxies for cinematic romantic wish fulfillment do n't even have a pulse .
the bachelor is love among the mannequins .

Answer: N

Question: well , i know that stallone is 50 years old now , but in daylight he does n't look it !
daylight is a great disaster movie . if you 've seen cliffhanger , you 'll know stallone 's character already .
a guy with a bad past , but is in the right place at the wrong time .
a tunnel connecting new york and new jersey has both sides collapses when a group of robbers collide with a truck carrying * very * flammable toxic waste .
a dozen or so people survive the collapses and the incinerating fireball ( and what a fire ball it was ! )
stallone , a former emergency medical service man , is chauffeuring a rich couple around , when they reach the outside of the tunnel , before the explosion .
then , 30 minutes into the movie , boom !
>
from here on , the plot takes a back seat , and we are treated to some of the best camera work and action staged .
most all the action is plausible and will hold you at the edge of your seat .
there are a few melodramatic parts here , but , they tend to work out well .
there is no general antagonist in this film , but the action and suspense makes you forget all about that .
daylight is a great film
, i saw a non - matinee showing of it , and i thought it was worth every penny .
the characterizations are mostly flat , one dimesional , but they have enough in them to get you to care for some of the characters .
rob cohen ( dragonheart )
does a great job with this film .

Answer: P

Question: 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 .

Answer:
P