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

miramax " disinvited " on - line media from press screenings of scream 3 .
they ostensibly feared that folks like me would write spoiler - filled reviews and post them prior to the film 's february 4th release date - unsound reasoning .
you see , ' net critics established enough to be on any sort of vip list are
professionals - miramax surely knows the difference between a member of the on - line film critics society ( ofcs ) and the type of fanboy who posts spy reports at ai n't it cool news .
no , the ? mini major ' was afraid we 'd let a bigger cat out of the bag than whodunit , that scream 3 is a dismal conclusion to the beloved ( by this writer , at least ) franchise .
something smells rotten in the state of california right from the get - go
:
cotton weary ( liev schrieber ) , the former lover and would - be killer of maureen prescott , sidney 's mother , is juggling phone calls in his luxury car .
( once considered a danger to society , weary now hosts his own talk show , " 100 % cotton " , a clever , if dated , jab at american pop culture . )
of course , a new ghostface dials him up , and , with memories of scream 's unbearably suspenseful prologue in mind , we immediately wonder , where is the killer ?
the backseat ?
the next car ?
thrilling prospects , to be sure , but actually , ghostface is at the weary residence , waiting for cotton 's girlfriend ( kelly rutheford ) to finishing showering .
what 's missing from this sequence , and indeed scream 3 's remaining frights ( most disappointingly , the moment when an ingenue is forced to hide in a wardrobe room filled with ghostface costumes , one of which might spring to life ) , is an elaborate and attenuated payoff .
our other surviving regulars have become estranged .
sidney ( campbell ) is living a paranoid existence of electronic gates and password - protected locks , while dewey ( arquette ) acts as technical advisor on the second sequel to scream 2 's movie - within - a - movie , " stab 3 " , and gale weathers ( cox arquette ) headlines a gossipy news program .
murder reunites them , as knife - wielding ghostface stalks the set of " stab 3 " , imitating its sadistic screenplay - and his / her / their own personal draft climaxes with sidney 's death .
the appeal of ghostface 's villainy is that he /
she
/ they could be your boyfriend , your classmate , your next door neighbour . . . or a combination of people .
scream was the first of its kind : a slasher mystery , with the guessing game not only entailing who will be next , but also who is /
are the perpetrator ( s ) and
what is / are his / her / their motive .
ironic self - reflection aside
, parts one and two stand out in a crowd that includes umpteen friday the 13th and halloween flicks because there 's at last articulate human beings behind the iconic costume .
with scream 3 , the novelty of ghostface 's ever - mutating identity has worn off some , but the character remains conceptually potent .
conceptually .
the execution of ghostface 's master plan this time around is creaky , because screenwriter ehren kruger has invented a new mythology for the world of sidney prescott far afield from what we 'd come to understand in scream and scream 2 .
the movie gets in the silly habit of saying " all bets are off ! " in reference to the " rules " of a trilogy 's third act , but there 's a difference between rule breaking and cheating .
with the departure of kevin williamson , who authored the previous screams as well as a tidy outline for scream 3 ( that , for reasons incomprehensible to me , was ignored , save the notion of " stab 3 " ) , kruger needed to be reined in tighter , and by wes craven .
craven 's direction of scream 3 is lazy in most respects .
how else to explain the jay and silent bob cameo ( the slacker duo of kevin smith movies ) , akin to seeing mickey mouse pop up in mulan and more distracting than funny .
it pains me to write this , but scream 3 's comedy is generally laughless , with the exception of well - timed performances by josh pais ( as a police detective possessed of the same personality he had as a persnickety teacher in craven 's music of the heart ) , jamie kennedy ( resurrecting film geek randy for the sendoff he was denied in scream 2 ) , and parker posey ( through sheer force of will as a b - actress ) .
the visuals are much weaker in part three , as well - the occasional sweeping gesture of peter deming 's camera is a pale imitation of the stalking steadicam craven gave us twice before .
( aside : in the wake of columbine , craven toned down the violence significantly for scream 3-why the sanctimony , when scream and scream 2 are still readily available on video store shelves ? )
finally , marco beltrami 's music cues the suspense too blatantly
- do you recall the tense chase at the college radio station in scream 2 ?
it 's mostly silent .
sting notes are a whole lot more effective if they spring from nowhere ; here ,
they act as the crescendos of an incessantly nerve - jangling score .
i look at scream 3 as coming from an alternative universe , the same place that birthed the godfather part iii and superman
iii - woefully out of synch with its prequels , scream 3 is a nightmare instead of nightmarish , and will likely put the horror genre back in mothballs .
the film unintentionally follows the unspoken rule of a trilogy to a t : ?
part three must disappoint ' .
N

warning : spoilers are included in this review . . .
but it does n't really make much of a difference .
deep impact begins the official summer movie season , and it also brings back memories of 1997 .
remember when dante 's peak came out in february ?
a few months later , volcano was released .
the first film was smart , exhilirating , and one of the best disaster films i had ever seen .
the latter film was an incohesive mess that defied logic and wasted talent .
well , it 's deja vu all over again as two disaster films go head to head in competition .
this time , unfortunately , the first comet flick is so bad that people may shy away from armageddon , the upcoming comet - disaster to be released the beginning of july .
of course , the general reaction of the audience was oppposed to mine , and so i am in the minority , as i was when i stood on the side of dante 's peak .
but while watching deep impact , i began to wonder how anyone in their right mind could actually like this film .
apparently many did , and it utterly baffles me . to be completely honest , i have n't had this little fun watching a disaster film in my entire life .
volcano had implausibilities up the wazoo , but it was still rather fun to watch .
deep impact does n't just have implausibilities , it also contains cheap human drama , incredibly horrible special effects , and a poorly constructed plot .
the only thing that gives it a half star above my bottom ranking is a slightly entertaining final fifteen minutes and some good actors making the most of their characters .
deep impact begins in an unnamed year ( the year varies ; advanced technology sets it in the future , but fire in the sky is showing on a local movie theater , pushing it back to 1993 ) .
a line of students is outside at night , peering through telescopes at the dark sky above .
among these are leo biederman ( elijah wood ) and sarah hotchner ( leelee sobieski ) .
leo unknowingly discovers a comet , and his teacher sends a photo of the unknown object to an astronomer , who then is able to determine the correct path of this distant comet in about a few seconds .
he races off to mail the information , but is killed in a reckless car accident .
a year passes , and nothing is heard about it again .
we are then introduced to jenny lerner ( t ? a leoni ) , a reporter for msnbc .
she gets handed a job to investigate a possible cover - up in the government involving senator alan rittenhouse ( james cromwell ) .
she talks to a woman who mentions that rittenhouse was having an affair with a girl named ellie .
after talking with rittenhouse , and unsatisfied with the information she gets , she decides to use the internet for help .
luckily , she knows exactly how to spell the certain " ellie " that she is looking for ( they spell it ele in the film . . .
that girl is pretty darn smart for guessing how it was spelled ) . before she can use the information , the government decides to push her car off the road .
they take her in to meet the president of the united states , president beck ( morgan freeman ) .
beck recommends that jenny keep the information secret for 48 hours so they can confirm it and then hold a press conference .
naturally , she wants to be compensated , and they offer her a front row seat and the chance for the first question .
and so , yada yada yada
, they reveal the comet to the public and their plans : send a massive spacecraft out to destroy it before it can arrive .
they announce a plan called " ark , " which is their only hope for survival .
a computer will select 800 , 000 people at random .
these people are the ones who will go into a large cave underground so that the impact of the comet wo n't kill off the entire human race .
after two years , the dust will settle ( actually , it would take much , much longer -- approximately ninety years , from what i understand ) and the humans could come back to the surface and start over .
the rest of the plot is your standard disaster film procedures , but there is one subplot worth mentioning .
jenny and her father , jason ( maximilian schell ) , have a very touching relationship that forms out of the impending doom .
the final moment involving the two characters is heartfelt and emotional .
it 's a shame that nothing else is heartfelt .
now , of course , we all know that the comet does impact the surface .
the title alone suggests it , and the previews actually show it !
by doing this , absoltuely no tension can be drawn from any attempt to stop the comet because we all know that it wo n't work .
director mimi leder came from her successful tries at direction with episodes of the hit television show " er .
" her major film debut was the peacemaker , a pathetic and heartless action film .
well , this time leder outdid herself , creating a film worse than that one .
suggestion to ms .
leder : please , stay away from the big screen , or at least the action genre .
much of the blame can be placed on leder directly , because the pace is disastrously off
.
throughout the film we are given subtitles that tell us how much time has passed ( it goes from months to weeks to hours ) .
it literally feels like this lapsed time is taking place in real - time --
it 's that boring
.
of course , leder is n't all to blame for it .
screenwriters michael tolkin and bruce joel rubin have crafted a simplistic story that only gets worse with time .
what starts out promising soon turns deadly ( for the audience anyway ) .
chock full of cheesy one liners
( " you know , you are going to have more sex than anyone else in school ! " ) and
stupid characters
, you might think we were back in the 70s again .
only one of the subplots is remotely interesting , while the rest are forgettable and boring
.
and the main plot is so outrageous that you ca n't figure out if this film is supposed to be an action , drama , or sci - fi .
to put it simply : the special effects of this film are a hit and miss situation .
that 's right , 80 % miss , and 20 % hit .
scenes above the earth are well done , and the orbiting ship is majestic .
but the comet is a huge mistake , making it more laughable than frightening .
the concept of even trying to land on a comet is preposterous enough , but that 's forgiveable .
what is n't forgiveable is actually having humans walk on the surface .
give me a break , will ya ?
and of course , the much hyped collision of comet and earth .
well , it is far from spectacular , and it makes independence day look brilliant .
the water rushing towards the land is effective , but once it hits the continent , the effects turn ridiculous .
cgi water is used , and it looks so bad that i heard more laughs from the audience than shrieks
.
in fact , i may even recommend the film for those who want to see how bad effects can actually get these days .
just when we think visual effects ca n't be improved , along comes a film to show that they really can and should be .
one thing has struck a wrong note with me concerning mimi leder 's direction , which also influences the actors .
leder loves to show the actors ' faces before and during moments of terror .
this reminded me of another action director , renny harlin ( die hard 2 , cliffhanger ) .
but harlin succeeds because he shows the faces of the victims in realistic situations .
leder likes to flaunt people 's fears via their faces , but instead of coming off as sympathetic , leder seems more of a sadist .
one moment has an astronaut flying off into space .
this should be enough to warrant a response from the audience , but leder wants to go farther and shows us the person 's face while drifting into space .
this is one of the cheapest ways to ellicit an emotional response from an audience , and i , for one , am not going to be fooled .
on another note , leder 's film only picks up its pace during the last fifteen minutes when the comet actually impacts .
the pace does pick up , and some very emotional moments are shown .
then again , when you watch people cry for their loved ones , it 's obvious it will be emotional .
it 's mostly just a big trick to rope viewers into " feeling " for the characters , but it did n't work for me .
but anyway , the actors do as much as they can with what they are given .
t ?
a leoni ( bad boys , tv 's " the naked truth " ) is the best of the film , and she is given the meatiest role .
her character is made stronger by leoni 's presence , and we grow to care for her .
robert duvall is energetic and fun to watch , but his character is turned into shreds by the plot .
elijah wood also comes off rather successfully , but he still has n't had many good roles ( wood , stick to drama !
you are too talented for this stuff ) .
vanessa redgrave is barely acknowledgeable , and her performance is only enhanced by her strong presence on screen .
maximilian schell is distracting , but he does provide some nice humor .
morgan freeman has been infinitely better than this , and gives one of his most shallow performances to date ( which is quite remarkable for him ) .
leelee sobieski could have been better , but i think she just suffered from a poorly written character .
a special note should go to ron eldard and denise crosby .
eldard is good in his role , but is limited by the plot .
crosby is special to me personally because she was tasha yar from tv 's " star trek : the next generation .
" seeing her was one of the highlights of the film .
overall , a very talented cast virtually wasted .
deep impact is rated pg-13 for disaster related elements and brief language .
this is one of the worst films of the year , and if it is any omen of things to come , this summer could be one of the worst ever .
luckily , the x - files movie is coming up , and hopefully armageddon will be more successful .
it 's a shame that this film will do so successfully because it just is n't worth much .
costing nearly $ 75 million , with special effects done by the illustrious ilm ( which is a huge shocker ) , and with a score composed by oscar - winner james horner ( titanic ) , one might have expected this to be more fun to witness and experience .
well , it 's not .
when the comet does hit the earth , you almost wish it could just take this film along with it .
N

warning : this review contains some spoilers for the 1964 film " fail - safe .
" if you have n't seen the film yet , proceed with caution .
nutshell : a relevant , intelligent , suspenseful drama .
still powerful today , even after the end of the cold war .
-------------------- " fail - safe
" ( usa , 1964 ) drama , 111 minutes screenplay by walter bernstein based on the novel by eugene burdick and harvey wheeler produced by max e . youngstein directed by sidney lumet review by jamahl epsicokhan -------------------- the most ironic aspect of nuclear war is that it does n't have a winning side and a losing side .
in a nuclear confrontation , everybody loses , and the aftereffects have devastating effects that impact the entire world -- assuming the world survives .
the idea -- and perhaps the only real option -- is to avoid war at all costs .
this is the theme of sidney lumet 's " fail - safe , " a fictional drama based on the novel by eugene burdick and harvey wheeler .
" fail - safe " takes place during the heart of the cold war ( the actual film was released two years after the cuban missile crisis ) , when the united states and the soviet union were in static discord over an issue that can be summarized in a single word : communism .
the premise centers around a combination of accidents and operation flaws .
five u . s .
bombers carrying nuclear warheads are ordered to set a routine course for moscow after an unidentified aircraft is spotted heading toward america .
the unidentified aircraft turns out to be a commercial airliner , but a mechanical failure strikes the military base that commands the bombers .
suddenly out of contact , and with standing orders to remain on course until receiving new directives , the bomber pilots can not be recalled , and they proceed to moscow with the intention of destroying it with a nuclear strike .
a great deal of " fail - safe " 's plot follows various characters as they attempt to devise ways of stopping the u . s .
bombers from reaching russia 's borders -- at any cost .
the plot is compelling , and the story creates urgency and dread by painting the grimmest of worst case scenarios .
the reality sets in quickly as one attempt to turn the bombers after another fails .
general bogan ( frank overton ) , taking orders directly from the president of the united states himself ( henry fonda ) , is powerless -- the fate of the world lies in the hands of an automated , pre - programmed system that may not be stoppable , simply because the creators of the war machines were too efficient in their task to make a no - win situation winnable .
the events in " fail - safe " are fascinating because they 're anything but predictable , but the real reason " fail - safe " works is because it understands more about nuclear war than what exists within the confines of its plot .
a key ingredient to the film is its ability to create an ongoing polemic about nuclear war , communism , the cold war , and the united states ' role in all of it .
most of this is through the film 's use of the character groeteschele ( walter matthau ) , an arrogant civilian theorist of nuclear weapons use who , incidentally , is on the president 's advising staff for analyzing the statistical plausibility of waging a nuclear war .
many of the film 's most pointed messages arise from discussions where groeteschele is one of the key voices .
early in the film , he hosts a dinner party where he explains the importance of " strategy " in a nuclear assault to " minimize " casualties .
"
what 's the difference between 60 million and 100 million dead ? " a guest asks impatiently .
" forty million , " groeteschele responds wryly .
the problem with groeteschele 's mindset is that he * believes * nuclear combat to be a viable method of war .
the only difference to him between nuclear armageddon and conventional warfare is the raw data and the casualty totals .
groeteschele realizes that these weapons can destroy the world several times over .
yet his answer to the arms race is not to slow down and try to cool the situation off , as general black ( dan o'herlihy ) has often recommended .
on the contrary -- according to groeteschele , that would lead to russia having * more * nuclear weapons than the u . s . , which would clearly put america at a disadvantage .
such a stance was perhaps the central paradox and misguided practice of the arms race .
"
fail - safe " clearly sees it as one of the central issues of the cold war , and , likewise , it becomes a central theme in the film .
why continue to build such machines of mass destruction while already possessing enough of them to destroy the world several times over ?
is it wise ?
is it even logical ?
no , not really .
although " fail - safe " is more about the issue of nuclear weapons than it is about the political ramifications of communism , there is a scene in the film that deals with communism in an intentionally superficial , one - sided sort of way .
again , this is achieved through groeteschele , who is easily the film 's most important character in terms of the larger - theme significance .
in addition to providing the central " pro - nuclear war " voice that the film warns against , he also makes key remarks about communists that show just how much fear and resentment people of the period were prone to when it came to communism .
the context the film uses suggests that this hatred was often glib .
one of groeteschele 's " logical " trains of thought ventures so far into fantasy theoretical prediction that it 's merely absurd .
he labels the average marxist an " unfeeling , calculating machine " that will do whatever it takes to preserve itself .
groeteschele takes it so far as to say that if the u . s . drops the warhead on moscow , the soviets will * instantly * surrender , for to retaliate would invite counter - measures that would further destroy russia 's home soil -- which must be preserved at all costs .
groeteschele seems to forget these people are human beings with emotions ; general black quickly reminds him that the soviets would attack out of revenge -- as any normal person would .
the irony here is groeteschele 's own mechanical theorizing .
he is so quick to judge the enemy that he does n't even realize his own seemingly programmed thought patterns .
once the film makes it evident that turning the u . s .
bombers will be impossible , the question becomes what the * consequences * of destroying moscow will be .
just how will the soviet union 's leader react , and what can the president do to convey his best intentions ?
( just * how * does one pass off the deaths of millions of people as an * mishap * ? ) with the help of his translator buck ( larry hagman ) , the president negotiates at length with the soviet leader , in scenes that prove amazingly taut and powerful in their simplicity , with lumet 's long takes of fonda and hagman in the same frame , exchanging the dialog between the president and the soviet leader . without getting into too much detail , i will say that the compromise they ultimately reach is very costly , yet necessary and as sensible as possible under the circumstances .
( that is , as sensible as a nuclear " incident " can probably be . )
it does accomplish what it must : it avoids an all - out war , something that simply is n't possible because of its all - too - real consequences .
dramatically , the ending is quite powerful , and the use of o'herlihy 's character as the symbolic " matador " ( providing a bookend to the film by ending the story while tying into his dream sequence from the film 's opening ) , is particularly appropriate .
"
fail - safe " is a production of a major hollywood studio ( released by columbia pictures ) , and it has the structure of a high - tension suspense thriller that one might expect from a hollywood film .
nevertheless , under lumet 's direction and walter bernstein 's intelligent adaptation of burdick 's and wheeler 's novel , the film continues to have a lasting effect even after the events on screen have unfolded .
the film often warns that the automation of war is something that may make nuclear holocaust an unintentional consequence of such mass arming .
but it was the conscious , human choice to * initialize * this automatic arming that " fail - safe " also finds dangerous .
in retrospect , the arms race seems to be one of the most puzzling exercises in futility of the century .
it 's just fortunate that both sides were finally able to come to their senses and slow down , rather than continuing groeteschele 's dangerous approach of speeding up and causing a possible meltdown .
P