instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
disaster films have a tendency to be very formulated and very cliched .
to see a disaster film with actual originality , or at least a decent plot twist , would definitely be a welcome surprise .
unfortunately , folks , it 's not likely .
dante 's peak is cliched , and at times corny , but also pretty decent . to be honest , i was n't very interested in seeing this film , and word of mouth , as well as several reviews , did n't make it sound promising .
so
i was pleasantly surprised that to find that this movie was n't bad at all .
it 's pretty run of the mill , but it 's not something i would say is merely " ok " to watch .
in case you do n't know , dante 's peak is about a volcano and the city which lives in it 's shadow , dante 's peak ( who would 've guessed , eh ? ) .
pierce brosnan plays the volcanologist sent to study the volcano and , perhaps more by hunch than actual scientific proof , is determined that the volcano will be arupting in the very near future .
due to the lack of more substantial evidence , nobody warns the small town , and when they finally do , it 's in the middle of the town meeting that the volcano finally blows .
brosnan , all around good guy , will , of course , save the day .
. .
or at least the mayor of dante 's peak ( linda hamilton ) .
naturally the two will become infatuated with one another .
( if you think i just ruined a plot development , you have n't seen very many movies ! )
there 's also the virtually neccessary kids and pet dog to tug at your heart strings .
and of course , the kids or the dog ( at least one or the other ) will do something heroic . . .
but hey , i do n't want to ruin all the surprises !
if there was a part of you that was hesitating seeing dante 's peak merely because it was rumored to be a waste of time ,
i urge you to watch it and decide for yourself .
it 's not brain food , but it succeeds at what it 's meant to be . . .
an enjoyable , suspenseful movie about the fury mother nature can unleash !
answer:
P

question:
the swooping shots across darkened rooftops suggest a very tim burton movie , but , alas , no caped crusader descends to save * this * film
.
instead , it 's a skeletal housemaid ( julia roberts ) who must bear witness to this unfortunate retelling of " dr .
jekyll and mr .
hyde .
" for a few , fleeting , maddening moments , director stephen frears ( dangerous liaisons ) gets everything
just right-- the tone , the colors , the characters ; all the ingredients to make a most - powerful potion out of valerie martin 's best - selling novel .
yet it fizzles too quickly ; the volatile mixture losing potency from the very first scene .
casting is a large part of the problem .
the story all but collap- ses around ms .
roberts--
she does n't have the range for this kind of drama .
her accent also comes and goes , though it 's nowhere near as glaring as the total lack of chemistry between her and co - star john malkovich .
( he looks the same in both of his roles-- an incredible fact that 's missed by everyone in the story ! )
the very british supporting cast-- including michael gambon and george cole-- gives credibility to the smaller parts .
glenn close also appears as a madam that the good doctor calls upon .
her performance is as close to intentional camp as the movie ever gets and-- as a bonus-- offers a likely peek at her upcoming cruella de ville in the live - action 101 dalmantions .
the biggest botch in mary reilly is suspense : there is none .
no terror , no tension ; nothing .
without any weight , wit , or wonder to propel the story , the viewer is left with little more to do than pay attention to the period detail , a few buckets of blood , and stuart craig 's fabulously dreary production design .
all of which gets old after about an hour , at which point i recommend leaving .
( the pacing in the second - half is especially abominable .
if you * do * stick it through , your sole reward is a half - hokey special effect depicting the infamous transformation . )
mr .
frears reportedly recut his film several times , missing several release dates in the process .
( obviously , no one advised him to throw up his hands and just turn the whole damned thing over to mel brooks .
blucher ! )
mary reilly is the second robert louis stevenson story of the month , after muppet treasure island .
perhaps mr .
frears should consult with brian henson on future projects .
i daresay that
even ms .
piggy is a better choice for a certain roles than julia roberts .
and she does have a great chop !
answer:
N

question:
writing a screenplay for a thriller is hard .
harder than pouring concrete under the texas sun . harder than building a bridge over troubled waters . and incidentally , a whole heck of a lot harder than writing a movie review .
thrillers are all variations on a theme .
you have a smart , resourceful , and powerful bad guy , who has a goal he has to meet .
you have a noble and brave good guy , who has to protect the innocent , kill the bad guy , and not get killed himself in the process .
the trick of thriller writing is doing all of this in an interesting and novel manner .
this simple formula can lead to classic movies like north by northwest , high noon , or silence of the lambs , or big summer blockbusters like men in black , the fugitive , or air force one , or it can lead to utter dreck like masterminds , event horizon , kull the conqueror .
.. . is anyone else getting depressed here ?
point is , it 's not enough to follow the formula .
you 've got to throw in something extra , something good and new and better than the last version .
something to surprise and move all of us people who buy the tickets and the popcorn and the happy meals .
this is a hard thing to do , but it is absolutely necessary in every way .
without that something extra -- whether it 's a great plot or a well - written screenplay , or great special effects or great locations or great casting or great performances or great big hungry dinosaurs -- the movie fails .
that 's why the jackal , with all its starpower , with all its budget , with all its hype , gets a big fat f. bruce willis is the bad guy , the jackal , a legendary killer for hire .
richard gere is the good guy , a former ira assassin with a vendetta against the jackal .
the jackal is trying to kill someone .
gere is trying to stop him .
will gere be able to stop the assassination in time and kill the jackal ?
( i 'll give you three guesses , and the first two do n't count . )
there are no surprises awaiting the audience in the jackal , no moment when you say to yourself , " i wonder what happens next ?
"
the script for the jackal is n't ripped straight from today 's headlines .
it 's ripped off , straight from an episode of millennium .
throughout the movie , we learn what the jackal 's plans are and how he intends to accomplish them .
no surprise .
the fun of a movie like this should come from richard gere figuring out what the jackal 's plan is and developing a clever plan to foil the bad guy .
instead , we get two ( count 'em , two ) scenes where gere is sitting in an fbi conference room somewhere and instantly divines the jackal 's plan just as if he 's frank black ( or more likely , just as if he 's been handed a copy of the script ) .
and we never get more than a superficial clue as to why gere has had this flash of insight .
it 's like gere 's character is psychic , but neither he nor the fbi ( or the screenwriters ) seem to know it .
and just like in millennium , the bad guy has an overwhelming need to go after the people the good guy cares about , whether or not they are important to what he 's trying to do or not .
what 's more , in the last half of the movie , the jackal , supposedly a super - smart professional terrorist who never makes a mistake , comes down with a major case of the stupids .
as for the performances .
.. bruce willis manages to get through the whole movie without a wisecrack , which is a major achievement , but not enough reason to see the movie .
his disguises are good , but not as good or as interesting as val kilmer 's in the saint .
richard gere is made to talk the entire movie in an irish accent , which detracts from his otherwise lifeless and dull performance .
sidney poitier is probably the most disappointing element in a overwhelmingly disappointing movie -- not that his performance is bad or anything , it 's not , but it is sad that hollywood wo n't use this talented actor in any part other than an fbi agent ( shoot to kill , sneakers ) .
writing a good plot and a good screenplay , like i said , is hard , but it can be done .
it was n't done here .
it is our job as consumers to reward good screenplays and to denounce bad and uninteresting ones .
do not go see this movie .
you 'll only encourage the producers to make more just like it .
instead , stay home and rent day of the jackal , or in the line of fire , or a fire safety video , for crying out loud .
anything other than the jackal , which lives up to its name by gnawing the dead bones of other , better movies .
answer:
N