instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
it 's a curious thing - i 've found that when willis is not called on to carry the whole movie , he 's much better and so is the movie .
even though , in the sixth sense he is the " name " , he does n't have the pivotal role .
that honour goes to haley osment who plays cole sear ( cute pun , seer ) a 9 year old boy who can see ghosts .
if osment was cute or precious , the director going for the maudlin , this would be nothing more than a movie - of - the - week , thankfully , osment is not only better than that , but in some instances , blows everyone else off the screen in a bravura performance .
we get to see his fears , vulnerabilities , strengths and intelligence which makes the sixth sense one of the best movies i 've seen this year .
the whole cast matches him in quality , with willis giving a fairly low key performance that matches the subject matter .
one thing about this movie , its target .
this is n't a sfxfest like the haunting or a gorefest , this is more what i 'd call a supernatural drama , more interested in characters than in dazzling you with makeup .
one caveat :
there 's a lovely twist in the movie , something like the usual suspects , where you end up replaying the movie in your head rethinking what you have just seen .
i was extremely lucky to see it as a sneak preview in toronto , before any hype or critical reviews were out , so i went in with no biases .
if anyone want to talk to about the movie before you see it , do n't let them .
let the director explain on his own pace and you 'll enjoy the movie vastly more .
answer:
P

question:
i can hear the question already .
what on earth do these two movies have in common ?
to most people , not a lot , except that both are by renowned directors .
as i saw them , however , both movies have flawed romantic scripts wrapped in distinctive packaging of lavish visuals musical numbers .
but oh , how differently the packages affect their films .
while " everyone 's " production numbers make an otherwise ordinary woody tale something special , jane campion 's imaginative visuals only serve to emphasize how pompous and uninvolving laura jones ' script is .
i left " everyone says i love you " not remembering a lot about who loved whom , but its infectious happiness put a grin on my face .
i left " the portrait of a lady " not remembering a lot about who loved whom , and i could have cared less .
" everyone " features nothing allen has n't done before storywise .
woody is again desperately in love with a beautiful woman ( roberts ) , and against the odds they manage to click for awhile before allen is left wondering what went wrong -- again .
similar situations happen to his family and friends .
some of the more outlandish comedy scenes even hark back to his " early , funny " films .
the scenes between tim roth and drew barrymore could have come out of " take the money and run , " his directorial debut .
however , nothing allen has ever done prepared me for this one - of - a - kind display of sheer good spirits .
in fact , in this movie , the feeling itself is what 's most important .
yes , the movie would have been better -- among his very best , i think -- if it had a meatier story .
but what it lacks in substance it makes up for in feeling .
and what better way to express feeling than through music ?
love is often best expressed in a song , and the numbers the cast break into here cut straight to the heart .
some are a tad too goofy , such as the number where a lot of ghosts prance around in a funeral parlor ,
but i admired allen for even putting them in there .
it also helps that as usual , allen has a top - flight cast working with him .
their singing voices range from quite good ( goldie hawn ) to not quite good ( allen ) to literally unlistenable ( barrymore , whose real voice was dubbed by a professional ) .
but while their vocal abilities differ , all the actors do a great job of putting joy up there on the screen , and making it rub off on the audience .
granted , some people will simply never accept characters singing in movies , but for those attuned to it , this film should work wonders .
jane campion , too , has a top - flight cast working for her in " portrait of a lady , " too , but even their considerable skills can do nothing to keep the film from being a stilted , virtually lifeless mess ,
albeit a visually interesting one . campion and her cinematographer stuart dryburgh come up with a great variety of eye - filling images that linger in the mind .
unfortunately , what did n't linger in the mind for me
was the story the visuals were supposed to be reflecting .
i remember very well shots of a train with its light beaming and shots of men vanishing around nicole kidman , but i can remember very little of what happened between all these people .
even worse , i do n't find myself feeling bad that i 've forgotten .
the problem , i think , lies not with the cast , which seemed to be trying very hard for the material .
it was the script that could n't convince me to care about anyone .
the characters were putting out all kinds of emotion , but i found no reason to connect with any of them .
i understood that the story was about cold , emotionally vacant characters , but for me to care about them , i have to identify with them somehow and want them to inject feeling into their lives .
jones ' script never simply gave me that opportunity .
in the end , it almost seemed as if campion was trying to inject some life of her own into the proceedings with her visual flourishes . unfortunately , as she kept painting these dazzling pictures , they only served to push me further away from the material and remind me that there was no connection between me and the film .
in the end , the movie 's one strength ended up hurting it .
so here we have two films with pretty uninteresting plots , and
yet i was able to truly enjoy one of them .
why ?
with both films , my head cared about neither story , but
only " everyone says i love you " was able to make my heart sing .
answer:
P

question:
as bad as " mimic " was , it definitly scared me .
" mimic " continued the frightening hollywood trend of taking a foreign director who shows a lot of creative ingenuity and style , and completely flushing it when he comes to america to make a movie .
director guillermo del toro was recently imported from mexico after he made the award winning and inventive horror film " cronos .
" that movie worked because it took an unconventional story , unique characters and well written plot and dialogue to create a truly scary movie .
in " mimic " , del toro does n't bother to give us anything original .
the plot is a stupid combination of " aliens " meets " species " meets " jurassic park .
"
the characters have been recycled from a few hundred other movies .
there 's nothing new in " mimic " .
it 's just a bunch of old tricks that rarely work .
at the end of the movie , you 're stuck wanting your money back .
maybe the worst thing about the movie is that del toro followed another annoying trend of recent movies
: he forgot to turn the lights on .
i do n't understand why suspense movies lately have to follow the " seven " trend and be set in dark , dank areas .
watching " mimic " i was tempted several times to yell at the screen " turn the lights on !
the switch is to your right !
use common sense !
just do it !
you 'll be able to see the monster in the corner !
"
there 's a scene where mira sorvino is standing in subway station while the lights are flickering on and off .
it looked like the light operator was having a seizure , and sorvino did n't even notice - she just stood there looking like she was having deep thoughts .
" hmmm . . . .
i think bean soup would be good for dinner tonight . "
" mimic " has a lot of incidental shock tactics ( boo !
just kidding ! ) and follows them up with the real scare , but nothing in this movie scares you .
the audience in the theater never jumped during suspenseful moments ; i think they were bored , too .
i should n't blame del toro .
he is n't the first successful foreign director to come to hollywood and make a bad movie .
hong kong director john woo made two of the best action films of all time , " the killer " and " hard boiled " then came to america to make the stupid " broken arrow .
" french directors luc besson ( " la femme nikita " ) and george sluizer ( " the vanishing " ) followed woo 's lead and made dumbed down versions of those movies .
robert rodriguez , who directed the terrific low budget
" el mariachi " came to hollywood and directed the horrible , high - budget " desperado .
"
i do n't know why a foreign director who shows such talent in his country ca n't make a good american movie .
woo finally broke through and made " face / off " , but it still is n't up to par with his earlier films .
i get the feeling a hollywood producer sits in his office , chews on a big smelly cigar and says to the director , " welcome to america !
i bet you must be tired after being on that boat for so long .
do you speak english ?
now , i know you think you 've made good movies in the past , but now you 're in america , so things are a little different here .
just remember what the american audience always wants , and you 'll be fine .
they want to see at least one big breasted woman , characters that they 've seen a thousand times before
( because change scares americans ) , and you always need a cheesy feel - good ending to wrap things up . if you do n't make that kind of movie , you 'll be shining my shoes in no time . "
answer:
N