instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
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:
tom dicillo directs this superficial comedy about superficial people in superficial careers , all searching for deeper meaning .
however , they wo n't find much meaning in the real blonde , and not enough real humor , either .
joe ( matthew modine ) is a struggling actor , or he claims to be one , even though he has no credits under his belt .
his girlfriend , mary ( catherine keener ) has no pretensions about her career : she 's a makeup artist , working for the eccentric fashion photographer blair ( marlo thomas ) and supermodel of the month , sahara ( bridgette wilson ) .
sahara , who has acquired a new age spirituality from repeated viewing of the little mermaid , has an on - again , off - again relationship with joe 's best friend , bob ( maxwell caulfield ) .
however , bob has gotten his biggest break yet : a starring role on a soap opera opposite the beautiful kelly ( daryl hannah ) , who may be that illusive woman he 's always pursued : a real blonde .
there are some moments of good humor in the real blonde , but not enough .
the best stuff is in throwaway details in the background , such as sahara 's perfume ads : " depression -
it 's not just a state of mind " .
but to find humor in the superficiality of models and actors is to shoot fish in a barrel . and ,
unfortunately , the film 's forays outside the realm of comedy are pathetic .
take for example the film 's framing device of an old lady and her dog .
the story serves absolutely no purpose , makes little sense , and is completely tangential to the main plotlines of the movie .
matthew modine and catherine keener have the most sympathetic characters in the film , but they 're stuck in the most boring plotlines .
modine whines and complains and would be completely pathetic if he was matched against someone stronger than elizabeth berkley , who appears as another struggling actor .
keener 's character has a stronger edge , but the insult self - defense class ( taught by denis leary , no less ) she is stuck in makes little sense .
the movie 's running time is under two hours , but it seems like it is well over it .
there 's just not enough humor to speed things along , and not enough meaning to propel any drama .
answer:
N

question:
not since attending an ingmar bergman retrospective a few years ago have i seen a film as uncompromising in its portrayal of emotional truth as secrets & lies .
like bergman , director mike leigh is interested in probing his characters ' inner depths through hypernaturally blunt confrontations .
also like bergman , leigh engages in frequent closeups of his characters ' ravished and wracked faces . and the prominent mournfulness of a cello on the soundtrack recalls bergman 's own use of a bach cello suite in an earlier film .
all that is missing is a discussion of god .
which is not to say that secrets & lies is nothing more than an homage to the swedish master .
in fact , it is quite possible leigh had no such intentions in mind .
nonetheless , what we get is so far removed from the average moviegoing experience -- even from the reason we go to the movies in the first place -- that it takes some effort to adjust to the film 's rhythms .
once the adjustment is made , however , there are great rewards .
one such is the chance to see life on the screen as it really is .
though leigh may have adopted some of bergman 's stylistic touches , most obviously in an early scene of terse cross - cutting during a married couple 's strained conversation , as well as in that somewhat obtrusive score , the overall feeling of the film is that it eschews any " style " at all .
whereas bergman uses artifice as a tool to expose reality , leigh makes the camera a mere observer , almost as in a pbs documentary .
the effect of this is to focus all of your attention on the actors .
it is a tribute to everyone involved that , despite such scrutiny , only infrequently are we aware that anyone * is * acting .
much has been made of brenda blethyn 's performance , and rightly so , but it is only when you remind yourself that you are watching a fiction that you realize how good she is .
there are a few missteps .
for one , except for one scene ( tragicomic , as it happens ) , there is scant humor in the film .
this leads to a certain monotonous tone throughout .
and occasionally ( as with bergman ) the bluntness of the situations can seem forced .
for all that , this longish film manages to keep hold of your attention .
it is unfortunate that the audience for secrets & lies will most likely be limited to an intellectual elite , for there is nothing inherently intellectual about this film .
in fact , it might easily resonate more strongly for millions of working class filmgoers who will likely never see it .
there is even a sweet but significant irony in the film 's unspoken take on race relations , something an american audience at least would do well to observe .
nonetheless , secrets & lies is not for the faint of heart .
though there is nothing physically horrific to make one squeamish , the exploration of common human frailty can be so raw and unsparing that it is tempting to turn from the screen .
needless to say , it is also very depressing at times .
but for many of us , of course , so is life .
and though the film is too honest to tack on a phony happy ending , that same honesty allows it to admit that things can also get better .
answer:
P