instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
no filmmaker deconstructs a story as well as atom egoyan .
i 'm referring , specifically , to the narrative form .
in the sweet hereafter , egoyan tells his story in a similar framework to his exotica or the adjuster .
said story , of a fatal school bus accident in the small town of sam dent , british columbia , that shatters the morale of the locals , is told in a most unstraightforward manner .
when the film opens , the accident has already happened , and stephens ( the wonderful holm ) , a polite ambulance - chaser , has arrived with the promise of a lawsuit that will eek out the truth of what really occurred that fateful morning .
throughout , we get to meet the parents of the dead , broken souls who follow stephens like " the pied piper " ( passages of which are read during the film ) .
but there is one living passenger , the paralyzed nicole ( polley ) , whose dark secrets of a life before the accident may affect her decision to testify .
we finally do see the accident , about three quarters into the film , which is a stunning visual effect .
a horrific long take that shows the bus sliding , then stopping , then collapsing into a frozen lake , is the best digital trickery in any movie this year
and , perhaps , ever , in a motion picture .
the fractured narrative also intercuts a preoccupied stephens on an airplane , traveling to meet his hiv - positive runaway daughter , as well as glimpses of the artificially happy lives these people led pre - accident .
i have a problem not with the story or story structure , but with egoyan 's heavy- handedness behind the camera .
for the first hour or so , i can quite honestly say i was on the verge of tears ; these are miserable , miserable people .
but that 's just the problem : so anguished are these folk that sympathy wanes after a while , when a lot of sadness becomes too much .
also , a subplot involving incest rings untrue .
perhaps it would n't feel so contrived if it were n't shot in such a tasteful manner .
there are two characters who are father and daughter ; when they first appeared i thought they were lovers .
i was half - right .
nevertheless it 's worth - seeing .
the delightful critic geoff pevere recently wrote that " american films are about action , canadian films are about consequences , " hence a recent wave of films about the effects of shock and death from toronto directors , including crash and kissed .
the sweet hereafter is much better
than either of these two films , simply because it 's not boring
or , in the case of kissed , afraid of its own material ( necrophilia ) .
egoyan is a fine , fine , postmodern storyteller , whose work is entertaining , edgy and smart , if a bit too intellectual at times .
though i harped on the weightiness of the material ,
i was always absorbed , engrossed , and surprised by the sweet hereafter .
answer:
P

question:
what would inspire someone who can not write or act to pen and star in a movie ?
a better question , what would inspire a studio to produce said movie ? if you have an answer , let me know .
foolish , the new movie written by and starring master p is a jaw - droppingly horrible film , one with no redeeming value
socially , cinematically or otherwise .
comedically it has some potential , but only in its stand - up comedy moments , which i can turn on comedy central for .
master p stars as fifty dollah '
( beat that ! )
as a mobster ( i think ) who is trying to start a comedy club / act with his little brother foolish ( eddie griffin ) .
but the two of them have to deal with an angry mob boss ( played by andrew dice clay , for the very first time entertaining ) , a stubborn club owner and family problems ( the latter in foolish is a perfect example of roger ebert 's " idiot plot ,
" if everyone here was n't an idiot , there would be no problem ) so what does foolish have to offer beside a bunch of idiotic character names ?
not a hell of a lot .
as i have mentioned , master p can not act or write
.
he acts like the rapper that he is .
the occasional despair that his script requires him to exhibit is excruciatingly forced , as are his warm and fuzzy scenes with his little bro .
as for his script -- well , i suppose he delivers what one would expect from a musical artist with no previous screenwriting experience .
if you have n't yet figured it out , that is not saying much .
co - star eddie griffin ( really the star of the show ) is quite a different story .
the fact of the matter is that griffin , whose most significant screen outing to date is probably the mildly successful tv show malcolm and eddie on the fledgling upn network , is an extremely talented comedian , stand - up and otherwise .
he has much in common with chris tucker ( rush hour , money talks ) in how quickly and effortlessly his speech flows from his lips .
he spouts profanity with impressive dexterity ( to the extent which that can be done ) , and
while i hope that does not become his trademark it works in a few scenes in this movie .
and indeed , i laughed at a few stand - up scenes here , but from a feature - length movie i expect more .
foolish provided me with no reason to care for these characters .
every scene which has any potential for dramatic impact is effectively diffused by either a stupid joke ( in a scene where tension escalates between the two brothers , foolish blurts out towards his jewelry - sporting sibling " you lay one hand on me and this cemetary is going to be a gold rush " ) or something even more idiotic such as foolish smashing his own car ( to which i said , a bit too loudly for the occasion
" huh ?
" ) after getting slightly upset with his wife . believe me when i say that there is nothing in foolish that warrants parting with your hard - earned $ 8 .
you 'll get more laughs from watching 30 minutes of comedy central or any virtually any sitcom if you do n't have cable .
eddie griffin fans may enjoy this derivative ( although offensive ) yarn , but everyone else should stay the hell away . & # 137 ;
answer:
N

question:
synopsis : the president of a company wants to test his self - appointed successor , who 's psychotic , and thinks it 's a great idea to spend a week with him and their wives in an isolated cabin a hundred miles from civilization with no dependable transportation or means of communication after a heavy snowfall .
comments : tracks of a killer had a couple of strikes against it before i even began watching it .
strike one was the fact that someone had scrawled the word garbage on the videotape 's sticker in black marker
( not typically a good sign when you rent a film ) .
strike two came while the previews played .
did you ever get a sinking premonition about a movie 's quality ( or lack thereof ) while watching the trailers that come before it ?
well , the cheesy films being advertised before tracks of a killer were films that no one has ever heard of starring people no one knows , and they all looked bad ( definately not a good sign ) .
tracks of a killer itself completed the strikeout .
about the only positive thing this film had going for it was the fact that it sports some nice scenery .
to be fair , the first half - hour or so promises at least a watchable thriller .
wolf larson , who bears more than a passing resemblance to hugh grant , adequately plays the underling obviously set up as the killer of the film 's title .
james brolin and kelly lebrock seem equally adequate as the loving couple larson will later threaten .
brolin 's character , for some inexplicable reason , thinks its a great idea to spend some time in a cabin , practically isolated , with lebrock and larson , whom he 's decided to test for the week before giving him full control of his company .
by the time the characters arrive at the cabin , this film begins to become tedious .
apparently , brolin 's successor 's test involves chopping wood for the fireplace and skiing , which do n't seem like attributes necessary to run a business in the city .
but , then again , what do i know about business ?
i do think , though , that they should have invested in some better furniture for the cabin ; its beds and closets have a habit of just breaking at the slightest touch .
larson 's character accidently kills his own wife rather than the couple he wants to kill .
this leaves the movie with an hour to go and only three characters , which really is n't enough to sustain it .
the film 's writer must have taken a cue from stephen king , as scenes from tracks of a killer seem lifted out of misery and gerald 's game .
larson and lebrock fight and torture each other ( the tables get turned a couple of times ) while brolin tramps around in the snow looking for help .
some old guy 's around too
, just so the killer can add to his body count without killing the couple , who everyone knows will be alive at the end of the film .
the old guy , however , miraculously survives his first death and appears later to be killed again by the killer in a scene
so ludicrous it 's worthy of a chuckle or two
.
outside of that chuckle , unfortunately , tracks of a killer will just bore you as the obvious plot is drawn out ad infinitum and the actors , for some reason , become increasing obnoxious . if you 're in a video store and thinking about renting this turkey , do n't . make tracks to a far superior suspense film , like misery .
answer:
N