You will be given a review about a book, an item, a place or a movie. After that, a question is given that you should answer using a certain span of the review. Your answer should be from the review itself and should not contain extra words, and should not be a combination of different spans. If there's no direct answer to the question, answer with a part of the text that is the most relevant to the question. See the examples for clarification.

[Q]: review: Has a nice kick and isn't too hot. Makes for a great substitute for mayo on a sandwich and would also make a good dressing for a taco salad or something similar. Good taste. I would definitely buy this item.
question: Does the sauce taste good?
[A]: Good taste

[Q]: review: Somerset Maugham liked to characterize himself as a good writer of the second rank. Much the same can be said of Truman Capote, with the caveat that he wrote one book of the first rank, his astonishing nonfiction novel IN COLD BLOOD. This marvelous film tells the story of the writing of that book and reiterates the theory of one of Capote's most prominent biographers that the writing of that book was not merely the culmination of his career, but the cause of his decline as a writer and his descent into alcoholism. The past few years has seen an explosion of biopics, but by any standard this has to stand as one of the very finest, and perhaps even the best.Whatever other merits this film has-and it has many-first and foremost is the incarnation of Truman Capote in the performance by Philip Seymour Hoffman. Almost every year going into Oscar season we see at least one performance that so completely overwhelms all of the others it seems inconceivable that that performance will not win the Oscar. Last year that performance was Imelda Staunton in VERA DRAKE. This year that performance is Hoffman in CAPOTE. No performance in 2005 by either a male or female came anywhere near the job that Hoffman did here. What is astonishing is not merely that Hoffman did such a magnificent job of imitating Capote's voice and mannerisms that he seems to be channeling rather than impersonating him but that within that imitation he delivered a performance of enormous subtlety and emotional range. In other words, this performance truly is more about acting than about imitation, though the imitation is impeccable, despite the fact that Hoffman is far too tall for the role (but, then, Peter O'Toole was about a foot too tall to play the diminutive T. E. Lawrence in LAWRENCE OF ARABIA). Hoffman's performance is so dominating and so remarkable that it alone would have been sufficient to guarantee the film's success, but luckily he is far from the only good thing in the film.This film, which has been widely reported as having been shot in slightly more than a month, is remarkable on almost every level. The period look is impeccable from the dress to the decor of rooms. Every aspect of the production is first rate, but what really shines is the superb cast, which is populated with a host of great character actors. Apart from Hoffman no one performer stands out, but that is more a testimony to the overall excellence of the cast than the failure of any actor. Chris Cooper, Catherine Keener (a great beauty who glams down in this one as Capote's close friend Harper Lee-the odd kid in TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD was modeled on Lee's childhood friend Truman--showing that she is going in middle age going to be one of our most versatile actresses), Bruce Greenwood (as Jack Dunphy), Bob Balaban, and Mark Pellegrino all perform marvelously in a very strong cast. Clifton Collins Jr., an actor I previously knew only from several appearances on the television show ALIAS, was very good in the key role of Perry Smith, one of the two murderers with whom Capote somewhat identified and who he both befriended and exploited in writing his book.The story, of course, revolves around Capote's investigation of the horrific murder of a well liked and important family in a small town in Kansas. Each of the victims had been bound and shot in the head with a shot gun. After a police hunt two young men, Perry Smith and Richard Hickcock, were arrested for the crime. They were tried, found guilty, and sentenced to death. During the proceedings Capote, who was covering the murders for the New Yorker, befriended Smith, who has a background similar to Capote's own. The film is superb at showing the complexity of human motivation, how Capote both truly likes Smith and yet exploits him shamelessly while also being repulsed by him. The cold-blooded manner in which Capote both exhibits tremendous compassion for Smith and lies to him about the state of his book is almost as scary as the murder that Smith commits in flashback. Smith repeatedly asks Capote about how much he has written and what the title of the book will be and is told that he has made little progress on his untitled work. In fact, Capote has nearly finished the book, largely waiting to find out whether Smith and Hickcock will succeed on their appeals of their death sentence, and very early on settled on the title. A mark of how good the movie is comes when how tortured Capote is shown to be by his exploitation of Smith. At the end his guilt drives him to agree to witness Smith's hanging. The story from beginning to end is both riveting and horrifying. I kept thinking of how the title of Capote's great book could be applied to almost every aspect of the entire story.I would highly recommend anyone who has seen this film but has not yet read IN COLD BLOOD to do so as soon as possible. This truly is one of the most marvelously written books in the past half century. The prose is as exquisite as any written in English during that period, with the nightmarish, harrowing murders portrayed as coldly and dispassionately as they were committed. Throughout Capote distances himself from his subject matter and although to any attentive reader it becomes obvious that he has inside knowledge of many of the events in the book, he does not appear in any guise whatsoever. If one knows nothing about Capote's involvement with Smith and Hickcock, as I did when I first read the book, it is clear that at the very least he conducted extensive interviews with everyone associated with the case. Knowing how deeply involved Capote actually was makes his utter absence in the book especially eery. IN COLD BLOOD is one of the finest American books of the past century and this fine film will hopefully be watched in conjunction with it in the future. I will close by adding that while IN COLD BLOOD was made into a superb film (starring Robert Blake as Perry Smith), I think CAPOTE is an even better film. I cannot recommend either the book or the movie more highly.
question: Was the story and performance good?
[A]: he delivered a performance of enormous subtlety and emotional range

[Q]: review: I have seen a lot of horror flicks and suspense/thrillers in my day and the first 21-mintues to When a Stranger Calls easily rates as possibly the very best first act I have ever seen. From the way it was written, shot, scored and acted there is for me no doubt it's just simply perfection. I was on the edge of my seat the whole time. The phone calls may not be the scariest in the sense that the caller at first doesn't say anything threatening or even sexual.Each minute of the first act raises the tension unlike any horror flick I have ever seen. By the time you reach the end of the first act you'll be held in such suspense that scaring you is now simple. Any filmmaker can create a jump scene where the killer or ghost or whatever pops out of the corner. Most of the time jumping back is just simply a reaction. How many movies have you watched where you jumped back, but weren't scared at all? It's just a reaction and any filmmaker can do that regardless if they are good or a hack.That is why I normally prefer movies like this that are a bit more subtle. Problem is though after the opening act business does indeed slow down. Most people say the middle sections are boring and it's kind of hard to argue with them. Though I will say the middle sections of When a Stranger Calls does get better on multiple viewings. The filmmakers did such a great job in the opening act that we the audience are on such a high that anything afterwards is bound to be a let down.The screenplay written by Steve Feke and Fred Walton was overall pretty good; the first act was very well written and extremely creepy, but after that the movie changes focus. It seems the story will be built around Jill Johnson played by Carol Kane, but instead the movie focuses on the killer Roy Duncan played by Tony Beckley and a private detective named John Clifford played by Charles Durning who is on the hunt for the psychotic killer.When a Stranger Calls isn't the typical horror movie, yes I consider it a horror flick for the sole reason the movie does aim to scare you. Not in the typical horror movie way, but with more suspense. Some suspense flicks have nothing to do with horror where as others play off some kind of primal fear often found in the horror genre. The 2nd half becomes more of a crime drama. We follow Roy Duncan and to be honest the guy is quite pathetic.Feke and Walton take an interesting approach; Duncan is obviously a psycho but he's so pathetic we almost feel sorry for him. But the man is a child killer and I cannot feel for them. They are the lowest of the low. He's homeless, broke we see him get beat up and later beg for money. Hardly the typical movie villain; problem though is he's just not an interesting enough character to follow around. Tony Beckley does an out-standing job. There is no denying his talents in this movie as an actor. But the character just simply was not interesting.Charles Durning does a great job though at carrying the movie. He is the more interesting of the two characters and his obsession with finding the killer is entertaining. But what went wrong with the middle sections? Simple it goes back to the killer just not being interesting enough. For almost an hour of the movie it's John Clifford hunting down Roy Duncan. While it's not as boring as some people make it out to be, I do think Steve Feke and Fred Walton could have done more. Their screenplay does seem to drag in some spots and by a certain point the movie does sort of repeat itself, but thankfully the final act gets back to Jill Johnson.I didn't hate the middle sections, but they weren't as strong as they could have been. I personally always felt the movie should have been Jill's story with Roy Duncan being in the movie a little less. It would suck to lose the scenes with Charles Durning because he was so great same goes for Tony Beckley, but I personally think making it Jill's story and use Clifford and Duncan as more of a sub-plot would have worked better. The remake attempted to do just that and failed big time.As stated earlier the opening act was just brilliant; director Fred Walton gets the most out of every single shot and raises the suspense and tension unlike any movie I have ever seen. Like I said anybody can do a cliched scare movie, but it takes real talent to do what Fred Walton did. The 2nd half while yes does lose a little bit of steam, Fred Walton is still able to keep the suspense level at a decent level. The scenes with Colleen Dewhurst who plays Lisa are well done overall and remind us what kind of movie we are watching. The hour mark features a great and creepy scene with her and Roy Duncan. Though when all is said and done the Lisa character seems nothing more than filler scenes. It never really goes anywhere, but does provide some decent suspense.The final act is when things really pick up and we return to Jill Johnson who is now married with 2-kids of her own. Besides the opening act, the final act is the most solid. It goes back to being very creepy and while it does lack compared to the opening it does give us some chills and thrills. Like I said before I do believe When a Stranger Calls is a movie that needs multiple viewings. The opening act was so brilliant anything afterwards is bound to bet a let down. It might be boring at first, but when you see it again you might be able to appreciate it a little bit more. I've come to enjoy the middle sections even if it wasn't as good as it could have been.Carol Kane was great and I do believe the movie might have worked better had the focus been more on her and use Duncan and Clifford as a sub-plot. Kane does appear in half the movie actually. It's just she's used in the opening and ending, which results in roughly 40-minutes or so screen time, but since it's so far between it seems like she's barley in the movie.Despite some problems with the middle sections, When a Stranger Calls is a highly suspenseful and very creepy movie with excellent performances. I'd advise those who felt the middle sections were boring to give it another try. It does grow on you and for those who haven't seen it just expect more a crime/drama with some suspense thrown in during the middle. But the opening and closing act just might be the best you'll find in this genre.
question: How good has this movie been until the end?
[A]:
excellent