instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
much ado about nothing .
ah , how sweet the irony !
it 's accepted wisdom in some circles - among english literature nuts , mainly - that whenever a critic knocks shakespeare they are only doing so through ignorance .
he just does n't " understand " shakespeare , you will hear them say .
the bard 's work is apparently beyond criticism .
what a load of old cobblers .
if these arbiters of public taste think kenneth branaugh 's film of shakespeare 's " comedy " much ado about nothing is comedy in any modern sense of the word
, it 's time to get a life .
get monty python .
get woody allen .
get john waters .
whatever .
just get a real taste of some clever , witty , risky comedy . and banish this nonsense
to where it belongs .
drama and tragedy was shakespeare 's strength .
to my sensibilities - and i 'm no stick in the mud - much ado about nothing resonates with no spark whatsoever .
no kidding : this film ranks among the most embarrassing two hours i have ever spent in a cinema in my 20 years of movie going .
the only thing that stopped me walking out was loyalty to my lady friend , as this was our day out
and i had n't seen her in ages .
but boy , does she owe me one !
i wo n't spend too much time on the plot .
basically , we follow the trials and tribulations of two would - be couples - one young , the other older .
there 's some dark treachery amongst all this , but everyone is so awfully jolly that you 'd hardly know it .
mind you , there 's nothing wrong with the basic story .
good romantic comedies based on similar premises abound .
nothing wrong with most of the cast , either .
branaugh , emma thompson and denzel washington are all talented performers .
the problem is the script , or more accurately , shakespeare 's original text .
light comedy should n't be complex .
yet wrapped in elizabethan english , the dialogue becomes difficult to comprehend .
for this alone it will be a problem for modern audiences unschooled in shakespeare and in search of nothing more than a good , undemanding laugh .
the only laughs to escape my belly were brought on by the gloriously inept performance of keanu reeves , the actor once again miscast as a jealous half - brother or something .
but when dissected and understood , what it all boils down to is that this stuff is just so goddamn lame .
this is comedy so clean and nice and corny and so devoid of danger that it leaves this viewer
totally cold .
ho , ho ,
ho ,
boy likes girl !
ho ,
ho ,
ho , men are such klutzes !
ho ,
ho ,
ho ,
she 's so awfully clumsy !
oh please !
there 's wit in here somewhere , i 'm told .
i call it pretentious
.
something lightweight striving to be something sophisticated through clever wordplay .
in the end , it 's cringeworthy .
watching some of the cinema patrons around me collapse with laughter made much ado about nothing a very weird movie going experience .
comedy ?
bah , humbug !
answer:
N

question:
there 's a thin line between satire and controversy , and mike nichols ( the birdcage , wolf ) has directed a sharp and very honest look at a us presidential election .
based on the book written by " anonymous " ( actually former " newsweek " writer joe klein ) , john travolta plays governor jack stanton .
but he does n't actually play stanton .
he plays bill clinton ; just the same as emma thompson no doubt plays the first lady and billy bob thorton is the campaign manipulator james carville ( although the credits will of course say otherwise ) .
the film is taken from the perspective of henry burton ( adrian lester ) , a morally correct and somewhat hesitant new advisor to stanton .
he searches for justice and dignity in the ugliest possible situations , and whether it be keeping the history of his boss ' pants under wraps or contemplating digging up dirt on another politician , he approaches his work with a keen desire to skillfully serve his country and his fellow workers .
richard jemmons ( billy bob thorton ) and daisy green ( maura tierney ) team up with henry as the would - be president 's advisors , and hire lesbian veteran libby holden ( kathy bates ) as the campaign 's eccentric " tougher than dirt " incriminator .
together they face all sorts of sexual allegations , the irritatingly discourteous media and other witty politicians in the election race .
in its satire and controversy , primary colors is a similar film to wag the dog : they both are not afraid to wipe their noses in the nitty - gritty and take a bold look at something that will never has honesty as a virtue .
but whereas wag showed us how much affect a few people can have on the media , primary colors is much more concerned with fleshing out it 's characters , letting us understand what they want and why , and making us truly appreciate the humanity and rectitude that they graciously represent .
seeing john travolta play bill clinton
so confidently and justly is enough to make the film more than worth a look . and the rest of the cast also make
superb performances - adrian lester sharply portrays the intellect of henry whilst kathy bates is perfect as the robust and energetic libby holden .
at occasions , you ca n't help but feel that these terrific characters are going to waste .
there are long slabs of time where john travolta ( unquestionably the most interesting to watch ) is missed from the screen ; and since it is awkwardly structured as henry 's story we are often forced to watch scenes that perhaps are not so necessary to the central plot - or even the point of the film .
having said that , make no mistake - primary colors is always enjoyable to watch
.
but frequently we have to ask ourselves - exactly what are we watching ?
most of the first half of its duration is a lightheaded look at melodramatic confrontations that seem so genuine we can not help but laugh , but the way primary colors chooses to finish tackles aspects that are very contrary , and almost unsuitable , to the rest of the film .
but as i mentioned before , there is a thin line between satire and controversy - and for the most part , primary colors delivers an entertaining indulgence of political matters combined with a far - from - overpowering look at winning the public 's opinion .
although at occasions the film may jump around a little too freely , focus is never lost on how important and vulnerable the subject matter really is .
thankfully , it is clear to make the distinction on what is entertaining movie cosmetics and what is a provocative documentation of something
so really it 's scary .
answer:
P

question:
" have you ever heard the one about a movie so bad that it made a guy run out of the theatre screaming ? " obviously the producers at columbia tristar did not think that we suffered enough from the first installment , and so to finish us utterly , they have now released " urban legends : final cut " .
this is another " scream " -like feature , consisting merely from the recycled materials of rip - offs from the most pointless movies of all time .
amy ( jennifer morrison ) is a film student who is attending a film school filled with uninspired film students who do not have a clue about what to do .
but just as she reaches the halfway mark of her final semester at prestigious university 's film program -- where each year 's best thesis production takes the coveted hitchcock prize , a virtual one - way ticket to hollywood success -- she has a chance encounter with campus security guard reese ( loretta devine ) , whose tale of a series of murders based on urban legends at another university inspires amy to try her hand at a fictional thriller organized along similar lines .
soon enough , fake -- and real -- blood starts to flow , and amy is being chased around by scary killer , while her cast and crew get slain , one by one .
is the culprit the original urban legends murderer , just some random psycho , !
a member of the faculty , one of her competitors for the hitchcock , or is there something even more stupid going on ?
this is another one of those tiring , pointless teen slasher flicks : neither scary , funny , or interesting .
it simply lacks the ability and the story to entertain .
the body counts and screams continue to grow , as the weak level of intelligence sinks rapidly .
in fact watching films like that after having watched " scary movie " is impossible keeping a serious face .
several times
i tried to prevent myself from laughing , without succeeding .
and then i realized that practically the whole theatre was laughing .
it 's the same thing that has been told and told and told over and over again as if it was the revelation of the century .
how many times must we tolerate the same clich ?
s
that have haunted the slasher genre since its birth ?
it has been so many films about masked killers that most of us have developed an allergy for them .
they are the most stupid , meaningless , predictable and soulless films in existence .
however , director john ottman manages to make " urban legends : final cut " into one of the worst achievements of this godforsaken genre .
what was done with a sense of redemption for past failures and irony in " scream " , ottman takes seriously .
for that reason alone , it is worth a look , just to realize how bad a movie can be
.
it 's tough to find comparisons for such an achievement , and we have to dig in ancient history to find a movie that would match its intellect .
even movies like " lost in space " and " mission to mars " seem spectacular in its shadow .
we have not seen such waste of t !
ime and resources
since " showgirls " ( 1995 ) .
no matter how hard i tried to find positive elements in this so called production , i came up with nothing , except the way the killer was dressed .
here i feel that i have to compliment the costume designers trysha bakker and marie - sylvie deveu , that have wisely replaced the well known scream - mask with a very elegant fencing mask .
jennifer morrison ( " stir of echoes " ) is all right , and the other actors ' best achievement is keeping a straight face when pronouncing the words from the script .
in fact the only thing that is terrifying about this film ( with the exception of its screenplay ) is its portray of film schools .
if these graduates will be the directors of the future , then hollywood 's golden days are over .
rumors are already spreading through the internet that columbia tristar is already developing a third installment .
let 's just hope and pray that it 's just an urban legend .
answer:
N