instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
synopsis : a mentally unstable man undergoing psychotherapy saves a boy from a potentially fatal accident and then falls in love with the boy 's mother , a fledgling restauranteur .
unsuccessfully attempting to gain the woman 's favor , he takes pictures of her and kills a number of people in his way .
comments : stalked is yet another in a seemingly endless string of spurned - psychos - getting - their - revenge type movies which are a stable category in the 1990s film industry , both theatrical and direct - to - video .
their proliferation may be due in part to the fact that they 're typically inexpensive to produce ( no special effects , no big name stars ) and serve as vehicles to flash nudity ( allowing them to frequent late - night cable television ) .
stalked wavers slightly from the norm in one respect : the psycho never actually has an affair ; on the contrary , he 's rejected rather quickly ( the psycho typically is an ex - lover , ex - wife , or ex - husband ) .
other than that , stalked is just another redundant entry doomed to collect dust on video shelves and viewed after midnight on cable .
stalked does not provide much suspense , though that is what it sets out to do .
interspersed throughout the opening credits , for instance , a serious - sounding narrator spouts statistics about stalkers and ponders what may cause a man to stalk ( it 's implicitly implied that all stalkers are men ) while pictures of a boy are shown on the screen .
after these credits , a snapshot of actor jay underwood appears .
the narrator states that " this is the story of daryl gleason " and tells the audience that he is the stalker .
of course , really , this is the story of restauranteur brooke daniels .
if the movie was meant to be about daryl , then it should have been called stalker not stalked .
okay .
so we know who the stalker is even before the movie starts ; no guesswork required .
stalked proceeds , then , as it begins : obvious , obvious , obvious .
the opening sequence , contrived quite a bit , brings daryl and brooke ( the victim ) together .
daryl obsesses over brooke , follows her around , and tries to woo her .
ultimately rejected by her , his plans become more and more desperate and elaborate .
these plans include the all - time , psycho - in - love , cliche : the murdered pet .
for some reason , this genre 's films require a dead pet to be found by the victim stalked .
stalked is no exception ( it 's a cat this time -- found in the shower ) .
events like these lead to the inevitable showdown between stalker and stalked , where only one survives ( guess who it invariably always is and you 'll guess the conclusion to this turkey ) .
stalked 's cast is uniformly adequate : not anything to write home about but also not all that bad either .
jay underwood , as the stalker , turns toward melodrama a bit too much .
he overdoes it , in other words , but he still manages to be creepy enough to pass as the type of stalker the story demands .
maryam d'abo , about the only actor close to being a star here
( she played the bond chick in the living daylights ) , is equally adequate as the " stalked " of the title , even though she seems too ditzy at times to be a strong , independent business - owner .
brooke ( d'abo ) needs to be ditzy , however , for the plot to proceed .
toward the end , for example , brooke has her suspicions about daryl .
to ensure he wo n't use it as another excuse to see her , brooke decides to return a toolbox he had left at her place to his house .
does she just leave the toolbox at the door when no one answers ?
of course not .
she tries the door , opens it , and wanders around the house .
when daryl returns , he enters the house , of course , so our heroine is in danger .
somehow , even though her car is parked at the front of the house , right by the front door , daryl is oblivious to her presence inside .
the whole episode places an incredible strain on the audience 's suspension of disbelief and questions the validity of either character 's intelligence .
stalked receives two stars because , even though
it is highly derivative and somewhat boring
, it is not so bad that it can not be watched .
rated r mostly for several murder scenes and brief nudity in a strip bar , it is not as offensive as many other thrillers in this genre are .
if you 're in the mood for a good suspense film , though , stake out something else .
answer:
N

question:
" take a number , fill out a form , and wait your turn .
"
starring kati outinen , kari v ? ?
n ?
nen , sakari kuosmanen , elina salo ; written & directed by aki kaurism ?
ki
; cinematography by timo salminen it might be possible to call drifting clouds a satire or a black comedy , but that would imply a sense of anger , of vitriol , of energy ; drifting clouds is what you get when the rage and vitality are gone .
it is the sad , slow story of lauri and ilona , a married couple caught between the wheels of capitalism as it grinds inexorably onward .
he loses his job as a tram driver , because everyone drives cars nowadays .
within a couple of months , she loses her position as a head waiter , when her restaurant is bought out by a chain and the entire staff replaced .
a conversation early in the film reveals a lot about their situation .
lauri has surprised ilona by buying her a tv , which she greets with little enthusiasm .
she notes that they have n't finished paying for the bookshelves or the couch yet .
he says that in four years the payments will be done and then they can buy some books for the shelves .
it would pass as deadpan humour if it was n't spoken with such resigned weariness .
this sets the tone for the rest of the movie .
there is humour and idiosyncracy at the periphery , but at the centre there is frustration and futility , and sorrow for the ways in which the logic of profit reduces people , until their worth is equated solely with their earning capacity .
there is an element of political commentary in this critique of the mechanisms of capitalism and the stultifying social environment it creates , but in drifting clouds the political is subsumed by the personal : the movie is about two people and what happens to them , and nothing else matters .
lauri and ilona live lives starved for friendship , respect , culture , passion .
they go to the movies , and walk out past old posters for l'atalante and l'argent , but the movie they have just seen is a pointless , violent , unfunny comedy .
their house and workplaces are uniformly unpleasant , painted and upholstered in lifeless colours ( ugly greens , dull reds , insipid blues ) , full of inelegantly functional objects and appliances .
the art design is impeccable in its tawdriness , and director aki kaurism ?
ki often matches the colour of characters ' clothes with the background colour and/or lighting , so that it seems as if they are almost physically fading into the environment .
there is no suggestion of sexuality in the relationship ; ilona and lauri sleep in separate beds and their gestures of affection lack the heat of desire ; their lives are now bound by something more complex and desperate than love .
their downward , downsized , downtrodden lives have a momentum that is almost comic , as one setback succeeds another , bottoming out when lauri stakes all their remaining money on the spin of a roulette wheel .
it must have been tempting to play the story for more laughs , more farce , more deadpan wit , but the film 's great strength
is the sober , empathic manner in which it observes lauri and ilona 's misfortunes .
irony would be an injustice .
situations and settings are broad and exaggerated -- this is not realism -- but they are not distorted .
the emotions are authentic .
if it is difficult to laugh at anything that happens , despite the droll performances , the laconic humour , that 's because kaurism ?
ki brings such compassion and understanding to the manifold indignities that are suffered .
he shows us how humiliating it must be for a woman of thirty - eight , who has worked long and hard to win a respectable position , to be forced to accept a job as a dishwasher in a two - bit restaurant ; how humiliating it must be for a man nearing 50 to confront his wife 's former employer , demanding the rest of her wages , only to have the crap beaten out of him , unable to land a single punch , when the employer and his cronies refuse to give him the money .
all this is observed keenly , with great economy : every cut , every line of dialogue , is judicious .
if most films are novelistic in their telling , this one brings the focus and concentration of a short story to bear .
but what is gained in nuance and acumen is rather undermined by the sense that the material barely accommodates the 96-minute running length .
i have seen many movies far less profound , less humane , less necessary than drifting clouds , but they filled me with an urge to watch them again , and this one did not .
it does not need to be seen twice : its every detail and implication can be absorbed in one viewing .
it is not a movie that will be seen by a large audience , because it can not be pitched to one .
there is no selling point .
it is all understatement , restraint , melancholy .
the characters are unremarkable , their best years behind them , their dreams dissipated ; it takes all the effort they can muster just to pay the bills .
this does not make them less fascinating , merely less marketable , which is a shame , because this is a movie which should be seen , precisely because it pays attention to people and emotions that most movies prefer to ignore .
it engages us and touches us and resolves -- surprisingly , and movingly -- into something resembling a happy ending .
the only thing greater than the ill - luck that governs the characters ' lives is their refusal to give in to despair .
their persistence is rewarded with what might be called a " feel - good " ending elsewhere , but not here , because this ending differs in kind from most such endings : this one has truly been earned .
answer:
P

question:
i think we should , as responsible citizens , all get together and stop jim carrey from making another movie .
he 's changing the cinema as we know it -- and for the worst .
i would willingly rewatch batman and robin rather then again sit through this miserable collection of filmic moments -- prologues , epilogues , etc .
the premise : a lawyer ca n't lie for a day .
ho , ho .
normally a movie made from this premise would be terrible -- mr .
carrey suceeds in making it unwatchable .
i laughed once -- and i was laughing at the sight of everyone else laughing . grinding
does n't begin to describe .
it pounds on your head so forcefully and so unstoppably
that , if you are a normal person , you leave feeling sick .
when it 's not trying to be funny , it 's trying to be melodramatic -- but
it 's just annoying , stupid and sappy . at best .
this movie is intended to make people laugh , yes , not to be voted best picture of all time by sight and sound .
but , it fails on every possible level .
it fails to be funny .
it fails to be insightful .
it fails to be suspensful .
it fails to be fun .
they should pay people to see it .
it suceeds on one level -- it makes me want to get down on the ground and start thanking orson welles , for having lived .
if you go in with the intention of coming out alive , please make sure that you are overly fond of boob , fart , pimple and fat jokes -- otherwise you will go insane .
yes , literally insane .
stark , raving mad .
it is boring , stupid , melodramatic and in the end ugly .
i reccemond it strongly .
to ed wood .
answer:
N