instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
well , i 'll admit when i first heard about this film ( which was before dante 's peak ) i could just smell what ' twister ' had started .
so now it seems that we 're in a full fledged return to the ' 70 's disaster film era .
with ' twister ' , ' dante 's peak ' , ' volcano ' and soon ' flood ' and james cameron 's extremly expensive ' titanic ' i 'll say first off
i enjoyed ' volcano ' much more than i did ' dantes peak ' .
part of that is just being biased as
i usually enjoy anything that tommy lee jones appears in .
i 've been reading a lot about the movie being ' cheezy ' or ' hokey ' and really did n't see or think that once during the entire film .
i get bored easily and this film did n't bore me for a minute .
another thing , and boy am i bitching today !
, that bothers me is when critics and such go on about
" well that s not really possible .
"
you know what ?
i could n't give a bloody damn if it 's possible or not , really i could n't .
it 's a freaking movie and i do n't want reality thrown in my face .
i want to be able to see the impossible , the all might " what if " to many reviewers have seen one to many movies !
the special effects are the second star to this feature .
they are so amazing that i found it hard sometimes to believe they were indeed fx
and la was was not burning to the ground .
they did an incredible job and come oscar time ( if they remember ) some notice better be thrown there way .
answer:
P

question:
the haunting , a film so confusing that it forgets the true meaning of a horror film : to scare us .
if you 've ever seen a movie , which you probably have considering you are on this website , you should know about all of the trivia they post before a movie .
they have things like illustrations and you have to guess the movie or facts about the film .
but , the one i always like are the & quot ;
other name&quot ; joke that try and rename a particular film .
for instance , the one playing before the haunting had different titles for the film , small soldiers .
they had titles like little infantry and can i get those fatigues in a smaller size ?
well , after seeing the haunting , i had a few particular names for it as well .
unfortunately , i can only post one of them , otherwise , i 'd be getting some pretty angry e - mails from overprotective mothers .
that title would be the confusing .
ok , that is a pretty bad title , but it fits this film perfectly .
it basically serves up no purpose , and
combined with dry dialogue and a boring and confusing plot , it completes the formula for a cinematic bomb .
liam neeson once again gets wrapped up in a film without any depth , but at least the phantom menace was exciting and had some depth .
the haunting is nothing but trash , but unfortunately , will still make a boatload of money .
before i rant and rave about how bad this film is , let me point out the few , and i stress the word few , bright spots in this film .
first , the house is great- looking .
it looks beautiful , but this is also a dark spot .
it looks so great that it is hard to be frightened by it .
this is something that rears its ugly head at all points of the film .
things look so great , that you are looking on in awe instead of being scared straight .
haunted house films have to contain one element to even be slightly successful and that is being eerie .
the hill house is not eerie .
it is beautiful , but not the least bit frightening .
ever heard of lili taylor ?
before this film i did not , but i am glad that i do now .
she gives the only satisfactory performance in the film . despite the dry dialogue and boring / confusing concept
, she manages to light up the screen every time she appears , but unfortunately , her co - stars are usually following right behind .
owen wilson , who plays luke , is the only other cast member even close to giving an admirable performance , other then taylor .
he is basically there for the comic relief , and his character development is poor in all other areas .
all of the characters are desperately underdeveloped .
wilson had potential as luke , but it seems they just needed him to add a few laughs .
liam neeson and catherine zeta - jones suffer from the dialogue and plot and should not have been in this film .
their characters must suffer from wicked mood swings because in each scene they turn from ruthless to compassionate to scared to brave and whatnot .
they just are not believable and this is the final nail in the haunting 's coffin .
the plot is terrible .
the opening scene of the film is very important , but the director makes it too obvious by getting close - ups of all the things that will play a major role in the end of the film .
as i sat through the film , i kept wondering what this film was trying to accomplish .
nell , lili taylor 's character , goes from the hunted to the savior .
it makes no sense and the director gives the audience no reasoning for the ridiculous changes that take place in the film .
he forces the viewer to make various assumptions and does not give any in - depth information .
for instance , the beginning of the film gives us a sense of why nell is getting involved in the program .
but , we get zilch for the other four .
plus , two of them get wiped out in the first ten minutes .
and the worst part :
most horror films have killings .
for some reason , they kill off luke at the end of the film .
no reason whatsoever , just off with his head , literally .
overall , the haunting is the epitome of a bad movie
. bad plot , confusing storyline and a waste of good talent .
hopefully , liam neeson can rebound and get into a good film and be used to his full potential .
hopefully , lili taylor will be recognized for doing such a great job in such a bad film .
and hopefully , other horror films , such as the blair witch project and the haunting of hill house , will not be as bad as this one .
answer:
N

question:
written by alex cox , tod davies , terry gilliam and tony grisoni directed by terry gilliam
i 've always preferred mushrooms to blotter acid .
dropping acid is like riding a roller coaster blindfolded ; you have no idea where the peaks and valleys are , no idea when the next terrifying decent will send your stomach into your throat , and no idea how long the ride will last .
then there 's the hard knot in your gut and the clenched teeth that come with ingesting a strychnine - laced dose .
mushrooms , on the other hand , offer the psychedelic equivalent of a leisurely ride on a ferris wheel : a steady , reassuring assent , a short period of thrilling motion and color , and then a smooth landing .
acid is for daredevils ; mushrooms are for refined seekers of joy .
my point is that in fear and loathing in las vegas , director terry gilliam has made an acid movie , when i wish he would have made a mushroom movie .
full of shocking sight gags , aggressive images and grotesque comic performances , the film certainly offers something for those fans of hunter s .
thompson 's book who want to experience its twisted pharmacological world - view from the inside out .
but for those of us who just want to enjoy a well - made film , gilliam has produced a mixed bag .
fear and loathing tells the ostensibly true story of how self - professed " gonzo " journalist hunter s .
thompson ( johnny depp ) and hispanic activist attorney oscar zeta actosta ( benicio del toro ) , came to las vegas to cover a motorcycle race and found themselves trapped in the middle of a district attorney 's convention while ingesting every conceivable drug available to a man of means in 1971 .
operating under the pseudonyms of " raoul duke " and
" dr .
gonzo " , the two men careen into vegas on an acid and mescaline bender , then hole up in a hotel suite to binge on amyl nitrite , cocaine , tequila and a rainbow of multi - colored uppers and downers .
they terrorize every one they meet , mostly because every one they meet terrifies them .
duke hallucinates giant bats on the way into town , then is attacked by horrifying lizards in the casino lounge .
dr .
gonzo becomes enamored of a thick - bladed hunting knife and begs duke to throw the tape player into the bathtub with him just as jefferson airplane 's " white rabbit " reaches its climax .
and these guys do n't just trash hotel rooms
- they rape them , humiliate them and leave them for dead .
that neither of them ends up dead or in jail is testament to blind luck or providence , depending on your point of view .
thompson 's book , besides being a hilarious read , has stood the test of time as an important historical document .
it simultaneously exposed the 60 's drug culture for the sham that it was and exposed las vegas as the place where the american dream came to die .
pontificate all you want about how the film illustrates thompson 's message , but the truth is that , stripped to its bare essentials , what gilliam has wrought is a drug comedy .
it 's a cheech and chong movie .
you 're there to watch depp and del toro ingest a lot of chemicals and then laugh at the results :
see johnny take drugs , see johnny fall down .
there 's nothing wrong with this concept , but gilliam tries too hard .
this is a frantic movie - all sweaty close - ups , wide - angle lenses , dutch tilts and other - worldly lighting schemes .
there are times when gilliam really does put a convincing representation of an acid trip on the screen .
but to what end ? much of the dialogue comes verbatim from thompson 's book , and there are some priceless comic observations .
but you 're hard pressed to hear or digest them amidst all the jumbled camera work .
this brings us to the performances , which strike me as all wrong .
depp plays thompson as groucho marks filtered through george c . scott in patton - a gimmicky performance which works against the biting satire of thompson 's dialogue .
in between his several puking scenes , del toro fares better as dr .
gonzo , but
he also mumbles and sputters
so many of his lines that their weight is lost .
watching these two made me wish that the movie had been made twenty years ago , with dan akroyd and john belushi as the leads - now that would have been something to see .
it 's interesting to note that alex cox , credited as a co - writer on the screenplay , was originally slated to direct before gilliam took over .
as much of a fan as i am of gilliam 's work , cox would have been the better choice .
sid and nancy , cox 's best work , covered essentially the same subject matter , but cox was able to pull back and allow the characters of sid vicious and nancy spungen to carry the film .
gilliam commits the compound sin of over - directing his film while being uncertain of his purpose .
what kind of movie was he trying to make , anyway ?
it does n't try to be a cautionary tale , and it does n't work as broad comedy .
if he had considered more carefully his purpose , the result would have been a much more interesting film .
but i do n't want to be too hard on it .
there are some truly funny moments , and if you 're in a good enough mood you might get a kick out of it .
i do , however , recommend watching fear and loathing in las vegas under the influence of your favorite controlled substance
- i guarantee it will enhance the effect .
answer:
N