In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.

how do you judge a film that is so bad , but intentionally so ?
in spiceworld , the highly popular singing group the spice girls accomplish their major goal : mocking themselves with a purposely cheezy film and having a lot of fun doing it .
if that was their goal , they did a fantastic job .
so is it fair to give it such a low grade when it was n't really meant to be much better than this ?
honestly , i 'd rather see this film before many others i gave higher grades ,
so does that mean i graded it inaccurately ?
truth be known , i do n't really think i can answer this question .
to understand spiceworld , you have to understand the spice girls .
unless you 're very
* very * young , or fairly older , you probably have at least heard of them .
they 're a group of five busty british babes who 've had # 1 hit singles and whose debut album sold millions .
they 're primarily adored by pre - teen girls who hope someday the contents of their training bras might match those of ginger spice 's ( real name : geri haliwell ) wonderbra .
all five of the girls have these " spicy " names for which they are better known than their real names .
there is the aforementioned ginger spice , as well as sporty spice ( melanie chisholm , or mel c . ) , scary spice ( melanie brown , or mel b . ) , baby spice ( emma bunton ) , and posh spice ( victoria addams ) , and
all of them , to some degree or another , resemble their stage names .
the spice girls took the world by storm , and spiceworld is actually a good- humored spoof of all that transpired during their quick rise to fame .
it 's quite nice to see what good sports the girls are ( and not just the one dubbed sporty ) about poking fun at themselves .
they do n't take themselves too seriously , and that 's probably the best thing about them .
it 's also surprising how natural they seem in front of the camera * acting * , and not just singing and dancing .
they 're not flawless by any means , but for the most part , they deliver their lines without feeling staged , and , like them or not , we get the sense the five are very at home within their characters ( which seems reasonable since they portray themselves ) .
what makes the film bad is that extreme fans of the spice girls wo n't get enough of their music , while the rest of us do n't get enough of a movie .
the real point of this is to look at the spice girls for over ninety straight minutes .
most of the film is very blas ? , but several parts are downright boring , and then they have those sporadic moments that actually make us laugh out loud !
if you 're a big fan of the group , you probably wo n't get enough of what you want , and if you 're not a big fan , you get too much time devoted to nothing more than " look at us " moments .
for the right crowd , the " music video " sequences will be the highlights of the film , but for others , they will serve as three - minute lulls in a hectic - but - overall - uneventful storyline .
other key actors include richard e . grant as clifford , the spice girls ' manager , alan cumming as the film - maker piers cutherton - smyth who attempts to make a documentary of the group , george wendt as martin barnfield , a producer who constantly works on pitching a spice girls movie , and roger moore in a small , self - parodizing role .
all provide relatively good performances , keeping in mind once again that this film was n't meant to be acted seriously .
even meat loaf shows up as dennis the bus driver and seems to have fun with it .
while this film is continuously compared to the beatles ' a hard day 's night , i think that is an unjust comparison .
it is supposedly the movie studio that first mad the comparison by way of press kits , but i do n't think drector bob spiers , nor the spice girls , intended it to be so .
i think the studios were just trying to boost hype and interest in the film , and have instead , come off rather pretentious
.
i do n't think this film is trying to be anything more than a fun , satirical look at a group that got so big , a movie seemed the next likely step .
and what could 've been better than a self - indulged yet self- mocking approach ?
probably nothing , and so it is .
spiceworld is a movie i thought would be embarrassing to enjoy , but now instead , i find myself wanting to defend a movie i did n't even give a good review .
it 's bad , but it succeeds in every way it intended .
it gives the spice girls a chance to play while allowing all those obsessive fans out there to indulge in every brainless moment .
perhaps the group is nothing more than a gimmick .
if that 's the case , the movie 's gimmick is that it * is * such a gimmick !
you might be saying , " a spice girls movie ? come on ! "
,
but when it comes down to it , i think that 's the point .
N

nicolas cage comes up with an ingenious survival mechanism for his role in the wink - and - a - concussive - nudge bombast - o - rama con air .
the opening credits sequence introduces us to cage as cameron poe , a gulf war veteran convicted of manslaughter and serving eight years in prison after an ill - fated bar - room brawl .
the prison scenes are accompanied by voice - overs in which poe , in a languid southern drawl , describes prison life to his wife back home and offers simple homilies for the daughter he has never met .
if the scene gives you a tickle of familiarity , it probably should .
cage appears to realize that con air is going to be utterly dim - witted and ridiculous , and that he 's going to have to do something to keep himself entertained .
and thus he slips into a familiar , surreal role as his own commentary on the proceedings -- cage plays cameron poe as a buffed - up version of raising arizona 's h .
i .
mcdonnough .
cage should have known what he was getting himself into .
he got a paycheck from jerry bruckheimer last year for the rock , and if there 's one thing you can count on from a bruckheimer production ( even without his late partner don simpson ) , it 's that you can count on seeing everything you saw in the _ last _ bruckheimer production .
the critical difference between the rock and con air is cage 's performance .
in the rock , cage appeared to be having the time of his life jumping into the action fray for the first time .
that sense of discovery has been replaced by a wry self - awareness .
while the plot of con air finds poe a parolee on board a hijacked prison transport plane whose goal is just to get home , cage 's goal is different but just as simple : to get out of the film with some measure of dignity intact .
audiences , too , should know what they 're getting themselves into with a bruckheimer production .
in fact , the marketing people are counting on it .
no one who loathed the rock for its swear - grunt - blast repetitiveness will be converted by con air ; no one who loved the rock for exactly the same reasons will be dissuaded .
director simon west ( yet another tv commercial auteur plucked by bruckheimer from the advertising equivalent of the schwab 's soda fountain )
delivers exactly the kind of adrenaline / testosterone cocktail which could launch an endocrinology lecture
( it 's perversely appropriate that one sympathetic con spends most of the flight nearing a diabetic coma ; like insulin , con air does the work of a gland ) .
what he does n't deliver is a moment of suspense .
a bruckheimer film has no use for hitchcock 's notion that showing you the bomb under the desk creates a more interesting scene than just blowing up the desk ; a really , _ really _ big desk and a really , _ really _ big bomb will serve the purpose nicely .
if either west or bruckheimer were interested in genuine tension , they might have done something with con air 's creepiest set - up .
at a desert stop for the plane - load of convicts , serial killer garland greene ( steve buscemi )
wanders of into a trailer park where he meets a little girl having a tea party in a drained swimming pool .
their tete - a - tete is eerie and menacing , providing a welcome shift in tone and giving buscemi a chance to stand out in a cast with too many villains ( danny trejo , ving rhames and a characteristically reptilian john malkovich among them ) .
in fact , con air usually opts for too much of something when the tiniest measure of restraint would have been an improvement -- too many characters , too much editing , too many dopey punch lines , too much of the cheap , ugly appeals to machismo which characterize too many bruckheimer efforts .
it is that kind of exhausting excess to which cage is responding with his detached performance .
while malkovich goes for the outrageous and john cusack ( as a u . s . marshal )
goes for
earnest , cage looks like he just wants to go to sleep .
his recycled raising arizona performance is a means of escape , his chase after a stuffed bunny a continuation of his pursuit of that big box of huggies .
it does n't bode well for cage 's appearance in face / off later this month ; perhaps he already realizes that all he can do in action films is more of the same over and over .
there 's a word for people like you , nicolas .
that word is called recidivist . . .
repeat offender .
N

capsule : five friends at a stag party are involved in the accidental killing of a prostitute .
the cover - up attempt becomes a monster that eats up the friends , two wives and several innocent bystanders .
this was a real audience pleaser at toronto , but it did not do much for me
. ,
low 0
( -4 to +4 ) - directed by peter berg who acted in the last seduction and copland .
- five buddies go on a stag outing to las vegas while cameron diaz works through the logistics of her upcoming wedding to one of them .
one of the buddies accidentally kills a prostitute .
- several people with no moral compass .
they started out with a simple , innocent little cocaine party ( ! )
and by accident look what happened .
they have one moral person among them ( daniel stern ) , and one totally amoral person ( christian slater ) .
it is more selfish to let the amoral lead , so they do .
- this film is strange , but not really funny or biting .
black comedy should actually be funny as well as strange .
there should be some element of satire .
the satire is missing here .
i did not find myself laughing here either .
what we have is a strange crime tale .
- one just does not care what happens to these people .
- the same idea of people just getting themselves in deeper and deeper has been done frequently .
if this film is popular it is just bringing a familiar plot to a new generation .
- it begins like diner ( particularly with daniel stern ) and ends up like an extended horror / crime comic book .
- there are several logical holes in script .
if a security man goes to investigate a complaint and disappears , would n't the guests he was investigating be the first suspects ?
someone framed for a crime in the way shown would be judged innocent after minimal forensic detective work .
( i am desperately trying to avoid making this a spoiler . )
- popular and situation ethics get a real slamming .
- some acting of grief is hammy and overdone .
more yelling than humor .
N