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

Q: _ in brief : _ this film needs no introduction . if you have n't heard of it , then you must have been up in space on a sabbatical , and if you have n't seen it -- well , i suspect you 're in a small minority !
first thing 's first ?
is it all it 's hyped up to be ?
well , yes ?
and no .
it 's a good film , and there 's a lot to like about it , but it 's not without its problems .
when i saw the first trailer for " titanic " , it was when i went to see " bean " last summer , i think , my intial reaction was --
ai n't that downright sick to make a disaster movie out of such a dreadful , real - life tragedy ? !
i mean , what 's happened to hollywood 's script - writers , have they run entirely out of new ideas ?
gads ,
whatever next , i asked myself , how about an action film based on hiroshima starring jean claude van damme ?
i was not entirely filled with anticipation , but then i was n't alone in that respect .
it 's when it came out in the cinema , to rave reviews ( well , mostly ) and
anyone who 'd been to see it seemed disturbingly obsessed by it that i started to take notice !
i did n't see the film until several months after its release ( by which time my sister had seen it about four times ! ) , so i went with a slightly more open mind , but i still did n't think i 'd enjoy it much .
did i ?
yes
and no .
mainly yes , i 'm happy to say .
the first hour or so was beautifully done , not so much because of the scripting
( i 'll talk about that later ? ) but because the re - created ship and sets were stunning to look at , as was cameron 's directing , and the performances of the principal cast were so strong that the " human " aspect of the story , the romance between rose ( kate winslet ) and jack ( leonardo dicaprio ) , was enchanting
.
the film is told via flashback , with gloria stuart playing the elderly rose in the modern day ( you knew that , a ' course ! : - ) ) .
well , it 's an often effective device to use in storytelling -- though sometimes it can fall flat .
does it work here ?
in script form it does n't add all that much to the story .
what does add a lot to the story is gloria stuart , whose stunning performance is the strongest , most moving of the film .
her presence brings a much deeper level of passion , and depth to the story , and though her appearances are relatively brief , the film would have suffered without her . also impressive are dicaprio and winslet , who wholly succeed in rising above the often poor dialogue , and the bond they form is both heartfelt and moving
.
it 's an old story , you know -- forbidden love ala romeo and juliet -- but it works , and jack 's " rescuing " rose ( in both literal and figurative senses ) and teaching her to live life for what counts was pointed and touching .
in fact , i enjoyed the first half of the film a lot , largely because winslet and dicaprio bring such and charm , energy to the romance .
it 's engaging , touching and very enjoyable .
there 's more than a tinge of poignancy to it as well ,
simply because you know it 's not going to be a happy ending .
which leads us to the second half of the film .
we all knew it was coming .
i 'm sure director cameron was looking forward with eager anticipation to it , because as he 's stated in interviews , the real thrust of the story ( for him ) was the sinking , and the jack / rose romance was a merely a manipulative plot device to get you emotionally into the film .
i think that understates the importance of the romance , as i found it far more enjoyable than an hour of watching people die .
the iceberg arrives , and the captain announces that titanic will have sunk in about an hour .
and it is an hour .
my goodness , we do n't miss a second of that hour ?
gratuitous ?
well , perhaps not by today 's standards , i 'm sure there 's been far worse produced under the banner of " entertainment " in other films .
but i certainly was n't prepared for how shocking and graphic the last hour or so would be .
not that i 'd expect the word " understatement " to be part of cameron 's vocabulary ( he who brought us such , umm , vivid films as " terminator 2 " and " aliens " ) .
is it overdone ?
i thought so .
understatement can sometimes work wonders in conveying tragedy .
no , no one expected a happy ending , but i did n't quite expect the horrendously shocking and powerful scenes we were bombarded throughout the film 's second half .
still , whether it was overdone and heavy - handed or not , if it was the shock - factor cameron was after it worked , because i was shocked and moved , in fact i spent most of the last hour in tears !
you really could n't help but get emotionally involved ,
whether it was wishing someone would knock that dreadfully psychotic fiance of rose 's overboard or desperately hoping that rose would rescue jack , or that jack would rescue rose , or that they would both survive .
perhaps the most harrowing scene was when the ship has sunk , and those that sunk along with the ship freeze to death on the water surface .
the bit where rose lets go of jack 's hand , while promising she 'll never let go in her heart was particularly heart - wrenching , and the sight of rescue boats sailing amid the ocean of corpses was a pretty powerful image , to put no fine a point on it .
i loved the ending , however , which was both moving and slightly uplifting following the horror of the past hour and a half .
so , we 've established that the film is powerful and moving , if the last hour was rather excessive . have n't mentioned the script .
plot - wise
it 's ok , though the jack / rose relationship was beautifully developed
,
but i 've a feeling that 's to the actors
credit if anything .
as for the dialogue ?
well , titanic is set in 1912 .
it 's a period drama .
but i saw very little indication of period in so far as the dialogue is concerned .
did they really use phrases like " goddamn it !
" back in the turn of the century ?
i doubt it .
would someone talk like this : " do ya love the guy or what ? " .
i doubt it .
is such dialogue as " i saw the iceberg , and i see it in your eyes now
" not just a bit ? clumsy ?
yes it is .
a little more attention to dialogue would not have gone astray , and cameron himself is to blame ( he wrote the script ) .
stick with directing , dude .
but its more than redeemed by the acting , with dicaprio and winslet on fine form , ably supported by a strong cast .
star of the show was gloria stuart , though --
why did n't she win that oscar ? !
after all , they were throwing oscars at " titanic " left , right and centre , but gloria was perhaps the most deserving nominee . directing - wise cameron does a spectacular job .
like i said , his vision was a bit excessive , but at least he directed it well .
i have n't even mentioned james horner 's beautiful score .
utterly heavenly , though when your dad and sister play the soundtrack a lot you do start to get a bit bored with it !
; - ) i 've finished my rant , which lasted a lot longer than i thought it would !
just leaves a couple of questions ; was it worth all those oscars ?
hell , do n't talk to me about oscars .
bloomin ' farce .
it was deserving in a number of departments , though .
last question ; is it , as some suggest , one of the best films of all - time ?
nope , i do n't think so .
it 's certainly one of the most powerful and memorable films i 've ever seen ,
but i do n't think it quite ranks as one of my all - time favourites .
and as for the fact they 're reportedly making a " titanic 2 " ?
well i guess that 's typical hollywood for you !

A: P
****
Q: you 've got mail is a timely romance for this impersonal , computer - driven decade .
two people who 've never met confide in each other via e - mail without revealing their true identities .
nora ephron 's contemporary update of the shop around the corner retains the basic plot : two people who despise each other unwittingly become enamored with each other through their anonymous correspondence .
ephron , who co - wrote the film with her sister , delia , as well as directed it , knew what she was doing by reteaming tom hanks and meg ryan as the at - odds couple .
ryan is kathleen kelly , owner of a small children 's bookstore , while hanks is joe fox , who heads up a chain of mega bookstores ( think barnes & noble ) .
their charm and chemistry are the glue that binds this film , even through some of the script 's rough spots .
for the ephrons invested so much effort in their protagonists that they give short shrift to the talented supporting cast , including parker posey , greg kinnear , jean stapleton and steve zahn .
yet no one is really going to complain because the ephrons know their audience - and what the paying public wants is hanks and ryan .
and the two are kept busy .
one , the other or both are in nearly every scene .
hanks has his decent guy routine down pat , yet each time he does it ,
it seems effortless , spontaneous and fresh .
ryan
smoothly moves between spunky and vulnerable , with a sexy touch of winsomeness added to the brew .
their scenes together sparkle , even though they lack the nostalgic romanticism of sleepless in seattle .
and the shadow of that earlier hit hangs over you 've got mail like dried - up mistletoe .
the sparks created by the earlier movie are , by necessity , not evident here .
true , these are two people seeking true love , but you 've got mail is more comic and less poignant than its predecessor .
the ephrons ' script is witty and sharp .
however , as a director nora ephron is a bit uneven .
some scenes drag , while others , especially when hanks and ryan are revealing their souls via e - mail , are crisp and tidy .
also , the script gets sloppy toward the end with characters merely disappearing from the story .
a nice , romantic soundtrack adds to this date - night special .
overall , you 've got mail is a lush and cute outing , taking advantage of the star appeal of its two leads .
it 's a nice holiday movie , one for holding hands and snuggling . committed to lifelong learning through effective communication

A: P
****
Q: why do people hate the spice girls ? ?
what exactly have they done wrong , other than perhaps offend the fashion police ?
?
so what if they are not " great " singers --- they ai n't singing opera , folks , its pop music ! ?
who exactly is a " great " singer ? judging by that opening paragraph
it is obvious that i like the spice girls . ?
they do what they do -- sing some catchy tunes -- and
they do it pretty well . ?
they are able to carry that into their first film , " spice world " . ?
" spice world " certainly is n't a great filmgoing experience .
. .
what it is what the spice girls are all about : fun , songs , and a lot of " girl power !
" drawing from a number of different films ( like the beatles ' " hard day 's night " ) " spice world " chronicles the week heading up to the girls ' first concert at london 's albert hall .
?
they get to tool around london in a big ol' bus ( driven by meat loaf ! )
and generally have fun . ?
in order to through a semblence of plot into the film , there is an evil tabloid publisher played by barry humphries , better known to americans , for about 15 minutes , as dame edna ( remember her ? ) ?
he wants to sabotage the girls ' concert so he can sell papers .
of course , the point in a movie like " spice world " is n't plot . ?
the center of the film is the spice girls themselves : ginger ( the recently departed geri haliwell ) , posh ( victoria adams ) , sporty ( melanie chisolm ) , scary ( melanie brown ) , and baby ( emma bunton ) .
?
each one has their own personality and , perhaps the best part of the film , look like they are having some honest - to - goodness fun , something that ca n't be said for a lot of people in films today .
along for the ride are richard e . grant as their manager , clifford , and various other characters making quick cameo appearances ( including teriffic british actors like richard briers and stephen fry ) . ?
and , every once and a while , roger moore pops up as the chief to spout odd koans ( added bonus : he gets to , in the words of craig kilborn , dance , dance , dance . )
watching this film was fun , for the most part . ?
there are a few slow segments , but overly , director bob spiers keeps things moving at a quick pace , with plenty of hummable spice girls songs in the background . ?
his camerawork is fairly pedestrian , though the final concert number is done quite well with effective use of editing . ?
the look of the film promotes the high fun , with the design of the spicebus being quite original and eye - catching .
? add in wall - to - wall spice girls music and this film is lovable romp . ?
if you do n't like the spice girls , you wo n't change your mind with this film .
?
but , if you find them at least tolerable , get ready to sit back and chill because the spice girls are here to entertain you . . .
and do it quite well . ?
" spice world " ( 1998 ) . ?
directed by bob spiers . ?
written by kim fuller . ?
music by the spice girls .
?
with geri halliwell , victoria adams , melanie chisolm , melanie brown , emma bunton , richard e .
grant , claire rushbrook , roger moore . ?
distributed by columbia pictures .
?
running time : 92 minutes . ?
rated : pg . ? available on home video .
----
29 june 1998

A:
P
****