instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or 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:
steven spielberg 's " amistad , " which is based on the true story of a group of africans who revolted on board a slave ship , then were captured and taken to america where a legal dispute ensued over who " owned " them , is concerned with several different aspects of this story .
first , the film addresses the issue of the inherent evils of slavery .
second , it deals with the historical involvement of several american politicians in the case , including president martin van buren and former president john quincy adams ( anthony hopkins ) .
last , and most importantly , it examines the cultural confusion experienced by the africans who were forced into slavery and the damage done to their native culture in africa by the slave trade .
" amistad " succeeds at least partly with all three of these elements .
i have to admit that i was a little skeptical as to how much i could really get out of another " anti - slavery " movie .
having seen several other movies and documentaries about slavery , i doubted that there was much i did n't already know about it .
fortunately , i turned out to be wrong .
for one thing , spielberg 's camera never once gets near a southern plantation and instead sticks to the slave ships and the slave traders ' operations in africa , so " amistad " was dealing with a different part of the history of slavery from the very beginning .
and some of the images here are , in fact , much more harrowing than what we usually see in movies about slavery .
one scene in the middle , in which the crew of a slave ship dispose of some of their " excess " slaves by throwing them overboard to drown , has to be one of the most disturbing film images of the year .
spielberg digs farther into the evils of slavery than i was expecting he would , and in fact he probably goes about as far as a movie director can without getting an nc-17 rating .
the stark suffering of the africans is contrasted sharply with the shallow luxury of the politicians , such as president van buren and queen isabella of spain , whose naval officers were involved in the legal dispute and who was only a small child at the time .
exposing politicians as narrow - minded , opportunistic hypocrites is fairly standard stuff , of course , but spielberg and writer david franzoni
do it well enough that it still comes off as something more than just a simple exercise in audience manipulation .
the film also examines the contentious nature of the slavery issue at the time , such that john quincy adams ( and probably other politicians like him ) , who clearly disapproved of the practice , was reluctant to get involved in the case until it was appealed all the way to the supreme court .
the biggest success of " amistad " is probably the characterization of cinque ( djimon hounsou ) , who emerges as the de facto leader of the kidnapped africans and struggles to communicate with baldwin ( matthew mcconaughey ) , the lawyer who represents them in court .
through cinque , we are given a window into the native culture , as he and the displaced africans try to explain to the prison guards what they need for a proper burial of a dead tribe member , or find an illustrated version of the bible and try to understand the story of jesus christ .
cinque sees the dispute with a clarity and simplicity that , again , contrasts with the technicalities and mechanics of the legal process and of the political squabbles .
"
what kind of country is this , where laws ' almost ' work ?
"
he asks baldwin in bewilderment , when he learns that the case must be re - tried before the supreme court .
spielberg 's direction tends a little bit towards the manipulative side at times , such as when he adds a heavy orchestral swell to cinque 's angry outburst in the court room .
still , there is n't enough of this for it to be a serious problem .
the main flaw in this film , which prevents it from earning four stars , is that it seems like spielberg and franzoni ca n't quite handle all of these issues at the same time , so instead they settle for addressing each one separately and simply editing the results into the same movie .
this summer 's contact , for example , dealt with several issues at once , but each of them was somehow present in almost every scene and , most importantly , all of them were resolved at once .
" amistad " tries to pull it all together in the end with a speech from adams , but it somehow feels a little forced , and in any case the speech itself , which lasts almost fifteen minutes , wears out its welcome about halfway through .
perhaps the best way to describe it is this :
" amistad " is three four star films edited into one .
almost every individual scene works , but the final product is lacking the necessary focus and coherence , and thus is less than the sum of its parts .
however , i ca n't honestly say how it could have been done differently , and in any case the story comes through with enough raw emotional power that it is still a very good film , and thus
i recommend it to anyone who can handle the disturbing imagery .
answer:
P

question:
in " the 13th warrior , " arab poet ahmed ibn fahdlan ( antonio banderas ) finds himself kicked out of baghdad for feeling up the king 's old lady .
with his translator ( screen legend omar sharif in a small role ) , ahmed heads north to act as ambassador to the northmen ( vikings ) .
he finds a group of warriors mourning the loss of their king .
a messenger soon arrives from another kingdom requesting assistance .
a soothsayer says that thirteen warriors must answer the summons , twelve northmen and one outsider .
thus , ahmed becomes the " 13th warrior .
" on the trip , ahmed manages to learn the vikings ' language by listening to their fireside conversations .
a bit far - fetched , it 's true , but we have to swallow it if this flick is going to manage a few lines of dialogue amidst the grunting .
ahmed , who 's called " ibn " by the vikings , forms friendships with herger the joyous ( dennis storh ?
i ) and the viking leader buliwyf ( vladimir kulich ) .
when they arrive in the other kingdom , the thirteen warriors discover that they 're facing an army of supernatural cannibals that live up in the caves .
hereafter , most of the movie is battle scenes : the cannibals attack the vikings , the vikings attack the cannibals , the cannibals attack the . . .
well , you get the idea .
just to add some action , there 's also a viking vs . viking duel .
other movies insert scenes between the fights ; these scenes are called character development .
i suspect that " the 13th warrior " had a better script at one time and that it fell through the cracks because of the tag - team direction .
the movie started off in the hands of john mctiernan ( you 'll notice a lot of similarities between " warrior " and mctiernan 's " predator , " including the chittering jungle sounds ) .
somewhere along the line , mctiernan bailed and michael crichton took over .
crichton , whose novel " eaters of the dead " is the basis for " warrior , " has directed a small assortment of goofy science - fiction " thrillers " : " westworld , " " coma , " " looker , " " runaway .
" their result of their consecutive efforts is a murky and pointless movie .
perhaps what " the 13th warrior " needs more than anything else is a villain .
the " eaters of the dead " are a faceless mob in blackface .
they have no personality , and by the end they do n't even seem particularly threatening .
the audience has no target toward which to channel its aggression .
mctiernan should know about the importance of an interesting villain ; it was his " die hard " that made villains seem fun and attracted big - name stars to the evil roles in action films .
"
the 13th warrior " suffers from a lack of vision .
it wants to be " predator " meets " braveheart " meets " the magnificent seven " meets " dances with wolves .
" with so many competing goals , all it can do is echo what it might have been .
it might have been a satisfying action film .
it might have been a beautifully - rendered medieval epic .
it might have been a thought - provoking examination of the meeting of cultures .
what a shame it turned out to be nothing in particular .
bottom line : if you want to see antonio swing his sword , rent " the mask of zorro .
"
answer:
N