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

[EX Q]: "
some houses are born bad , " goes the haunting 's tag line , to which i must add , " some movies , too .
"
nothing short of hiring a new cast , a more literate screenwriter , and a new director could have saved this tragically misguided adaptation of jackson 's meritorious novel .
the haunting is late entry summer dreck too slick to be creepy , and its seemingly endless stream of digital trickery and spooky ooky sound effects do n't frighten so much as numb the audience into submission
- the film is like a rube goldberg contraption rigged to shout " boo .
" fragile nell ( taylor ) , bisexual theo ( zeta - jones ) , and smiley luke ( wilson ) are three insomniacs who gather at the reputedly possessed hill house for an extended study on sleep disorders , hosted by professor marrow ( neeson ) .
marrow 's secretly gathering data on their respective paranoid responses to his recount of hill house 's bleak history .
he 's not prepared for the very real apparitions that terrorize the crew , nell especially , who has some ancestral connection to the manor 's previous inhabitants .
taylor is thoroughly insufferable in her first big - budget lead .
for starters , her consistently dour expression sucks the life out of even the early scenes , when we 're introduced to the mansion and all its fun - house trappings .
her character is supposed to be depressed , having tended to an unloving mother for too many years , but taylor plays nell as supernaturally lame , alternately grouchy , mopey , wiggy and pathetic , and i kept wondering why the other characters did n't just ditch this bitch
.
as for the obscenely photogenic zeta - jones , she breezes through her scenes with a wink and a smile and takes the scenery with her .
unfortunately , she 's saddled with some of the most unlikely dialogue the screenplay has to offer .
theo 's assessment of the house ?
"
i love it !
sort of charles foster kane meets the munsters .
" who on earth would say that in place of " citizen kane meets the munsters " ?
( furthermore , would you gladly spend a single night in a house befitting that description ? )
both actresses fare better than neeson , who looks embarrassed to be a part of this ensemble ( and for good reason ) , and his character is the most bland .
as luke puts it , dr .
marrow pulls the old " academic bait and switch " on his subjects , but he breaks down and confesses to this the second he 's accused .
later , he risks his life by climbing a crumbling stairwell to save nell ( it 's amusing to hear neeson shout " nell " repeatedly , given his starring role in the 1994 jodie foster vehicle of the same name ) .
why was this nice , helpful , and redemptive researcher so absent of ethics at the start ?
the haunting was well designed by eugenio zanetti .
his sets are obsessively detailed , and even before the cgi kicks in , they seem alive , never quite still .
i do have one beef with this aspect of the production :
the real life mansion used in exterior shots , nottinghamshire 's harlaxton manor , is so vast that one has trouble believing that nell and company , no matter how much running away they do from ghosts and goblins , always finish up in locations that were established in act one , as if all the action has been confined to one wing of hill house .
eighty million dollars was spent on the haunting , and despite a powerhouse box office debut ,
i doubt it will recoup its costs ( including marketing ) domestically .
thank jan de bont for that : proving for the third time that speed was a fluke , in that it was actually enjoyable , de bont has served up another ride , sans thrill .
his images , well - lit though they are , have an unmistakable been there - done that quality
; in fact , whole sequences , not to mention the cloaked , airy ghoul who owns the climax , feel lifted from a much smarter and infinitely more enjoyable spectacle from three summers back , peter jackson 's the frighteners .
i do n't mean to suggest de bont is a plagiarist , i mean to suggest that he 's a hack , having found no new ways to give us chills .
[EX A]: N

[EX Q]: big courtroom thrillers have always captivated america .
o .
j . simpson , tom capano , the menendez brothers .
all these names are synonymous to americans and courtrooms .
and , of course , courtroom dramas are not a new topic to hollywood . whether it be john grisham 's thrilling novels or television 's famous dramas , the courtroom has always provided big bucks .
so when i rented a civil action , i was expecting the film to be like the rainmaker , a brilliant law film that kept viewers on the edge of their seat .
however , what i saw in a civil action was far different from what i expected , a major surprise , but
fortunately , a pleasant one .
john travolta always seems to come up big when you least expect it .
no one expected him to light up the screen in grease , nor in saturday night fever .
but , whenever he gets knocked down , he always seems to come back fighting .
a civil action is not john 's best performance , but a strong one that could rival any performance in 1998 .
travolta proves that a normal and believable performance can vault a film into oscar nominations .
his performance is not flashy , nor memorable , just solid . if he delivered the only solid performance , this film would still be average .
luckily , he has a strong supporting cast .
william h .
macy is probably one of the most underrated actors in hollywood .
he continues to deliver great performances one after the other , but he is still regarded as a secondary actor .
in a civil action , he delivers yet another great performance
as travolta 's paranoid and greedy accountant .
he is not a lovable character , but a character who stands out in your mind whenever you think of the film .
he is not one of the big time lawyers , just a measly accountant .
but , he delivers one of the best supporting roles of 1998 , but there is actually someone better in a civil action .
robert duvall is also an underrated actor .
he gets many leading roles , but is never heard when you hear of big box office draws like tom hanks , brad pitt and jim carrey .
duvall has a supporting role in this as a lawyer of the co - defendant .
duvall is magical in this role .
he is the wise teacher , who not only battles it out in the courtroom , but also manages to teach every major player a lesson , in his own twisted way .
in many non - comedic films , directors are always trying to find a way to implement a touch of comedy , to keep the audience on their toes .
unfortunately , they usually just key in on one character whose main objective is to be funny ( jar - jar binks , anyone ? ) .
however , this usually backfires because the character is never fully developed .
this is not the case in a civil action .
they have comedy coming from all sides . whether it be duvall 's inane questions or macy 's sharp anger , the laughs come in a steady pace .
granted , it 's not roll in the aisle funny , but it provides a nice addition to the film .
the plot is terrific- somewhat .
the setup is nice with the film actually starting with a victory in the courtroom .
then the case that will make or break jan ( travolta ) 's career rears its ugly head .
they find out the goldmine involved with the case and wind up taking it .
however , budgets soon flounder and jan finds himself in deep debt .
i will not spoil the rest , although i must speak of the one downside to the film .
the courtroom debates are great , but the actual problem they are fighting for is never fully explored .
it left me somewhat confused , although the rest of the film is terrific .
all in all , john travolta is back yet again in this great film .
his supporting cast , consisting of macy and duvall , turn in tremendous performances , which ease the load on travolta .
the film is smart , witty and thought provoking .
not only does it gauge in - court battles , but also the various tolls it can take on the major players .
a civil action provides everything a drama lover craves .
[EX A]: P

[EX Q]: robert redford 's a river runs through it
is not a film i watch often .
it is a masterpiece -- one of the better films of recent years .
until 1994 , it was my second favorite film of all time .
the acting and direction is top - notch -- never sappy , always touching .
a friend of mine once reported that he avoided it because " i was afraid it would just be really politically correct , and tick me off .
"
all i could do was tell him to go in unbiased , and enjoy .
it is one of the few movies that has completely reduced me to tears . but certain memories should not often be rereleased -- in the last few shots , you have to cry .
upon my first viewing i left bawling .
it is not flawless --
but it is so very good , that you ca n't help but be effected .
the opening is dangerously nolstalgic and sentimental -- watching these shots of people who have been dead so long , gives you a feeling of perspective and history observation that you will find in very few other films .
martin scorsese once described the movies as a dream state -- like taking dope , and immersing yourself in an alternative world .
that is what a river runs through it
does .
it exploits the unique power of cinema to engross you and help to forget your real self .
both times i 've seen it , its been hard ( again to quote scorsese ) waking up .
but the dream is lovely .
[EX A]:
P

