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

[Q]: in some regards , making a movie is like trying to stretch a rubber band as far as you can without breaking it .
try too hard , and it snaps ; but too much reservation means someone else will come along and pull it farther .
in simon birch , director mark steven johnson shows us just how to master the technique
: he takes advantage of caution and poise , but also risks his movie with a few bold steps .
in the end , he 's not only holding an unbroken band , but
he makes the audience appreciate the lengths he went to direct such a fine feature .
there 's no doubt about it : the film that johnson has crafted is rich .
he chooses for his setting the quaint town of gravestown , maine - leaves turn bright orange in the fall , the grass is a lush green , pure white snow falls in the winter , and the sky goes on forever .
the characters continue that turn : our two leads are simon birch ( ian michael smith ) and joe wenteworth ( joseph mazzello ) .
simon is the smallest baby ever born within the records of the local hospital , and by age twelve he 's only two feet tall .
joe is the bastard son of rebecca ( ashley judd ) , and by age twelve he 's ready to know who is father
is .
naturally , the two outcasts become good friends and share many adventures together , from disrupting sunday school to doing community service to playing little league baseball .
in a wonderfully executed performance by ian michael smith , simon birch is convinced that he 's god 's instrument , and there must be a reason he 's so small .
joe does n't quite buy it , but he sticks by simon ; the two tough it out through the worst of times and are each other 's only true friends .
early on , the two meet up with ben goodrich ( oliver platt ) , rebecca 's new boyfriend , and although the bond is n't immediate , ben and the two boys develop a liking for each other . both platt and judd give solid performances that lend their characters a deep likeability
.
the audience cares about them as much as they do about joe and simon , a testament to the acting jobs of both .
finally , jim carrey gives a cameo as the adult joe in the present day , and his few minutes here are relatively more impressive than his entire performance in the truman show .
mark steven johnson 's sense of drama and writing is fantastic
.
the script is loosely based on john irving 's novel , a prayer for owen meany , but it 's so far off the source material that irving actually requested the credits be changed from ' based on ' to ' suggested by . ' along those same lines , it 's almost unfitting to compare the two ; johnson uses tension , humor , atmosphere , and suspense to create an original drama of forrest gumpian proportions .
by no means has he developed a project of similar popularity - gump made over 300 million dollars while birch ought to pass out of sight in a few weeks - but the winning idea remains the same .
simon birch is a different look at a different life , and one that will most likely be studied in film school classes in decades to come
.
in the present , however , it 's an enjoyable little picture that everyone ought to take a look at .
[A]: P


[Q]: 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 .
[A]: N


[Q]: what a contrast !
in the space of two days , i saw shakespeare in love and hurlyburly .
i 'm not sure you could get two more different movies .
while the former was all over the top , telegraphing everything , shoving its philosophy of life down our throats , hurlyburly was the complete opposite , wound so tight and with so much buried in its script , one could spend weeks thinking about it .
this is one interesting movie .
it 's very much in a similar vein to one of my favourite movies of ' 98 , in the company of men , although not quite so nasty .
there 's lots of talking and some scary insights into the world of men .
hurlyburly
doens't contain much plot : we just follow eddie ( sean penn ) around as he tries to make sense of his life and the people around him .
his big question is : does it all pertain to him ?
and if it does , how is he supposed to feel about it all ?
"
it " means everything : television , friends , events that happen .
i guess it could be summed up more crudely as : what 's it all about ?
this is not a movie for answers .
donna ( anna paquin ) gives some
but they 're not really satisfying : they just lead to more questions .
that 's what makes this movie stay on your mind .
these are the sorts of questions that occupy our time .
even when we push them to the background , however we resolve these questions influences everything we do .
the performances are all superb in hurlyburly .
i have n't seen sean penn in much before ( in fact , i ca n't remember seeing him in anything ) , but he is brilliant in this .
eddie is n't a likeable character , but sean penn makes him understandable .
i do n't want to be his friend
but i 'd like to help him .
chazz palminteri is also great as phil , making him an awful person .
i 'd never want to know phil
but still i understand why eddie wants to be his friend .
everyone in this film nails their performances , making this world real .
it 's a nasty world ; it 's a sexist world .
unlike shakespeare in love which is unfailingly politically correct , hurlyburly is a man 's world , seen unapologetically through the eyes of men .
i find this fascinating and on two counts , depressing .
first , it 's depressing that such a world exists .
a large part of hurlyburly 's success is that it convinces me that such people are real and that this sort of environment exists every day in hollywood ; that there are a large number of men out there who believe women to be completely peripheral to their world , toys , playthings .
sure , everyone is background to everyone else but in this world , women are a long way in the background .
second , these are the movies that are being made : stories about men 's world .
where are the stories about women 's world ? not the soap operas and the " chick flicks " that are meant to satisfy women , but the real stories that touch on the essence of life like hurlyburly does for men .
hurlyburly is based on a stage play and that is evident from the moment the film starts .
it 's very talkative , intelligent and static .
while this can make the film drag a bit , and people sometimes sound like they 're quoting textbooks , mostly this is a good thing .
not all films have to be filled with special effects and sweeping panoramas .
not all films have to underestimate the intelligence of their audience .
all it means is that hurlyburly is probably just as effective on video as it is on the large screen .
it also means that you have to pay attention .
[A]:
N