In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
--------
Question: in arguably the most anticipated movie this century , george lucas has achieved a very mixed reaction to a sure blockbuster .
despite the fact the script and plot is a bit of a let down , the entire movie on the whole can be considered a milestone in technical excellence , in the sound and special effects department .
in terms of characters , by far the most outstanding and interesting is queen amidala ( natalie portman ) , whose mature performance far exceeds
her tender 14 years of age .
she is one ?
hot ' babe who defines true ? woman leadership ' .
she not only has a presence , but knows how to take command of the situation and save her planet from ruination .
no thanks to the jedi knights who although led by the force , lack leadership qualities in terms of thinking up a plan to do anything .
the young obi - wan kenobi ( ewan mcgregor ) who has a bad hair day in every scene , gets to kill a bad guy in the end , but lacks a love interest to make him a desirable sort of hero .
in fact all the jedi knight are a bit asexual - there must be something about the force which makes them all hermits and loners .
i mean it would be interesting to see yoda 's girlfriend for a change , if he has one .
not much better is qui - gon jinn ( liam neeson ) who mostly broods , and
has a better hair do than obi - wan , but only to find the young anakin skywalker and make the biggest mistake of his life .
also fascinating is george lucas ?
metoclorian ' theory , which claims that micro - organisms live within our cells and tie us to the fabric of the universe .
and it is the high concentrations of these organisms in an individual which make them particularly powerful in the force .
more humerous are the claims to the immaculate conception of darth vader , no doubt a concept stolen from the christian faith , except there will be no christmas to celebrate the birth of this dark emissary of the force .
overall
an experience which is not to be missed because of the very fact that it 's predecessor almost command a viewing of this inferior successor .
by all means not the pinnacle of the star wars phenomena but an adequate addition to the clan . watch out for the next one , it should be one steamy encounter between queen amidala and anakin skywalker - who i believe should be portrayed by ?
leonardo di caprio .

Answer: P


Question: let me start off by saying that leading up to the release of the latest bond film , i really was n't looking forward to it as much as i have with some of the previous films .
i 'm not sure if it was the fairly lackluster trailers or the ever - present dread that the next film will fall back into the miserable ways of the timothy dalton years .
i 'm happy to report that any doubts were erased after about the first 10 minutes of the film .
by that point , it was evident that mr .
bond was back with a vengeance .
all doubts would have probably been erased sooner except for the fact that the first ten minutes of the film were n't exactly a pleasant experience .
it seems that nobody told the geniuses working at the theater that the house lights are supposed to be turned off when the movie starts .
it took a reminder from an audience member to clue them in .
i guess they can be excused though , taking tickets and cleaning up popcorn between shows is extremely taxing on the brain .
anyway , after somebody remembered what the light switch was for , i settled in for bond .
i think the most noticeable aspect of this , the 19th film in the series , is that it really goes back to the almost tongue in cheek style of the roger moore films .
there were probably more one - liners in this movie than in the last several combined .
and bond 's last one - liner in the film is about the best of the series .
the world is not enough also contained perhaps the most action of any movie of the series .
everything from wild boat chases to the usual assortment of cool bond gadgets trotted out just when there seems to be no way out for 007 . for the most part , the action sequences worked very well .
although , there were a couple of times that i thought some things were a bit over the top , even for a bond film .
i think some of the blame can be laid at the feet of director michael apted .
while he did a good job for the most part , there were points in the movie , specifically during action sequences , that he seemed to loose site of the fact that he was making essentially an action film .
most noticeably sequences on a snow covered mountain and one involving bond getting through a closing door looked like apted thought he was filming some sort of high brow art movie .
he almost seemed like he did n't know what he was doing .
but they were brief scenes and really should n't take away from the otherwise solid job that apted did in directing
.
if you have ever seen a bond film , you wo n't be shocked to learn that plot has never been their strong suit .
the world is not enough is no exception .
this time we have yet another over villain that bond has to stop for the good of the world .
007 matches wits with the terrorist renard ( robert carlyle ) , a man who has a bullet lodged in his brain that makes him impervious to pain .
why this point is included is beyond me .
they took great pains to explain his condition , but it only came up later in the movie as a scene that can only be described as looking like an afterthought .
anyway , renard , like the typical terrorist that he is , is bent on some harebrained scheme involving a mid - east oil pipeline .
i guess world domination just is n't as attractive to terrorists as a money making venture anymore .
bond is brought in to protect the pipeline 's owner , elektra king ( sophie marceau ) , who is the daughter of one of renard 's recent victims .
along the way , bond has to enlist the help of a nuclear scientist , dr .
christmas jones ( denise richards ) , and his old rival valentin zukovsky ( robert carlyle ) .
like all bond films , you basically just have to suspend disbelief over the plot , since it is ridiculous beyond words .
my biggest complaint would be that it was about the most disjointed of any of the bond films .
there was at least one point that i had to stop and try to remember why bond was where he was and why he was doing what he was doing .
the buddy that i saw the movie with was completely confused over an earlier kidnapping of marceau 's character .
it was alluded to earlier in the movie briefly -- although not included in the film .
later , it became a big part of the story and left him with the distinct feeling that he had missed something .
but because it is a bond film , the beautiful women and nifty gadgets seem to make you forget about script problems quite quickly .
after all , it is n't shakespeare .
how about the cast ?
brosnan seems to get better with each of his appearances as 007 .
i grew up with the roger moore version of bond , so i really enjoyed the lighter style that brosnan brings to the character .
judi dench , as m , had a bigger role in this film than in her two previous appearances in the role .
she brought the talent with her that one would expect from an oscar winner .
robbie coltrane was easily one of the best parts in goldeneye , so it was nice to see his russian mobster character revived in this movie .
coltrane gets more screen time , which simply leads to him stealing even more scenes .
then there are the bond girls .
sophie marceau might be one of the most beautiful actresses working today .
there is just something about her breathtaking eyes that makes her a natural to play the innocent victim .
those that saw her in braveheart know she is more than just a pretty face .
marceau may be the most talented actress to ever play a bond love interest .
then we have denise richards .
there was no doubt in my mind that she was cast exclusively for her looks .
and after you see the outfits she wears , you wo n't have any trouble guessing what part of her anatomy caught the producer 's eyes .
i was pleasantly surprised to find that she really did a good job playing a nuclear scientist .
admittedly , there was one point that the audience snickered a bit at one of her technical lines of dialogue , but other than that
she stacks up ( no pun intended ) to her bond girl predecessors nicely .
i must say that the biggest disappointment was robert carlyle 's character .
while carlyle did a fine job with the material that he had , his character just never worked for me .
the producers tried very hard to add more complexity to his character , but it just never quite got off the ground .
i guess i was hoping for a bit more regarding the whole impervious to pain aspect of his character , but the writers decided to play up the emotional side of his character .
this might have worked well in another movie , but i do n't go to see bond movies for their deep characterizations .
last , but not least , we have desmond llewelyn as q .
this is the 17th appearance for llewelyn as bond 's gadget guy , and he is as good as ever .
although his screen time has grown far more limited in the past few films , he is still a treat to watch .
rumors abound that this may be his last appearance in the role .
he says future appearances are up to a higher power .
the producers have introduced his protege and future replacement , a bumbling and somewhat pompous character played by comedy master john cleese .
while we do n't see much of him in this film , i think it is fair to say that desmond llewelyn 's legacy , whenever it is passed on , will be in very capable hands .
so how does it stack up ?
despite some problems , the world is not enough is a very entertaining movie .
and , all things considered , what problems it does have are small compared to some that have plagued earlier bond movies .
this is easily the best of the brosnan films .
it may even be the best of the entire series , certainly in the top 3 .
one thing is for sure , even after 19 movies , there is still plenty of life left in the james bond series .
here 's looking forward to bond number 20 .

Answer: P


Question: several days after having seen this movie , i 'm still trying to determine what director christopher guest , a man whose sense of humor i usually appreciate , found funny in either the concept or the execution of almost heroes .
this is a dreadful motion picture ? a lowbrow example of period piece comedy with terrible production values and an exceptionally poor laughs - to - jokes ratio
.
there 's a kind of desperation in the movie 's approach to humor that reveals the film makers ' uncertainty about how entertaining the material is ; the manic style betrays itself as a last - ditch attempt to hide the flaws of a failed script .
the premise does n't sound especially amusing to begin with ?
almost heroes tells the tale of two explorers , the effeminate leslie edwards ( matthew perry ) and the uncouth bartholomew hunt ( chris farley ) , who are racing lewis and clark on the trip to the american northwest .
edwards and hunt are accompanied by the kinds of weirdoes we find in road movies ( albeit of the early-19th century variety ) , including a frenchman named guy fontenot who claims to speak hundreds of languages ( none of which prove to be useful ) , a pretty indian maiden who turns into the obligatory love interest , and a bizarre man who suffers a series of debilitating injuries .
along the way , the intrepid explorers encounter bears , bald eagles , aging native american warriors , and a conquistador named hildago ( kevin dunn ) who raves about his beautiful hair .
the explorers ' trek takes them through forests , across the snow - capped rocky mountains , and over a waterfall .
this setup leads to a lot of shouting , a great deal of lunacy , and very few laughs .
farley engages in his usual shtick of falling down and bellowing , but , aside from an momentarily diverting confrontation with an eagle , his heart does n't seem to be in it .
matthew perry , one of the stars of tv 's friends ( who had some modest success in the romantic comedy , fools rush in ) is badly miscast .
as a foil for farley and an antidote to his runaway energy , perry lacks the necessary edge of the proverbial straight man .
i 'm not a big fan of david spade , and i did n't like tommy boy , but at least he and farley worked well together .
as far as the supporting players go , none of them makes more than a fleeting impression . eugene levy is wasted , and kevin dunn is about as interesting here as he is in godzilla . frankly ,
it 's a disappointment to see something this dumb and ugly come from christopher guest , the brilliant comic force behind such films as this is spinal tap , the big picture , and waiting for guffman .
although guest gets the costumes right , this nearly - inconsequential success is no substitute for the weak script and unfunny execution .
the special effects , such as they are , are execrable .
for an example of some really poor blue screen work , look at the scenes where the characters are shooting the rapids ( they 're obviously getting buckets of water thrown on them ) and where farley is being carried off by an eagle .
even though farley did n't have the most stellar of acting careers , he does n't deserve the kind of unfortunate epitaph offered by almost heroes .
while some of the more outrageous attempts at humor may coax a few guffaws from 12-year old boys , the level of comedy in almost heroes falls far below the level of sophomoric .
farley fans who see this film as a way to say goodbye should be commended for their loyalty , since it takes real stamina to stay seated for the full running length of this cinematic torture session .

Answer:
N