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

[EX Q]: robin hood :
men in tights is another mel - brooks - produced film in the classic tradition of movies like blazing saddles and young frankenstein .
mel brooks is well known for his comic look at regular life , his fast paced dialogue and sharp wit .
unfortunately , robin hood :
men in tights has none of the easy going humor of blazing saddles , none of the fun acting of young frankenstein , is devoid of the charm of spaceballs , and is even lacking the good , solid dialogue of history of the world .
it is , in short , one of the worst movies i have seen mel brooks , or anybody else , produce .
the plot borrows heavily from the well - received kevin costner movie of last year , robin hood : prince of thieves .
this is not surprising in and of itself , and could have been used to great comic effect , mainly by parodying scenes from the orginal movie .
mel brooks does not take advantage of this , however , and uses the film to launch several ideas into the air , none of which connect and none of which are explained later on .
the movie 's scenes could be shuffled around in any order and one would be hard pressed to notice .
cary elwes , of princess bride fame , plays robin of loxley , a man who was captured in the crusades , fighting with king richard .
he escapes and , joining with a man named achoo
( i am sure you can see the obvious joke ) , fights in england to reclaim his name and the throne for richard , which has been captured by evil prince john , played by funny comic richard lewis .
he also tries for the love of maid marian and attempts to overthrow the evil " sheriff of rottingham " .
a good adventure plot that is sadly unused .
elwes and lewis are both excellent comics , but the dialogue in the movie is simply excruciating .
neither actor has any good words to work with , and the lines simply are n't funny , nor believable .
perhaps the worst example of this is when the group of merry men encounter a man playing a macaulay culkin clone from the hit movie home alone .
this particular scene is so out of place and so badly acted , and followed by so many other scenes of equal miserable ideas , that i really felt like leaving the theatre .
much of the audience continued to look at their watches throughout , and some left the theatre .
chuckles were few and far between , and they mostly dealt with visual jokes ( such as an old , beaten up horse from " rent - a - wreck " ) then from any dialogue whatsoever .
scenes that could have been classics , such as the archery contest , are ruined by poor acting .
perhaps the largest problem with the movie is that it is simply offensive .
the basic plot , that robin has received a key that will unlock the chastity belt of maid marian , is not witty nor funny .
mel brooks as a circumcision - giving rabbi is also offensive to me and others in the audience ( not all jewish , either ) .
the movie simply tries to hard trying to be funny and by and large fails .
the addition of a blind man who stumbles around , falling off cliffs , walking into ledges and being a general buffoon could have had some humorous potential , but is also made terribly offensive .
the only reason to see this movie is the surprise actor at the end who plays king richard .
he is well worth waiting for , if you can stand an hour and half of unfunny dialogue , excruciating visual humor , old puns , ancient jokes and bad acting .
if you ca n't , do n't even bother watching this miserable film .
[EX A]: N

[EX Q]: plot : a little boy born in east germany ( named hansel ) loves the american music .
one day , he gets the opportunity to meet and marry an american g .
i .
,
but first , he must get a sex change ( enter hedwig ) .
once married , the two move to the states , but quickly thereafter , get a divorce .
at that point , hedwig starts writing music and meets another confused boy , who soon turns into a star .
that boy also turns his back on hedwig , and it is n't long before hedwig puts together his / her own band and tours the states via seafood restaurants .
this is the story of his / her life , told via flashbacks and musical numbers .
critique : an artsy - fartsy musical with great songs and a superb performance by john cameron mitchell , does n't really come together as a whole , with over - the - top symbolism , incoherence and too much pretension to retain my interest all the whole way through .
in fact , this is n't so much of a realistic , articulate , behind - the - scenes look at the rise of a rock ' n roll star , as it is an ambiguous , overly poetic and incomprehensible struggle of a man , his sexuality and his identity as a whole person on this planet .
i guess that i was expecting the former going in .
the film is somewhat interesting to a point , but i was personally never able to involve myself too much , as the basic symbolic and incongruent nature of the film left me feeling cold and distant .
but it is definitely tuned to a certain type of audience .
chances are that if you are a fan of the wall , the rocky horror picture show or even priscilla , queen of the desert , the elements tangled in this movie will likely strike your fancy ( some of the characters in this film even ask the audience to sing along at some point , and provide the lyrics of their song , on - screen ) .
well , i personally do n't care for those films , and did n't really get into the whole " show " atmosphere of this movie either .
i guess i might 've looked at it all too literally , but like i said earlier , i just did n't care enough about the characters to delve into the " so the butterfly represents his freedom ?
" side of things .
all i know is that the film left me with many questions unanswered and did n't make me feel any more fulfilled .
what was hedwig 's relationship with that other member of his band ( with the beard ) ?
what happened with hedwig and tommy gnosis at the end of the movie ?
( was that an actual sequence or a fantasy ? )
what ever happened to the lawsuit ? and more . . .
all of which were part of the film and interested me somewhat .
if the only idea behind the film was for the main character to uncover his / her sexuality , then that 's one thing , but as many of the relationships and situations presented themselves in this movie , i wanted some resolution to those pieces as well .
i did n't get it .
the film 's humor also did n't tickle my funny bone either .
then again , i 've seen many a film in these art - house theatres in which patrons are rolling down the aisles with laughter , while all i see is a tiny bit of whimsy on the screen .
some of these films are also better enjoyed with the added " atmosphere " of a plant called marijuana , and i can certainly see how this movie ingrains within itself some nifty visual elements , in order to jazz up that experience .
but being sober as i was and expecting a coherent , funny , musical with a transsexual twist ,
i did n't leave the theater very satisfied .
i came out having watched an existential story of a confused man caught up in a musical lifestyle , wrapped in metaphors , dramatics and more questions than answers .
i will , on the other hand , definitely hand some props out to the lead in this film , john cameron mitchell , who is also the man who wrote , directed and created the play on which this movie is based , and the tunes , which will likely be enjoyed by anyone who digs the sex pistols , david bowie and the whole 70s glam - rock scene .
note :
btw , it seems as though pretty much every single " mainstream " critic in the united states loved this movie from top to bottom ( and thought that it was really funny to boot ! )
, so you might want to take that into consideration yourself .
but having said that , the main reason that i started this dinky website in the first place was because films like this would sometimes be uniformly applauded by the " official " critics , while i , a regular " joblo " in the audience , just would n't get what all the fuss was about
.
this movie is a perfect example of why i continue to write movie reviews .
where 's joblo coming from ?
moulin rouge ( 8/10 ) - grease ( 8/10 )
- everyone says i love you ( 5/10 ) - the opposite of sex ( 8/10 ) - dancer in the dark ( 5/10 ) -
o brother , where art thou ( 7/10 ) - love 's labour 's lost ( 8/10 )
[EX A]: N

[EX Q]: i feel sorry for the financial backers of " waterworld , " which is supposedly the most expensive film ever made ( at $ 172 million ! ) , and is also one of the stupidest - boy did they get ripped off !
in fact , this film is not really a movie , but more of an amusement park ride with a plot .
it 's not even just another case of cliches strung together
( well , it is that too ) , it 's something that 's painful to watch because it relishes in its flaws .
kevin costner stars as a man who is some kind of mutant half man / half fish .
he is an explorer / mariner on an alternate earth that is completely covered by water because the polar ice caps melted .
he 's referred to as the mariner , but they " the meaner " would have been a more appropriate title because he 's cold , rigid , and strict -
and he 's supposed the be the good guy !
he docks at a small floating village of sorts .
he trades dirt for money and this introduces us to the other important characters .
first we meet one of the villains , then the soon - to - be heroine , a child prodigy , a wacky inventor , and a group of primitive people that somehow have some of the technology we have today , but also some of the low - tech tools used by pirates and vikings .
immediately the film 's biggest flaw is apparent
: are these people primitive or highly advanced ?
it does n't seem like anyone can read yet
they have ski - doos and airplanes !
how are these things powered ?
and if they have airplanes , could n't they just keep flying until they reached dry land ?
also , if the planet is completely covered in water where did they get the materials to make these things ?
i 'm sorry ,
i 'm all for checking your brain at the door when going to the movies , but elements like these can not go unnoticed because they draw our attention away from the story and confuse us
.
there was potential here for a good pirate story set in medieval times before modern technology , so why mix the two together ?
it does n't make any sense .
there really is n't much of a plot here because the story moves
so quickly it never takes time to explain anything .
the only thing we learn is that the prodigy child , enola ( mojorino ) , has a tattoo on her back that is supposedly a map to " dryland .
" who put the tattoo there and how come
it has taken them this long to figure this out ?
we never get an answer , just a stupid action movie about whoever can get the girl will be the victor of sorts if they reach dryland .
to make a long , boring , stupid , and just plain bad story short
; the mariner escapes with a woman named helen ( tripplehorn ) and enola .
they sail for a long time , encountering some strange people in the process and fight off " the smokers " as lead by the idiot villain deacon ( hopper ) , who kidnaps enola .
the story becomes a overly grand adventure with the mariner taking on an army of goons , rescuing enola , and bringing them all to salvation ( how original ) .
even with all its special effects , action , and adventure this film is boring
.
not a single character is likable , therefore neither is the plot .
dennis hopper completely rips off jack nicholson 's joker , while costner just plain rips .
still , " waterworld " is professionally made with a good production design and an original idea but no substance to it .
i just hope they do n't make a sequel !
[EX A]:
N