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

[EX Q]: dora ( fernanda montenegro ) sits behind a make - shift desk at rio+s major train station .
she , in her colorful demeanor , offers a service that is unheard of in the states .
she writes letters for the illiterate , who pass through , to try to find lost relatives , find love , or search after lost debts .
she+s
quirky , she+s elderly , she+s caring .
totally trustworthy , right ? not a chance .
once home , she never sends these letters , saving money on postage , and relishing in the drama contained therein with her neighbor irene ( mar ?
lia
p ? ra ) .
one of the letters is sent by a young mother with her nine - year old son , looking for their father .
shortly thereafter , she gets hit by a bus , and the son is orphaned .
days go by , and the boy , named josu ?
, roams around the station , hungry , desperate , and somewhat clueless to his predictament .
through a series of circumstances too precious to elaborate upon , dora somehow takes a responsibility in trying to find josu ?
+ s father .
this means leaving the security of rio , traveling to the outskirts of brazil , where unpaved roads , religious devotees and the poverty - stricken become commonplace .
films like this remind me as to what i enjoy about some foreign films .
it is an opportunity for me to get a fresh breath in another part of the world , so distant from my own .
it does so entertainingly , and so heart - wrenchingly
.
and yet , it+s backdrop is merely that .
the focus is on the minute transformation of dora , of how she learns to love this little kid , without being cloying or sentimental .
the most interesting backdrop is the amount of religious dedication is in the film .
dora being an amoral scam - artist , could care less about the amount of bickering between the candle - lighting of the catholics versus the bumper - sticker mentality of the evangelicals .
but neither side is trivialized .
she even begins to develop an affection for a non - drinking evangelical , who sees the problems with dora , if not initially .
fernanda montenegro surprisingly got an oscar nomination for this very delicate performance , but the true marvel is that of vinicius de oliveira , who plays josu ? .
he , like the discoveries of j ?
r ?
mie renier
( _ la promesse _ ) and giorgio cantarini
( _ life is beautiful _ ) , prove that the true acting discoveries may be outside of the united states .
he is a natural , and never once grating .
send a memo to jonathan taylor thomas .
[EX A]: P

[EX Q]: pre - review note : seeing as the only concern of body shots is " sex " , i will be forced to refer to that particular act innumerable times throughout the duration of this review .
because of this , i will try to vary word descriptions of " sex " ( meaning if you are offended by pejorative terms , and \ or your name is jerry falwell , you are kindly invited to hit the x up on the left corner of your screen ) , so if there happens to be a word you come across and can not comprehend , fret not , it 's most likely just another way of referring to " sex " .
i think we 'd all agree that any word used incessantly becomes a bit monotonous
so i hope you appreciate my attempt to liven up what could potentially be a very boring review .
though not as boring as the movie which makes steve forbes flat tax plan seem as lively as watching a naked mathew mconaughy play the bongos while high on god knows what .
body shots is a film so frightened of coitus that scenes of copulation are filmed ominously , in the way you 'd normally expect to see a violent attack .
it 's about people who think about screwing , seek it out , and talk about it .
these are things we all do , sometimes .
the characters in this film spend every waking moment pondering the simplicities of sexual acts .
their lives center around the next sexual encounter , but they seemed depressed .
it 's as if fucking is all they have to look forward to after a busy workweek .
at its core body shots is a message movie , the kind of thing i could picture really progressive church groups showing to middle schoolers in order to turn them off coition .
michael cristoffer ( who directed gia , another film that treated bumping uglies as if it where evil ) is a moralist with nothing new to say .
his characters do n't communicate anything of interest to each other , so cristoffer gives them an opportunity to let out their inner thoughts by speaking directly into the camera .
they voice simplistic platitudes like " i like to come " or " sex without love equals violence " .
huh ?
and yes that is as complex as this movie 's observations get .
the characters are stupid and shallow , with not one registering as anything more .
the plot concerns vapid over sexed twentysomethings on an all night hunt for carnal pleasure , then the after math ( the morning after ) of such events .
we meet the characters as they speak directly to us , confiding in us with their idiotic ruminations on intimacy .
i would normally go into the characters and the actors who play them , giving you the pros and cons , but for this film i can not .
i 'm not trying to be clever or witty , but i honestly hardly remember anything that would set them apart from the others .
with the exception of trent ( played by ron livingston as a bargain basement patrick bateman ) , the rest fade into each other-- a patchwork of fake breasts , defined abs , pearly white teeth , and creamy , flawless skin .
i vaguely recall brad rowe as the sensitive one , only because his character gets the worst lines ( " sex without love equals violence " ) .
in between all the confessionals , cristoffer films everything like a headache commercial , with blurry slo mos and dramatic head turning .
the fact that this director at one point won a pulitzer prize completely baffles me .
this film is made without one iota of intelligence or insight into the generation that its tag line claims to be defining .
if body shots is meant to say that all twentysometyhings are idiotic and f * * k - obsessed , fine , i do n't have any problem with a film that tries to persuade me to think a certain way , but cristoffer only gives us one side .
additionally that one side is n't even entertaining ; the characters indulge in buggery without an ounce of sexiness . or realism .
one sexual encounter takes place outside a club on a chain link fence between the two most sensitive characters .
they suddenly have vigorous intercourse with each other for no apparent reason ( other than that they both happen to be standing next to each other ? ? ?
alas , if it could only be that easy ? ? ?
kidding of course ) , then , not only is n't it erotic , it is n't real .
it does n't feel like an authentic sexual encounter .
every f
*
* k scene in this film ( and there are many ) is treated in the same unsexy manner .
body shots makes fornication dirtier than the most scummy porno film .
it shows us none of the pleasure that should go along with it , and most of all , it fails to show us why its characters love making it so much if they seem to hate the act of actually doing it .
the resulting search for nookie ( and you can take that cookie ? ? ? )
over one night leaves us with several tedious plot lines to follow .
the main concern is much ado over a rape that may or may not have occurred .
the film shows us two separate versions of the possible rape ( one where it is consensual the other where it is not ) and in both versions the young actress playing the possible victim gets her shirt torn off .
this is a topic that could be interestingly explored if done intelligently , and if memory serves me i ca n't think of one film that has done so , and yes i saw the accused which may be one of the most overrated movies of the 80 's next to wall street .
unfortunately nobody gives us reason to care , not the writer , the director or the actors nearly all of whom seem to have wandered off the set of a noxious 90210 spin off .
paul thomas anderson approached boogie nights in a manner similar to what cristoffer does here , though boogie nights succeeded .
it was similarly moralistic , but it gave us two different viewpoints ; it showed us how the lifestyle of porn enticed its characters , and it showed us the possible fall - out of such a decision .
the characters in boogie nights were as idiotic as the characters are here , but anderson seemed to care about them .
he gave them heart .
cristoffer gives them nothing but raging hormones .
he preaches to us , by using his characters to preach to us .
this is not the way to get any message across .
why not just direct a public service announcement on the perils of hittin ' skins ?
cristofer kind of does that , though
without an ounce of insight , and with a helping of leering exploitation .
[EX A]: N

[EX Q]: adam sandler is n't known for appearing in deep , thought - provoking films , but he 's still a really funny guy .
most of his movies are successful not because of the film making behind them , but because they let sandler do what he does best without a stupid plot to drown him out .
big daddy is the first film in which the story seems more important than sandler 's comic performance , and it 's a miserable failure
.
sandler plays a thirty - something loser who gets attached to an orphaned young boy ( played by cole and dylan sprouse ) .
as one might expect from the synopsis , director dennis dugan resorts to the usual bag of manipulative and sentimental sequences , including a repulsive courtroom battle and a lot of teary scenes in which characters say " good - bye " to one another ; in addition , there 's a ridiculous amount of disgusting toilet humor ( urine and vomit both get more screen time than sandler himself ) .
there 's a hilarious running joke featuring a female doctor who previously worked at hooters , and the film features passable performances from sandler , joey lauren adams ( as the love interest ) , and the two young boys , but the film on the whole is trite and disappointingly unfunny .
[EX A]:
N