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

when i ponder childhood memories past , one of the things that always springs immediately to mind is watching the " inspector gadget " tv show with my older brother .
truth be told , we were rabid fanatics ; our version of cowboys and indians was chasing each other around our coffee table to the theme tune , alternating who would get to be gadget and who would be stuck playing the part of dr .
claw , the inspector 's arch nemesis .
i was never a biggie on nostalgia , but you just ca n't help but have fond memories of something like that .
sometimes i even find myself up at 4 am watching re - runs of my favorite episodes , trying to recapture some of that sense of wonder i felt as a kid .
at the very least , i was expecting the new film version of the classic television series to have at least some kind of similar effect on me .
despite how horrid a film may be , the simple task of rekindling even a slight feeling of nostalgia is pretty tough to screw up .
so back i sat , with minimum expectations of what the movie would deliver ( let 's face it ; exactly how good can a live - action disney film really be ? ) .
i was wise enough to steer clear from the likes of mr .
magoo and george of the jungle ( two previous disney adaptations ) ,
and i wish to god that i had been sharp enough to skip gadget as well
.
rarely has a movie left me with such an utter feeling of emptiness .
as everyone else was getting up to exit the screening room after the movie had completed its assault on mankind , i was left sitting there , absolutely speechless and totally dumbfounded at what i had just seen
.
can something this awful
truly exist in such an evolved world ?
right from the beginning , i knew i was in trouble .
in the opening scenes , each character is introduced as if their sole purpose is to just be , to simply serve as real - life duplicates of their cartoon clones .
when referring to them , people almost yell in fear that the audience will not catch on as to who a certain character is supposed to be ( " oh , hi penny !
is brain with you ? " ) . creating one - dimensional replicas is one thing ; having mere names take the place of them is quite another .
the " plot " , shall we call it , stays fairly in tune with the original series .
matthew broderick stars as john brown ( how creative is that ? ) , a security guard who is horribly injured by a pack of ruthless businessmen headed by scolex ( why , rupert everett ,
for the love of god
why ? ? ? ! ! !
) , who himself is transformed into claw by an unfortunate chain of events .
brown is then rescued and used as a prototype for a new law - enforcement technology wherein he 's joined with various machine parts and some nifty gadgets to form ( drumroll , please ) . . .
inspector gadget !
> from here on out
, the movie becomes a hodgepodge of stupid dialog and confusing situations
( although , to be fair , my confusion could have been caused by the virtual concussion the film was inflicting upon my fragile mind ) .
there 's something about an evil gadget taking over the city ( his first crime must have been swiping matt dillon 's dentures from there 's something about mary ) and it all ends with ( what else ? )
a bunch of post - credit nonsense and a cameo by don adams himself .
to be honest , i was n't much paying attention to these " treats " .
i was just glad that it was over .
N

if you do n't think kevin kline in drag is funny , wait ?
til you see will smith in drag - it 's even less funny .
by the time jim west ( smith ) disguised himself as a belly dancer to bail his captured comrade , artemus gordon ( kline ) , from the clutches of evil dr .
loveless ( branagh ) ,
i was unequivocally bored by wild wild west , the new summer blockbuster from men in black director barry sonnenfeld .
is the old west really a breeding ground for high comedy , anyway ?
( if your answer is no , then you recall rustler 's rhapsody or back to the future part iii ; if your answer is yes , you 're thinking of blazing saddles , but that movie was a parody of the western genre , not a nineteenth century romp . )
1869 .
jim west is a quick - draw lawman who teams up with brainiac federal agent gordon , under orders from president grant ( kline again , whose impression , for all we know , is dead - on ) , to apprehend legless loveless , the mad inventor who is plotting to divvy up the united states and sell it back to britain and spain .
how will loveless accomplish this ?
well , by hulking around the desert in an enormous , mechanical tarantula , of course .
bosomy dance hall girl rita escobar ( hayek ) , whose scientist father was kidnapped by loveless , joins west and gordon on their gadget - filled train .
( gordon first discovers rita in a cage , waiting to be rescued . )
racial politics obviously prevented the filmmakers from pairing dull rita romantically with west , despite the movie 's " hip " attitude toward the black thing .
( west automatically shoots anyone who calls him a " nigger " before that person can finish speaking the word .
super . )
at any rate , i kept waiting for rita to say something humourous , but she 's a walking dress - up toy .
( her single comic moment is also the best shot of the film : she bashfully reveals bare bumcheeks through the peek - a - boo flap of her pyjamas . )
jim west is the role that finally stymied will smith , whose comic timing has always been hit or miss , as episodes of " the fresh prince of bel - air " demonstrate .
smith 's a better reactor than actor , which is why he was so thoroughly engaging in men in black - he did n't start out a hero .
in wild wild west
he 's required to exude eastwood cool and amuse at the same time ( and from frame one ) , a difficult feat i 'm not sure any living performer could pull off .
smith is ill equipped , for example , to handle the moment in which jim west performs stand - up for some rednecks at his own hanging .
what attracted sonnenfeld to this material ?
this is n't the first time he has adapted a tv show for the big screen ( the addams family , anyone ? ) , but it 's the first big stinker of his career as a director .
wild wild west is poorly - paced bombast , full of doa gags
( ted levine shows up as a general who uses a gramophone horn for a hearing aid ; levine played buffalo bill in the silence of the lambs - he 's too intense to get an intentional laugh ) , lousy special effects
( the bluescreening is amateurish - foregrounds are never proportionate to the backgrounds ) , and frequent illogic .
( to wit , its ridiculous villain so badly wants jim west out of the way that he . . . drops him onto a steel platform to do battle with some generic , ugly henchmen , instead of shooting him at point blank rage with one of the many guns on board the tarantula . )
wild wild west 's bright spots , such as the cool opening credits sequence , bai ling 's all - too - brief appearance as a femme fatale , or the brilliant " his master 's voice " joke , are all part of the film 's first half , which is more clever and enjoyable , at least , than its second .
when , towards what seemed like the end of wild wild west , gordon proposes the idea of building an airplane and west rejects it , there was a collective groan among audience members : it meant we were going to have to sit through another loud action sequence before gordon builds the glider , the invention of which would inevitably lead to the proverbial whiz - bang finale .
N

no , i did not read the novel by thomas hardy , " jude the obscure , " his final novel ( final because this film created such an outrage that he never wrote again -
see
: i did do some research on it ) about a man who is plagued with bad luck throughout his entire life .
but , after watching the movie , i can imagine how incredibly depressing it is .
" jude " is a satirical film from start to finish about society 's way of spitting out and chewing up those unwanted in its system , but
what 's remarkable is how timeless this film is .
the film takes place in the late 19th century ( or early 20th - was n't really sure ) , but its story could even be retold today in modern form , although it 'd be kinda different ( a given ) .
it tells the story of jude ( christopher eccleston - the psychotic accountant from " shallow grave " ) - a simple , dim - witted young man with big dreams .
in its bleak , foreboding opening , shot in grainy black and white , he gets a lesson from phillotson ( liam cunningham ) , his teacher : as they stand upon a mountain , looking upon a city in the distance , he says all you have to do is work hard and you can have anything in the world .
after marrying and divorcing an immature woman named arabella ( rachel griffiths ) because they frolicked in the hay ( literally ) but did not ultimately share anything in common , he moves away to a town with a giant university , with a chance to learn more , and get ahead in life .
taking a welding job , he works hard while studying constantly for his college bars , reciting latin over and over again , and training himself .
but when he sends his application for the school in , he is bluntly told to just remain a worker .
another reason for going to this town was because someone in his family lives there : sue ( kate winslet ) , his cousin and a very intelligent but kinda mischevious young woman who wants to be a school teacher .
she and jude click eventually and become very endearing friends , so much that when she spends the night at his flat after running from her apprentice teacher job ( for none other than phillotson at the local school ) , there are rumors that she and jude did some nasty business ( nudge nudge ) .
several twists turn in the storyline , and eventually jude and sue do do some nasty business ( an interesting scene , to say the least . . . ) , and are soon born into a controversial non - wedlock , as she eventually gives birth to their baby , and jude inherits his son from arabella , who turns up again after awhile . because they are n't married , and because they 're cousins , they run into problems with every place they go to , carrying around two children everywhere , and only staying in lodges for a very brief period of time , then moving on . if you did n't think this was harsh enough , wait till you see what happens later on . . .
the sad truth is that jude is one of the miserable people who can never get any luck in this world .
he will never gain any true happiness , and any happiness that happens to him will be fleeting , and will probably bring more horrible instances to his life .
part of it is his fault - he 's too optimistic , and too gullible .
but society has a way of taking these people , and hurting them until their death .
the ending of " jude " is bleak because it has to be ( although i hear the ending of the novel is even worse - guess i 'll have to read it now ) .
" jude " offers a satirical view on society 's cruelties , but shows no way of curing this , and thank heavens it does n't .
there 's no way to relinquish the selfishness of society , and any solution would be too small to cure such a mass problem .
satire has always been one of the few ways of changing certain people 's minds , and that 's what " jude " is .
sure , it 's one hell of a downer , but it needs to be .
the film also posesses two fantastic performances from its two leads , and some good supporting work along with it .
christopher eccleston ( slightly resembling richard edson with his new look and dumb expression ) plays jude wonderfully , sometimes bringing a big dumb smile to his face , and making him kind of child - like at other times .
kate winslet , in a pre- " titanic " performance , is brilliant ,
nailing every psyche of her character , and creating someone who 's troubled but very seductive with her personality .
kate may be the best actress in her age group ( if you do n't believe me , see " titanic , " branagh 's " hamlet , " " sense and sensibility , " and " heavenly creatures , " the latter one being my favorite performance of hers ) .
in the supporting roles , liam cunningham is a wonderfully flawed teacher , exposing all his bad parts , but ultimately being a pretty good person ; and rachel griffiths is wonderfully immature as jude 's wife , whom he never divorces .
" jude " moves at a very slow pace , and keeps taunting its viewers with chances of happiness for its protagonists , which would drive some people nuts .
but those who appreciate good social commentary with their films ,
no matter how slow or downright depressing they are ( this one is both )
will appreciate
" jude , " though i doubt anyone truly enjoys it .

P