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

Q: as a revolutionary war hero in the patriot , mel gibson provides another macho man performance for hollywood audiences .
you know the type : his shirt is always shredded , his face always scarred , he has a soft spot for his loved ones and a " to kill " list for his enemies .
oscar - hungry director / executive producer roland
emmerich did not intend to , but he made the stereotypical action hero for the 18th century .
as gibson delivers lines like , " before this war is over , i am going to kill you , " schwarzenegger in commando or stallone in cobra immediately come to mind .
oddly enough , the patriot is as much an epic three - hour - tear - fest like gladiator , as
it is a ninety - minute guilty pleasure .
at times absorbing , at others enjoyably insipid , this is good , bloody summer fun .
i probably would have despised this film had it not been released over the july 4th weekend .
some of the images are so zealously americanized ( the flag is used as a lifesaving weapon for example ) , that independence day seems the only appropriate time of year to wholeheartedly accept it .
like emmerich 's id4 , this is obvious propaganda where the americans are the hapless underdogs motivated by freedom for all .
sure it 's predictable and melodramatic , but for a moment after leaving the theater , i was dumbfounded with patriotism .
and is n't that the point of the patriot ?
gibson plays benjamin martin , the lionized french and indian war veteran , who , at the beginning of the film , is emotionally suffering after his loving wife passed away .
he is left to father seven children at his south carolina estate along with black servants ( not slaves ! ) . as the revolutionary war rumbles miles away , martin swears to keep his family close and away from the battlefields .
but when the oldest son enlists anyway and another is murdered by a wicked redcoat colonel ( jason isaacs ) , martin quickly decides to save the day ( or save the fate of america as presented by emmerich ) .
forming a band of aggressive farmers and using guerilla tactics considered unfair in the art of war , martin becomes the number one target of the british army .
the best parts of the patriot are the scenes in which martin and his rugged militia men outsmart the british armies left and right .
every time the farmers attacked the unsuspecting enemy , to see the disbelief on british general cornwallis ' ( tom wilkinson ) face was priceless entertainment .
and as the tension gradually formulates with the running time , a final battle is inevitable .
as for the numerous battle scenes , they are expertly done . clearer and more realistic
than those of gladiator , the gruesome images are what give this film an r rating .
you really get a sense of how warfare was performed during that time period .
everything is performed in an orderly ( but still quite gory ) fashion - one side shoots , then the other side , then the remaining soldiers charge .
it 's organized , strategic and , according to martin , ineffective .
there is a very interesting contrast between the traditional battle style and martin 's take - no - prisoners method .
what drives martin to these supposedly unfair actions , are the originally brutal tactics of colonel tavington . played wonderfully by jason isaacs , tavington is the type who loves to glare down from his horse at civilians , who nervously avoid eye contact .
this character is viciously evil ; he kills women and children and then laughs about it on the way home ; even his eyes are evil .
his portrayal has sparked some controversy in britain , some claim that he falsely represents his countrymen as " cowardly " and " sadistic .
"
i disagree with this accusation .
tavington does not represent his country ; his unnecessary executions shock his own colleagues and even anger his general .
besides tavington , the redcoats remain stick figures that are neither glorified nor patronized . and stick figures make the easiest enemies in these kinds of movies - why give the audience a reason to love the bad guys ?
heck , why not spend the entire film glossing up the good guys ?
the patriot is three hours of fictional fireworks .
with an action hero seeking revenge and a comic book villain ready to take him down , it 's a lethal weapon for the colonial times .
god bless america !
and god bless the patriot !

A: P
****
Q: i was anxious to see this for a long time .
a friend of mine recommended this to me because he has a crush on neve campbell , and he wanted to prove that she 's as hot as he thinks he is .
he proved it for me all right , but
the reasons i enjoy this film go way beyond that .
scream treads on familar ground , horror movie with , as star neve campbell puts it , " some stupid killer stalking some big breasted girl who ca n't act who 's always running up the stairs when she should be running out the front door .
"
it 's very familar , your typical horror film .
so why , you may ask after watching it , does it seem so new and original ? because it treats itself as if it has n't been done before , and thus the viewer is disilusioned into believing that it is not old , familar tired stuff .
this raises another question : how does it do this ?
simple : the characters .
they 're not your typical stupid horror film victims who do n't know what the hell to do when being chased by a guy in a ski mask and a machette .
they are horror fans , they know how stuff happens in a horror movie , they know what to do and what not to do , and that makes it scary , and even funny at certain times .
you can tell this just by watching the opening scene where casey becker ( drew barrymore ) is making popcorn , getting ready to watch a video , and some guy who sounds like a killer calls her up to play a game with her that involves horror movie triva that , if she gets it wrong , will get her and her boyfriend killed .
she knows what to answer when he asks her horror film questions , she just ca n't answer his final question , " what door am i at ? " and that gets her killed .
that scene works because in a normal horror film , half the things that happen in that scene would never happen .
the plot is typical horror stuff : sidney prescott ( an impressive neve campbell ) , an attractive young high school student who 's mother was killed a year ago tommorrow , is being stalked by a killer who 's previously murdered one of her classmates ( casey , naturally ) , and everybody in this small , california town is a suspect , including sidney 's boyfriend , billy loomis .
but as i said before , these people know how horror movies work , and that 's what makes it so appealing .
that and the references to horror movies , like when casey says , " the first ( nightmare on elm street ) was scary , but the rest sucked .
" which is obviously director wes craven ( who does a good job of poking fun of the genre that made him a legend ) patting himself on the back as he directed the first nightmare movie and none of the others , and when tatum , sidney 's friend , mentions the director , wes carpenter , which is obviously an homage by writer kevin williamson to not only craven , but also director john carpenter .
the cast is well chosen , neve campbell pulls off a good heroine
( and unlike most horror film heroines , she * can * act ) , drew barrymore does a good janet leigh impression for what little time she has in the film , and david arquette is impressive .
also good
( and funny ) in his role is henry winkler ( " the fonz " )
as the school principal .
i took half a point off for the unnecessary ( albeit limited ) appearance by friends ' courteney cox as reporter , gail edwards , sidney 's rival because she covered her mother 's disappearance .
i hate that show
, i hate those actors .
they 're untalented , overexposed , and overpaid , imho , and i would think wes craven is smart enough to know those actors are overexposed enough , but i suppose he is n't .

A: P
****
Q: michael crichton has had a long career of writing novels , many of which are science fiction .
the most profitable film adaptation of any novel was an adaptation of a michael crichton science fiction novel .
so in the logic of the film industry a good way to make a profitable film would be to make a big - budget adaptation of another crichton science fiction novel .
congo failed , and i am afraid that sphere is probably not going to fare a whole lot better .
it a little better than just okay novel and
it makes a film that is not even that good .
the film is expensive , over one hundred million dollars ; is long , 133 minutes ; has a terrific cast , including dustin hoffman , samuel l . jackson , and sharon stone ; but has little that is really original and less that is exciting .
several years ago dr .
norman goodman ( played by dustin hoffman ) was asked to write up a set of procedures for the government to follow if an alien entity was actually encountered .
the plan he wrote was only semi - serious , but did explicitly define a team of experts who should investigate the alien .
now that team has been assembled by a mysterious team leader named barnes ( peter coyote ) to study a spacecraft almost a half mile in length that apparently dropped into the pacific ocean in the early 1700s .
suddenly norman 's less than serious procedure has become an action plan for dealing with a real alien spacecraft .
included in the team to investigate are mathematician harry adams ( samuel l . jackson ) , biologist beth halperin ( sharon stone ) , and astrophysicist ted fielding ( liev schreiber )
.
together they travel to the deep pacific spaceship to understand its secrets .
one major secret is the meaning of the huge sphere of gold - toned liquid metal at the heart of this spaceship .
what is disappointing about this film is that it does not have really effective performances .
director barry levinson is at his best with good actors rather than good special effects .
the problem here is he is making a big - budget science fiction film .
it has some effects , but the most intriguing effect he shows only as an outline on a radar screen .
the technique is to suggest rather than to show and let the actors and the viewer 's imagination carry the film as robert wise did with the haunting .
that could be a reasonable approach in a low - budget film .
but that requires creating much more atmosphere than levinson can manage to muster .
it requires the actors to give really compelling performances and simply put , they do n't .
hoffman 's acting seems muted .
jackson seems to laid back .
we do not feel for these characters and do not get inside their heads
.
levinson paid big bucks for his actors and does not really get price performance .
and why we have queen latifah as a minor functionary on the expedition
is anybody 's guess .
a cast of unknowns could have delivered as much emotional impact at a fraction of the price .
look how much more powerful a film like alien was with only moderate actors .
most science fiction spectaculars these days have second - tier actors and first - tier special effects .
levinson tries second - tier effects , and first - tier actors , but never makes that exchange pay off for the viewer .
perhaps sci - fi spectaculars are just not an actor 's medium .
the result gets a 4 on the 0 to 10 scale and 0 on the -4 to +4 scale .

A:
N
****