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

[Q]: on the basis of this film alone , i never would have predicted that , in two years , quentin tarantino would become the country 's biggest hotshot director .
reservoir dogs
has hints of the tarantino brilliance that emerged in pulp fiction , but is a much less substantive , more conventional crime story than the big pf .
here 's what the two movies do have in common . . .
--scenes of intelligent , amusing dialogue with no relevance to the plot --a story that jumps back and forth in time rather than going in a logical , chronological sequence --graphic yet necessary violence
--an engaging crime story --dialogue liberally spiced with swear words and racial / gender slurs --three of the same actors ( harvey keitel , tim roth and steve buscemi )
--a mexican standoff ending , although this one is considerably less optimistic than pf reservoir dogs is an entire hour shorter than pulp fiction because it 's only got one story to tell rather than three .
crime lord joe cabot ( veteran actor lawrence tierney ) has assembled five criminals who have never even met each other to pull a diamond store heist .
the five are instructed not to reveal their real names or personal details or anything the cops could use if one of them was captured and interrogated .
instead , they are all given code names off the color chart -- mr .
white ( keitel ) , mr .
pink ( buscemi ) , mr .
orange ( roth ) , mr .
blonde ( michael madsen ) , mr .
brown ( tarantino ) and mr .
peach ( tarantino 's chin ) .
most of the movie 's running time is spent with mr .
white and pink waiting at a warehouse for the others to arrive .
mr .
orange , meanwhile , is on the floor , dying from a gunshot wound .
the police had arrived at the scene of the crime way too soon , leading white to believe one of the five was an informant .
the story 's background unfolds through a series of flashbacks , of the crime itself and the meetings between joe and the criminals prior to the crime .
eventually , blonde arrives with a police officer hostage , and what follows is a truly brutal , uncomfortable torture scene .
let 's just say picasso would be inspired by what blonde does to the cop 's ear .
a lot of the time , reservoir dogs seems like your typical gangster heist - gone - wrong movie , but there are a few sequences that are uniquely tarantino .
the opening scene in the coffee shop starts the movie off on a high note the rest of it does n't live up to , as the criminals plus joe have a conversation on , among other things , tipping philosophies and their interpretations of madonna 's " like a virgin .
"
another scene involves roth 's lengthy manufactured story about running into a group of cops and a police dog in a bus station bathroom while carrying a giant bag of marijuana .
neither of these have much plot relevance but are given ample time to develop , like the captain koons gold watch speech in pulp fiction , only here these sequences are more enjoyable than the rest of the movie .
reservoir dogs is good
but it 's no pulp fiction .
[A]: P


[Q]: synopsis : lifelong friends rafe ( affleck ) and danny ( hartnett )
join the us air force and are stationed at pearl harbor , hawaii .
rafe goes to england to fight alongside british pilots and is seemingly killed in action .
danny falls in love with rafe 's girlfriend , evelyn ( beckinsale ) , but rafe survives and returns to confront his former friend .
meanwhile , the japanese sneak attack is imminent . . .
review : " pearl harbor " is a perfect example of movies as product rather than as art .
it is little more than a crassly - calculated attempt to woo the masses , enticing them with big stars , big effects , and a big setting -- but no heart .
it is difficult to criticise the actors , because they do everything the movie demands of them . sadly ,
this amounts to barely more than reciting dialogue of such sheer banality that it makes one eager to see the script randall wallace wrote with his right hand at the same time as he was writing " pearl harbor " with his left .
the plot here is pure cliche , and the wartime setting simply a convenient backdrop .
there is no genuine exploration of what pearl harbor meant to the united states , and no insight into its vital role in inciting that country to join world war ii . instead , there is just an assembly - line love triangle , some empty patriotic rhetoric , and a laughable attempt to placate japanese viewers via the inclusion of some reticent imperial commanders ( when one intones , " i fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant " , i nearly fell out of my seat ) .
to the movie 's credit , it does include a fantastic portrayal of the attack itself , an exciting and dizzying hour which plunges viewers into the war .
if only the remaining two hours had been crafted with such skill , perhaps this memorial day non - event would have been worth watching .
[A]: N


[Q]: mighty joe young blunders about for nearly twenty minutes before we actually get to see a great big gorilla .
his entrance , however , is a grand one : out from the trees he leaps , gargantuan and imposing , sporting hands big enough to crush a volkswagen bug , and a pair of feet much larger than any pro basketball player will ever have .
joe bellows at the poachers before him , angry that they would like to kill him and sell him for millions of dollars .
during this scene , i turned to my friend and said , " wow .
that 's some ape .
"
joe is quite a gorilla -- a big , digital gorilla .
he runs around the fields , chasing cars and people .
he picks things up and stares at them pensively .
he breaks things on accident , because he 's just too big to avoid clumsiness .
joe , as a special effect , is an image that might hold your interest for five minutes . as a character , he does n't quite register .
and the story he 's been put in is as limp as they come .
the words " family entertainment " have never been a stamp of quality , but might joe young is just a silly special effects movie pretending to have a heart .
the picture is a remake of the 1949 film .
it 's mostly just about the big gorilla , but , strictly as a formality , the movie also has a few human characters .
the main one is jill young ( poor charlize theron , forced to waste her talent ) , a lover of gorillas . as a child , she witnessed a group of poachers murder her mother ; now , she lives in the jungle to protect the wildlife .
specifically , she 's out to protect joe , a giant gorilla who has been her friend since her childhood .
soon , zoologist gregg o'hara ( bill paxton ) discovers joe ; he quickly realizes that poachers want to get joe and sell him to a big game hunter named strasser ( rade sherbedgia ) , who just happens to be the same guy who killed jill 's mother .
so , in an effort to save joe , jill and gregg take the big gorilla to a preserve , where it is instantly clear that he is not safe from poachers .
in addition , the space is way too small for him ( after all , he is a really big gorilla ) .
and , to add to the complications , strasser shows up under a benevolent pretext ( he tells jill that he has a preserve big enough for joe ) , and joe recognizes strasser as the guy who killed jill 's mother .
jill , of course , does n't recognize strasser , even though he did kill her mother .
this is just one of the many examples of stupidity in mighty joe young , a film that fulfills every stereotype that comes with a special effects film .
the movie is n't really offensive -- it has some competent actors , a few nifty sets , and a lot of scenes with a big , digitized gorilla .
but the story is really dumb ,
there are n't any characters , and the film is n't satisfying on any level beyond its visuals .
the movie also has bad dialogue .
if a critic says that a film has bad dialogue , it 's only fair to quote some of it , but most of the words spoken in this picture are phrases like " joe is n't happy !
"
and " joe is n't safe here ! "
" we need to get joe out of here ! "
" joe is way too big for that cage !
"
i do n't know if these phrases are word for word , but they 're close .
as i said , the characters here are only present as a formality : they do little more than
state the obvious
( of * course * joe is too big for that cage ) .
paxton and theron are talented performers who deserve to work on a script that provides characters for them .
sadly , mighty joe young wastes them both .
there are a few clever moments ( although none of them are surfacing in my memory at the moment ) , and , as i said , the digital effects held my attention for at least five minutes .
it 's certainly not a bad film for kids ; i doubt joe will give them nightmares .
but adults in the audience are n't likely to find much of anything interesting about the big gorilla .
a big gorilla is only interesting for a little while ; after that , something needs to be done with the big gorilla .
nobody ever figures out what to do with the big gorilla .
[A]:
N