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

[Q]: as i write the review for the new hanks / ryan romantic comedy you 've got mail , i am acutely aware that i am typing it on a computer and sending it a billion miles away on the internet .
i am also aware that i have just spent the last 2 hours watching the world 's biggest paid commercial for america online .
and i wonder : is that so bad ?
well , the commercial part is .
as for the movie , well , as long as i can watch tom hanks and meg ryan , i think i 'll be okay .
to paraphrase james berardinelli , whose reviews i admire very much , tom hanks and meg ryan can act .
they are both wonderful , but for all of hanks ' glorious work in serious films , such as his magnificent performance in saving private ryan , and his glorious triumph in philadelphia , i like him best when he 's suitably obnoxious .
tom hanks is wonderful
when he is obnoxious in a romantic comedy when he 's going to get the girl : the only question is how ?
meg ryan , america 's high school sweetheart , can act .
she 's had a handful of memorable performances , including the great scene in the diner in when harry met sally ( i must not mention what she does , due to the , well , um , you get the idea , and if you do n't , get the movie-- fantastic ) .
but , i like her best when she 's , well , perky .
she is so adorably perky / cute that together with hanks , they are the most amazing onscreen duo in my short lifetime .
some people have them going back to really old classic romantic couples , but i do n't really know .
all i know is that i just like them both .
they have such wonderfully kinetic chemistry that 's really hard to resist , and i 'm not going to even try .
they 're just really , really cute , sweet , and charming .
hanks and ryan collaborate once again with nora ephron , who directed them in the megahit sleepless in seattle .
here , the setup is a little different .
kathleen kelly ( ryan ) owns a small children 's bookstore which her mother founded 42 years ago and passed down to her .
she is successful , beautiful , and dates a well - known columnist with very radical idea ( kinnear ) .
she is also having an affair , of sorts .
you see , kathleen , with the handle shopgirl , is secretly emailing ny152 .
they have a strictly un - detailed relationship : there are no specifics , and they have no idea who each other is .
ny152 happens to be joe fox ( hanks ) , a multimillionaire bookseller who is the heir to the fortune of the fox chain of mega - bookstores , run by his father ( coleman ) .
fox books has decided to open a store on the west side , right across from a little children 's bookseller named " shop around the corner " , run by a perky girl named kathleen kelly .
every morning , these two email each other silly , and every day , they fight " to the death ! ! " .
it 's a charming premise , and one that works nicely , balancing the immense troubles kathleen is in with the romance she wants to have .
it also has the great sense of being a classic romance : there is
no " let 's have sex tonight " mantra , if you 'll excuse my bluntness .
this is a solid romance built around that vague concept of love .
hmm .
well , the movie goes through twists and turns , having some sad moments and happy ones , until at one moment tom hanks and meg ryan " hook up " , to use modern terminology , and kiss their way into happiness .
you know it 's going to happen , the question is now ?
thankfully , ephron has a wonderful supporting cast with posey , kinnear , chappelle , and a host of others , including a great scene involving brothers , aunts , and two sweet kids .
it 's all cute and wonderful , and for all of the idealism , it makes me feel good .
hanks is as obnoxious as ever on the outside and as warm on the inside as he always is .
he is , i believe , america 's greatest actor .
does he show it here ?
nah .
but he 's still tom hanks , and she 's still meg ryan .
which is what this movie boils down to .
it 's pure confection .
all the bits about the godfather , the jokes , the superb script
, it 's all really sweet .
there are some immense flaws , like pacing .
the last third of the movie really does n't work as well as i would have liked , and for a romantic comedy , it 's slow .
once hanks knows the secret , it gets really slow .
i even looked at my watch a couple times , to make sure ephron was going to deliver the big onscreen kiss i was waiting for , so that i could get home at a reasonable hour .
the other problem is that this movie is shaping up to be really dated .
e - mail ?
when my kids are my age , i do n't know what we 'll be using .
but hanks can do more with one eyeroll than anybody , and meg ryan just loves to dive into a pillow better than anyone in movie history .
they just work together , and it 's nice to see .
it gives you , well , a smile .
the script helps with some great lines that are absolutely hilarious , and that always come at the exact right time to keep the audience awake .
i was arguing with my father on the drive back home on what the purpose of movies was .
i 've always believed that movies are very powerful , very powerful indeed .
you see , mankind has three abilities he needs to survive : the ability to think , entertain , and procreate .
movies can definitely do the first two , and as for the third , well , i 'd rather not think about that .
i always thought films that made you think enlightened you and made you see something from another viewpoint , and that films that entertained you were good , because you forgot about your troubles and thought about something nice for a night .
and i was thinking about how incredible a year tom hanks has had .
hanks was the driving force behind one of the year 's best films in saving private ryan , which is one of those thinking films that truly made someone wonder about the world .
he 's also half of the glue behind the year 's best example of pure entertainment .
tom hanks and meg ryan are magical , as is this movie .
it 's a sweet , lovely affair with a technology twist .
it may be a long commercial , but it gave me a pretty big smile on my face .
[A]: P


[Q]: watching the movie , i vowed to subtract half a star from the review because the filmmakers included a saccharine syrup , cute ' n
cuddly , computer - generated monkey .
if the monkey died , the movie got an extra half star .
alas , the monkey showed up at the end , unharmed , to the wet sickly sound of gagging and rolling eyeballs .
what that means is that lost in space
actually deserved 2 stars .
that 's pretty generous , considering the movie 's camp lacked any hint of tongue in cheek
.
when will robinson ( jack johnson ) teaches his pet robot about friendship , you are actually supposed to buy it .
so why such a seemingly high rating ?
there are a few reasons that made me unable to throw away the experience with the garbage .
first , we saw the movie on opening night of the first day of operation of a brand new theater .
the sound and screen kicked ass .
nobody in the country enjoyed the movie as much as my audience did ( and i do n't necessarily mean that in a good way ) .
also , there were more than zero scenes where i found myself rooting for the robinsons , or getting caught up in the movie 's tension .
i even liked the computer - generated settings .
i usually prefer to see models or sets , but the cg was more detailed than i 've seen in a lot of movies ; it looks like someone spent a little overtime to render some of the futuristic cities .
also , gary oldman is never a bad actor , even though he is typecast as a villain .
william hurt is n't too bad either .
neither actor had a great role , but their performances were watchable .
and perhaps i should n't admit this , but something about the tone and outlook of the movie brought me back to my childhood .
there is very little swearing or blood ; there is a strong moral message , saccharine though it is ; there is a bit of romance ( whose culmination after 2 hours is a " real " kiss -- no sex ) .
it felt like one of those disney movies that i so looked forward to when i was six .
those movies were probably as bad as lost in space , but at the time , they were manna from heaven .
that type of moviemaking is a lost art .
now for the bad news .
worst and most unforgivable was the incredibly bad dialogue .
it 's squeaky - clean , family fun , trying hard to be as hip as pulp fiction .
"
you better hold on to your joystick , " is one such line .
and when a robinson is called upon to deliver a line about warp conduit thingamajigs , they inevitably stumble badly enough to embarrass even the lowliest star trek ensign .
second worst , and closely related , is the screenplay .
the story 's exposition takes place at a press conference , which allows the writers to explain what 's happening with the least amount of creativity , effort , or interest .
once the story gets going , i do concede a momentary burst of interest once in a while , but on the whole , the situations that arise are silly and contrived .
when gary oldman easily reprograms will 's pet robot to kill the robinsons , my friend summed it up perfectly : " he flipped the switch to ' evil . '
" then there 's the tone of the movie .
the colorado daily said the film would have been more interesting if the central character was will robinson and not his father john robinson .
then it could be an adventure movie .
they 're mostly right , except that johnson ( will ) was n't a good enough actor to carry it off .
still , that the film has the robinson patriarch as our hero shows a lack of imagination .
just because a movie is tame enough for kids does n't mean that we have to bow to a " promise keepers " notion of who 's the center of a family .
many quality family films have been made with a non - traditional family structure ( fly away home comes to mind ) to much better effect .
and the politics of the time seem a bit conservative and regressive for a futuristic movie .
in star wars , the rebels were the good guys .
we were rooting for those who were fighting against the system .
in lost in space , the rebels are the bad guys , a terrorist force that must be killed , crushed and silenced so that our children may live free .
that ominous excuse for violence almost makes me sympathize with the terrorists .
finally , a few specific details deserve criticism .
the movie tells us that the setting is the year 2056 .
why ?
why bother saying what year this is .
just tell us it 's the future .
i bring it up because the tv series was supposed to take place in 1997 .
setting a specific date only dates the movie and guarantees that it wo n't be timeless ( not that this movie was really in the running anyway . ) .
then there is a scene that shows john robinson checking one of his controls on a chair that rises about fifteen feet on a pole .
this silly waste of money reminded me of bugs bunny 's barber chair , and only shows that the future is a time when spaceship designers have n't learned a thing about ergonomics .
one vaguely redeeming quality is that the end credits succeed where the rest of the film failed : it made lost in space look cool .
the strong techno beat sampled the cheesiest dialogue and , out of context , made it sound hip .
this is overlaid on a cool jumpy credit sequence with interesting distorted clips from the movie .
but if that 's the best part of the movie , i ca n't in good conscience recommend it .
still , if you get stuck seeing it , as we did , you might be able to appreciate it if you keep your distance , think of liking bad movies as a child , and bring along your " bad movie bingo " cards .
[A]: N


[Q]: there 's more to a quilt than fabric and thread -- each patchwork design has its own unique story ( or stories ) to tell .
in how to make an american quilt , the first hollywood release from australian director jocelyn moorhouse ( proof ) , we come to understand how the tales of the seven makers imbue their creation with passion and vitality .
all the sorrows , joys , longings , sufferings , and loves of these women are sewn into their quilt and , as their bittersweet memories are given expression , one young woman applies these lessons of the past to her own uncertain future .
motion pictures are filled with male bonding rituals ; how to make an american quilt presents a distinctly feminine alternative .
the " quilting bee " consists of seven members : sisters gladys ( ann bancroft ) and hy ( ellen burstyn ) ; sophia ( lois smith ) , a woman known for frightening children ; emma ( jean simmons ) , the timid wife of a perpetually unfaithful man ; constance ( kate nelligan ) , who has been having an affair with emma 's husband ; anna ( maya angelou ) , the leader of the group ; and marianna ( alfre woodard ) , anna 's daughter .
the project they 're busy with is the wedding quilt for hy 's granddaughter , finn ( winona ryder ) , who has just become engaged .
she 's spending the summer with hy and gladys , and away from her fiance , to decide whether a lifelong commitment is really what she wants , and whether it 's better to marry a friend or a lover .
one of the greatest pleasures of how to make an american quilt comes from watching an array of fine performances by an impressive ensemble cast .
from winona ryder , ann bancroft , ellen burstyn , and maya angelou to minor players like rip torn , claire danes , and kate capshaw , this film is overflowing with realized talent .
the performances are good enough , in fact , to cover up many of the script 's weaknesses .
how to make an american quilt is basically an unremarkable , if affecting , tale of love across the generations -- a sort of truncated american version of the joy luck club , with a dash of fried green tomatoes added .
there are probably too many characters .
so , instead of really getting to know a few of them , we are presented with quick glimpses into a single defining event in each of their lives .
we learn about the root of the smoldering resentment between gladys and hy , and are told the reasons why emma stays with her husband and sophia is so irascible .
there are other episodes as well : the love of anna 's life , marianna 's soul mate , and a look at the reasons why constance entered into an affair with her friend 's husband .
the sum total of these tales is meant to provide the framework for finn 's story : whether to go forward with her marriage or dally with a hunky stranger .
there is no emotional epiphany in how to make an american quilt .
the stories are all well - told , but it 's difficult to really connect with the characters -- their moments pass so quickly .
while we certainly feel something for each of the eight principals , our emotional investment is tenuous .
there is n't enough depth to pull the viewer in all the way , and many of the personalities and relationships feel half- formed , like a quilt with patches missing .
to put it bluntly , while i enjoyed watching this film , it did n't " do much " for me .
on the whole , how to make an american quilt is a nicely - understated drama that has a lot to say about love , passion , and monogamy in relationships .
finn 's segment is by far the most compelling , because she 's the focal point : her actions are shaped by everyone else 's experiences .
the other patches of this american quilt are successful only to varying degrees .
if there 's a disappointment here , it 's that the script does n't have more resonance , but the privilege of seeing such a fine cast in top form allows a viewer to enjoy this picture even if the story is somewhat conventional .
[A]:
P