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

Q: as we see the terrible events that unfold before our eyes in the middle east at the moment , hollywood does n't loose the oppertunity to get involved , by telling stories and expressing opinions .
this film centers on a relationship forged throughout the adult lifetimes of two marine colonels , hays hodges ( tommy lee jones ) and terry childers ( samuel l . jackson ) .
they fought side by side in vietnam , where childers saved hodges ' life by shooting an unarmed pow .
that 's against the rules of war but understandable , in this story anyway , under the specific circumstances .
certainly hodges is not complaining .
years pass .
hodges , whose wounds make him unfit for action , gets a law degree and becomes a marine lawyer .
childers , is now a respected and much - decorated hero that has served his country with his life and sould .
because of his excellent record , childers is sent to yemen to rescue the american ambassador ( ben kingsley ) , cowering in the embassy under assault from violent demonstrators and snipers blasting from rooftops .
childers does what he has to do : evacuate the family and protect the men under his command .
after three marines die and the colonel thinks he sees ground fire , he orders his troops to shoot into the firing crowd .
more than 80 yemeni men , women , and children are mowed down .
childers is immediately accused of ordering his men to fire on a crowd and murder of unarmed civilians .
he persuades his old friend hodges to represent him in the courtroom drama that occupies the second half of the film .
did childers violate authorized u . s .
military rules of engagement ?
or are there simply no rules in war ?
the answers to these stereotypical questions are obvious , but the inconsistent plot immediately raises all sorts of other questions .
the murder of 83 " innocent civilians " has to result into something greater than a simple trial in the u . s .
where is the accusations from the arab leaders ?
where is the u . n . ?
the film ends without even telling the most interesting story : what happens on the international arena ?
this film ( in a way akin to films such as " a few good men " ) has already been accused of breaking the rules of morality and ethics and even of racism .
these accusations are pretty heavy , but also unfair .
what director william friedklin truly broke was the rules of decent filmmaking
. one of the earliest apparent problems with ' rules of engagement ' is its lack of credibility .
the entire operation in yemen may remind us about what happens in the middle east right now , but is overdone , contrived and unrealistic - as if a chain of events had to happen in a particular manner in order for the plot to proceed .
a lot of it is so cheesy that no one could possibly accept it as reality .
that is precisely why it 's not offensive .
it is completely unobjective .
many stories are started and never finished .
many questions are asked , but never answered .
a lot of parallels are referring to nothing .
it seems that neither the director , producers or the screenwriter can make up their minds about the contents of their film .
is it about arab mentality ?
america 's foreign policies ?
america 's role in the world ?
corruption in the higher circles ?
it goes on and on .
it consists of countless stories , but not a definable plot .
it tries to be everything for everyone and ends up being nothing for no one .
i think that it is ironic , because director william friedkin 's probably most acclaimed film was " the exorcist " which had a silly story , but became a rather effective film .
in this case you have a strong story with many possibilities and the result is a silly film .
though several scenes bare the mark of professionalism ( such as the impressive battle scenes ) , his latest film does simply not engage .
i believe that friedklin is a director that is absolutely depended on great scripts and talented producers in order to succeed .
it 's obvious that he has neither and the result is therefore a catastrophe .
the characters feel designed , unreal , merely shadows , with no life outside the conflict .
even the actors can not save this film from going under .
though both jackson and jones act admirably , with performances that are as good as you get with a script like this , it is not something that these great actors can boast of .
they have roles that they could play blindfolded with their hand on the back .
jackson is gray and jones uninteresting .
the rest of the cast , including ben kingsly , blair underwood and guy pearce are simply waiting for their paychecks .
the time has come for the verdict .
on the charges of complete lack of objectivity , i find this film guilty .
on the charges of breaking the rules of reasonable filmmaking , i find it guilty .
but on the charges of racism i find this film not guilty , because of it 's inconclusive and often silly plot
that lacks objectivity everywhere , not only when concerning the arab population .
i must admit that the film is dangerously near the line of being racially offensive and i do think that screenwriter stephen gaghan went a bit too far , portraying the yemeni people almost as stereotypical hollywood bad - guys .
this is very sad , since in a time like this it is crucial to not lose objectivity and proclaim the truth .
however , it is absolutely necessary to remember that the muslim terrorists are responsible for most of the terrorist activity in and outside the united states .
and that it 's not a coincidence that u . s .
residents in the middle east , including yemen are on constant maximum alert .

A: N
****
Q: while watching " shallow grave , " i found myself periodically noticing thematic similarities to the coens ' " blood simple .
"
both are good films in which several characters , none of whom are the most conscientious to have walked the earth but still are not really evil , indulge in an act of deception that soon necessitates more serious crimes .
the body count rises , and before long seemingly normal people have blood on their hands .
both films are also flawed , but for different reasons .
"
blood simple " is unrelentingly dark and moody , but its characterizations were a little hollow .
" shallow grave , " on the other hand , is nearly flawless for an hour and twenty minutes , and then the filmmakers throw away much of what they 'd accomplished for a more standard , audience - pleasing ending .
the events of the film were sufficiently intense and disturbing that i honestly felt quite troubled by what i was witnessing on screen most of the time , yet there was a slight grin on my face at the end .
as the film begins , we are introduced to alex ( ewan mcgregor ) , juliet ( kerry fox ) , and david ( christopher eccleston ) , a scottish trio living in an apartment in glasgow .
they are all sarcastic and occasionally obnoxious , but other than that they seem like a fairly normal bunch .
a man named hugo moves into the apartment 's remaining vacancy , and the next morning he is found dead of a drug overdose .
juliet is about to call the police when alex discovers that hugo had brought with him a suitcase filled to the brim with cash ( presumably from criminal activities ) .
the three eventually decide to keep the money and cover up the death ; after a drawing of straws , the particularly unenviable task of mutilating the body so as to make it unidentifiable and burying it falls to david , who had been the most reluctant to partake in the scheme from the beginning .
all of this transpires in the first twenty minutes or so of the film , and part of what makes " shallow grave " so brilliant for a while is that i honestly had no idea what was coming next .
other than the obvious question of why they do n't report the death and simply hide the cash , which is not addressed , the plotting and characterization , while sometimes predictable , worked in a way that kept my attention and , on more than one occasion , gave me chills .
i will , therefore , attempt to continue this review in a way that does n't give away too much of the plot .
broadly , the trio are in danger due to hugo 's underworld connections , as two goons search for the money and kill several people in the process .
a police inspector ( ken stott ) is clearly suspicious and visits the apartment , asking pointed questions and trying to unnerve the three suspects by exchanging banal and weirdly humorous bits of dialogue with a junior detective .
david , meanwhile , becomes increasingly paranoid , moves into the attic , and develops an affinity for sharp objects .
director danny boyle effectively creates an atmosphere of mounting tension and suspicion in the apartment , and finally the three seem ready to turn against each other .
while i do not consider myself the " happy endings are automatically stupid " type , i thought that " shallow grave " really should have ended in tragedy - a realistic analysis of the story up to the last ten minutes of the film would indicate that all three characters were probably about to end up in prison , in the mental hospital , or in the morgue .
this could have been accomplished , quite credibly , but then boyle and screenwriter john hodge seem to flinch and opt for a more conventional " caper " ending in which we get a kick out of seeing who outsmarted whom , and nothing more .
granted , this is n't really a " happy " ending , but it 's still pretty light - hearted compared to what preceded it .
i really should n't say anything more about the ending as far as details go , but let me add that it seemed not only shallow and lazy but also inconsistent with the rest of the film and not very believable .
yes , this ending made me crack a smile for a couple of minutes , but ultimately it left me feeling as if i 'd been cheated .
still , " shallow grave " was brilliant
most of the way through , and it does at least meet the minimum requirements for an entertaining thriller , and i am therefore awarding it three stars .
i guess i just ca n't help but think about that fourth star that boyle and hodge let slip away .

A: P
****
Q: it 's a sad state of affairs when the back box blurb is more exciting than the movie contained within it .
such is the case for the 1990 paul mayersberg film _ the last samurai_. though the blurb alludes to " a jungle filled with political intrigue , uneasy alliances , and murderous enemies at every turn ,
"
the story of the movie is actually quite simple ( and prosaic ) : a middle - aged japanese businessman named endo ( played by john fujioka ) and his assistant , both of whom have samurai aspirations , travel to africa in search of his ancestor , who went to bring buddhism to africa .
he hires the services of down - at - the - heels vietnam veteran pilot johnny congo ( the redoubtable lance henriksen ) and his girlfriend ( arabella holzbog ) , and travels to the camp of an arms - merchant - cum - safari - host- cum - islamic - missionary ( john saxon ) and his wife ( lisa eilbacher ) .
they are all kidnapped by an african revolutionary guerilla with witch - doctor aspirations to conceal a pre - arranged arms deal , which subsequently falls through . congo escapes , finds endo 's ancestor 's sword , and comes back , guns blazing , to free the rest of them , and endo kills the revolutionary with the sword .
the end .
_ the last samurai
_ is one of those movies that is neither bad enough nor good enough to be enjoyable .
it is merely _ there_. the murky plot is filled with subtexts that are never elaborated , subplots that are never explained , and many scenes that make very little sense at all .
the film is shot through with all the tired old " inscrutable japanese samurai " and zen stereotypes that are to be expected from an american movie .
it is quite slow - paced , with only a bit of action near the end , and the final duel between endo and the terrorist is quite anticlimactic .
most of the acting is fair , with the possible exception of congo 's girlfriend .
lance henriksen is his usual scene - chewing self , and is one of few possible reasons anyone might conceivably have for seeing this movie .
the only other bright spot is the sweeping african scenery .
i paid $ 3 for this film , from the discount rack at best buy , and halfway suspect i overpaid for it .
if you are in the mood for samurai , read a clavell novel or watch a kurusawa movie .
skip
_ the last samurai
_ unless you are a die - hard henriksen fan .

A:
N
****