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

[EX Q]: i came to an epiphany while watching the bachelor , an innocuous - enough - on - the - surface romantic comedy .
it 's not the sort of film in which one would expect to achieve any moment of clarity , but there it was nonetheless .
i sat there watching this marshmallow of a movie unfold when suddenly i realized what is so ridiculously wrong with the entire romantic comedy genre circa 1999 .
in a word , it 's the same thing that 's wrong with so many movies circa 1999 : writing .
more to the point , it 's the refusal to acknowledge that characterizations matter when you 're telling a story about a relationship .
the bachelor is merely the latest in a long line of films where we 're expected to get dewy - eyed over any pairing of attractive , pleasant people just because they 're attractive and pleasant .
in this particular case , attractive and pleasant exhibit a is jimmy shannon ( chris o'donnell ) , a single guy who has been watching his friends slowly but surely sucked into marriage .
it 's a scary notion for jimmy , even though he dearly loves attractive and pleasant exhibit b anne ( renee zellweger ) , his girlfriend of three years .
convinced despite his reservations that it 's time to " sh
* t or get off the pot , " jimmy proposes to anne -- very badly .
anne refuses , which leaves jimmy in a very odd position when his eccentric grandfather ( peter ustinov ) dies and leaves a very specific video will .
jimmy stands to inhereit $ 100 million if he is married by 6
: 05 p .
m .
on his 30th birthday , stays married for 10 years and produces a child .
there are only a couple of minor problems : 1 ) jimmy 's 30th birthday is the next day ; 2 ) anne is nowhere to be found , meaning jimmy has to find another willing bride from among his many ex - girlfriends .
it 's a wacky , brewster 's millions - esque premise ( acknowledged as such in one of the film 's better , more self - aware lines of dialogue ) , the kind where a shallow and materialistic guy learns what really matters .
at least that would be the case if jimmy were n't already a world - class altruist .
screenwriter steve cohen slides into the story an even more draconian condition in the will : if jimmy does n't get married , not only will he lose all the money , but the family billiard table buisness will be sold out from under him , costing hudreds of jobs .
from the outset , jimmy 's motivation is n't cash ; it 's the livelihoods of his devoted employees .
it 's almost embarrassing for his marital misgivings to play a role in the bachelor 's plot development .
by any human standard , the guy is impossibly selfless .
and that 's the essence of the gutlessness endemic to films like the bachelor --
the fear of giving the characters flaws to overcome on their way to happiness .
there 's never any tension between the two star - crossed lovers , because there 's no sense that anything remotely significant is at stake .
the blandly nice o'donnell could n't pull off a randy cad if he tried , so the filmmakers do n't even let him ; zellweger 's anne may have issues with her sickeningly affectionate parents as an impossible standard to live up to , but no one dares make her anything but the woman ( lightly ) wronged . and forget about seeing enough of jimmy and anne together to feel invested in their potential reconciliation .
the parade of sit - com set pieces had better be damned funny , since they 're all that stands between us and a blissfully sweet foregone conclusion .
i 'll admit a couple of those set pieces are amusing , including ustinov 's rantings about procreation and a restaurant full - to - bursting with men popping questions and champagne corks .
far more of them are either tedious or downright ghastly
, like the shudder - inducing sight of brooke shields as an icy fortune - hunter or the hideous collection of stereotypes when hundreds of potential brides gather in a church .
you 're never going to get too many raucous belly laughs from a film like the bachelor , but that 's not the real problem .
nor is it the real problem that you know exactly the kind of warm - n - fuzzy conclusion it 's leading up to .
the problem are a beginning and middle that are equally warm - n - fuzzy --
there 's no spark , no energy , no humanity .
it 's an emotional pudding guaranteed not to offend any consumer 's digestions .
we 've reached a point where our proxies for cinematic romantic wish fulfillment do n't even have a pulse .
the bachelor is love among the mannequins .
[EX A]: N

[EX Q]: you 've got mail is a timely romance for this impersonal , computer - driven decade .
two people who 've never met confide in each other via e - mail without revealing their true identities .
nora ephron 's contemporary update of the shop around the corner retains the basic plot : two people who despise each other unwittingly become enamored with each other through their anonymous correspondence .
ephron , who co - wrote the film with her sister , delia , as well as directed it , knew what she was doing by reteaming tom hanks and meg ryan as the at - odds couple .
ryan is kathleen kelly , owner of a small children 's bookstore , while hanks is joe fox , who heads up a chain of mega bookstores ( think barnes & noble ) .
their charm and chemistry are the glue that binds this film , even through some of the script 's rough spots .
for the ephrons invested so much effort in their protagonists that they give short shrift to the talented supporting cast , including parker posey , greg kinnear , jean stapleton and steve zahn .
yet no one is really going to complain because the ephrons know their audience - and what the paying public wants is hanks and ryan .
and the two are kept busy .
one , the other or both are in nearly every scene .
hanks has his decent guy routine down pat , yet each time he does it ,
it seems effortless , spontaneous and fresh .
ryan
smoothly moves between spunky and vulnerable , with a sexy touch of winsomeness added to the brew .
their scenes together sparkle , even though they lack the nostalgic romanticism of sleepless in seattle .
and the shadow of that earlier hit hangs over you 've got mail like dried - up mistletoe .
the sparks created by the earlier movie are , by necessity , not evident here .
true , these are two people seeking true love , but you 've got mail is more comic and less poignant than its predecessor .
the ephrons ' script is witty and sharp .
however , as a director nora ephron is a bit uneven .
some scenes drag , while others , especially when hanks and ryan are revealing their souls via e - mail , are crisp and tidy .
also , the script gets sloppy toward the end with characters merely disappearing from the story .
a nice , romantic soundtrack adds to this date - night special .
overall , you 've got mail is a lush and cute outing , taking advantage of the star appeal of its two leads .
it 's a nice holiday movie , one for holding hands and snuggling . committed to lifelong learning through effective communication
[EX A]: P

[EX Q]: one can not observe a star trek movie and expect to see serious science fiction .
the purpose of star trek is to provide flashy , innocent fun .
sometimes the stories are compelling .
sometimes they 're not .
but , with the exception of the first film in the series ( which provides little more than endless shots of amazed faces ) , i 've never been bored by any of the enterprise 's numerous missions .
star trek : insurrection is no exception .
the film has gotten some negative reviews ( a friend of mine actually thinks it 's the worst in the series ) , but i 'm not really sure why .
it 's an exciting , often hilarious movie that engaged me and left me ready for the next star trek film .
some say it 's a bit too light , and more of a long episode than a film .
others say the special effects are cheesy and that it 's boring .
i simply enjoyed the film .
insurrection , which is the second film to feature strictly the next generation cast , introduces us to a race of people called the ba'ku ; the ba'ku are very old ( most of them are about three hundred years old ) , but they actually appear younger with age due to strange radiation in the rings of their planet .
of course , these peaceful people ca n't horde this fountain of youth all for themselves ?
leave it up to their archenemies , the son'a , led by ru'afo ( f . murray abraham ) , to mess everything up .
the son'a , who are horribly disfigured and rely on daily reconstructive surgery to be aesthetically acceptable , strike a deal with the federation to move the ba'ku elsewhere and exploit the secret to keep their race from dying .
that 's when captain picard ( patrick stewart ) steps in : he realizes that moving the ba'ku would kill them
( it also helps that he falls in love with a ba'ku woman ( donna murphy ) ) .
so , with his trusty crew , picard defies the federation to keep the ba'ku in their natural habitat .
when dealing with a series with as much history as this , it 's not entirely necessary to re - introduce your characters with each episode .
this is why i believe non - fans have a hard time getting into star trek ; in order to enjoy it , one has to understand how to approach it .
insurrection , however
, does a surprisingly good job of us new aspects of the characters .
stewart is bold as always , a magnetic screen presence and perfectly capable of holding an entire film together .
jonathan frakes , who also directed , is funny as commander riker ; a subplot with data ( brent spiner ) discovering his lost childhood is fairly interesting ; and abraham makes a perfect star trek villain , overacting like crazy .
frakes showed similar aptitude for direction in first contact ; insurrection is an exciting film , with some really attractive special effects and a lot of good action .
this is apparently the first star trek film to utilize computer animation , and the result is very pleasing to the eye
: particularly in the climactic scenes , in which the son'a employ a giant space ship to suck up the rings of the ba'ku planet , the special effects have a clean , impressively sharp look .
if i have any complaint about the film , it 's that it tries to take a moral stance when it 's not very appropriate to do so .
i do n't think it 's that big of a deal that the federation wanted to move 600 ba'ku in order to save the lives of thousands .
better yet , why could n't they have co - existed ?
insurrection feels a little to light to spring these kinds of big moral questions on the audience .
with it 's inherent camp factor , the star trek series does n't seem well - equipped to deal with issues like this .
i prefer to just enjoy the spectacle .
[EX A]:
P