In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
--------
Question: field of dreams
almost defies description .
although it 's about baseball , it 's not a baseball movie .
although the film is extremely spiritual , it 's not about religion .
and although field of dreams is melodramatic , it 's not a tearjerker .
to really understand what field of dreams is all about , you have to see it .
in the film , kevin costner plays ray kinsella , a baseball fan , ' 60s berkeley graduate , and iowa farmer .
one day as he is standing in the middle of his expansive corn fields , ray hears a voice ; it tells him : " if you build it , he will come .
"
then ray has a vision and somehow concludes that if he builds a baseball field in the middle of his corn , shoeless joe jackson will arise from the dead to play ball once again .
and even though it depletes his family 's savings and his neighbors think he 's crazy , ray clears away the corn and builds a baseball field , complete with bleachers and flood lights .
"
if you build it , he will come .
"
and lo and behold , shoeless joe does come -- bringing with him several of his dead teammates .
and then ray hears the voice again ; it tells him to " ease his pain .
" ray thinks this means that he must travel to boston to meet terence mann , an influential and radical novelist from the ' 60s who has since stopped writing and dropped out of society .
with great aplomb , james earl jones plays the disillusioned author who joins forces with ray and embarks with him on a magical and spiritual journey .
the cast in field of dreams is excellent ,
especially kevin costner in the lead role .
costner gives a quiet , subtle , and moving performance as a man who before building the baseball field had done nothing crazy or spontaneous in his entire life .
costner gives ray just the right mix of enthusiasm and idealism to make us believe in his mystic visions and swallow this wondrous fairy tale .
amy madigan gives a fine supporting performance as ray 's feisty and loving wife , who against her better judgement supports her husband 's crazy ideas .
in her most impressive scene , madigan vehemently argues against book burning at a p .
t .
a . meeting , displaying the sincere passion of a ' 60s berkeley radical .
ray liotta is appropriately eerie and awe - inspiring as the ghost of shoeless joe , the legendary batter who was suspended from baseball for his involvement in the 1919 chicago " black sox " scandal .
and finally , burt lancaster is memorable
in a small , but important , role as a small town doctor whose professional baseball career was limited to only one inning .
field of dreams is a touching fairy tale full of life , wonder , mystery , spirit , and humor .
it , for the most part , succeeds in capturing our emotions and suspending our disbelief .
ray kinsella 's spiritual quest in pursuit of his dreams proves to be moving and miraculous .
but while field of dreams generally avoids excessive melodrama , it unfortunately does at times go overboard , and by the end it gets down - right sappy .
in general , however , field of dreams is an emotionally satisfying fantasy -- one i can recommend to everyone but unromantic cynics .

Answer: P


Question: dr dolittle ( 20th century fox ) running time : 1 hour 25 minutes starring eddie murphy directed by betty thomas riding high on the success of the nutty professor ( 1996 ) , murphy returns in this abysmal comedy .
he plays doctor john dolittle , who as a child had the ability to understand animals .
however , after being ' exorcised ' he loses this ability , and we fast forward to see dolittle in a crummy job surrounding by crummy people ( most notably dr mark weller , played by oliver platt . ) however , with a bonk on the head his ability to understand animals returns , and ' comedy ' is ready and waiting to happen .
except comedy never does happen .
doctor dolittle , even with the excellent premise , rarely manages to raise a laugh .
poor old murphy looks bored stiff throughout the whole movie , and his performance suffers .
the manic murphy we saw in the 80 's is gone , his more mature ( and more boring ) twin appears to be getting all the work in the 90 's .
the voices of the animals , which include albert brooks , chris rock ( the ' new ' eddie murphy ) and norm mcdonald as ' lucky ' the dog are marginally better , and at least they put enthusiasm in the movie .
sadly , most of their lines are pretty dumb .
and they 're not ' funny ' dumb , like dumb & dumber ( 1994 ) , but just boring dumb .
the film even succumbs to fart jokes halfway through , in a desperate attempt to raise some laughs .
there are a few good jokes in the script , but they are few and far between .
if i had to choose a favourite performance , it would probably be albert brooks tiger , who has a certain charm about him .
sadly , he 's barely in the movie , and rock 's really annoying hamster is given far too much screen time .
joke wise
, we are thankfully , spared the mocking and insulting type of jokes that featured heavily in the nutty professor .
the director , betty thomas , has , well , done better films .
she bought us private parts ( 1997 ) and the brady bunch movie ( 1995 ) which were , sadly , much better than this .
the scenes lack any charm
, she just gets the job done .
the animals themselves , are reasonable realistic , although most of them are obviously puppets .
there 's an impressive looking tiger , however , and the lip sync is pretty good .
you 'd have no problem guessing that most of the close up 's are puppets , however , with their jilted movement .
i was hoping jim hensons workshop , who created the furry friends , would have done a better job .
doctor dolittle , in the end , is a disappointment for everyone involved .
murphy has done much better movies
( i .
e trading places )
the director has seen better days , and even the creatures are n't that good .
the target audience , aged between 7 - 13 , who are undemanding , will probably like it however , thanks to it 's dumbed down humour .
everyone else , however , should give doctor dolittle a miss .

Answer: N


Question: writing a screenplay for a thriller is hard .
harder than pouring concrete under the texas sun . harder than building a bridge over troubled waters . and incidentally , a whole heck of a lot harder than writing a movie review .
thrillers are all variations on a theme .
you have a smart , resourceful , and powerful bad guy , who has a goal he has to meet .
you have a noble and brave good guy , who has to protect the innocent , kill the bad guy , and not get killed himself in the process .
the trick of thriller writing is doing all of this in an interesting and novel manner .
this simple formula can lead to classic movies like north by northwest , high noon , or silence of the lambs , or big summer blockbusters like men in black , the fugitive , or air force one , or it can lead to utter dreck like masterminds , event horizon , kull the conqueror .
.. . is anyone else getting depressed here ?
point is , it 's not enough to follow the formula .
you 've got to throw in something extra , something good and new and better than the last version .
something to surprise and move all of us people who buy the tickets and the popcorn and the happy meals .
this is a hard thing to do , but it is absolutely necessary in every way .
without that something extra -- whether it 's a great plot or a well - written screenplay , or great special effects or great locations or great casting or great performances or great big hungry dinosaurs -- the movie fails .
that 's why the jackal , with all its starpower , with all its budget , with all its hype , gets a big fat f. bruce willis is the bad guy , the jackal , a legendary killer for hire .
richard gere is the good guy , a former ira assassin with a vendetta against the jackal .
the jackal is trying to kill someone .
gere is trying to stop him .
will gere be able to stop the assassination in time and kill the jackal ?
( i 'll give you three guesses , and the first two do n't count . )
there are no surprises awaiting the audience in the jackal , no moment when you say to yourself , " i wonder what happens next ?
"
the script for the jackal is n't ripped straight from today 's headlines .
it 's ripped off , straight from an episode of millennium .
throughout the movie , we learn what the jackal 's plans are and how he intends to accomplish them .
no surprise .
the fun of a movie like this should come from richard gere figuring out what the jackal 's plan is and developing a clever plan to foil the bad guy .
instead , we get two ( count 'em , two ) scenes where gere is sitting in an fbi conference room somewhere and instantly divines the jackal 's plan just as if he 's frank black ( or more likely , just as if he 's been handed a copy of the script ) .
and we never get more than a superficial clue as to why gere has had this flash of insight .
it 's like gere 's character is psychic , but neither he nor the fbi ( or the screenwriters ) seem to know it .
and just like in millennium , the bad guy has an overwhelming need to go after the people the good guy cares about , whether or not they are important to what he 's trying to do or not .
what 's more , in the last half of the movie , the jackal , supposedly a super - smart professional terrorist who never makes a mistake , comes down with a major case of the stupids .
as for the performances .
.. bruce willis manages to get through the whole movie without a wisecrack , which is a major achievement , but not enough reason to see the movie .
his disguises are good , but not as good or as interesting as val kilmer 's in the saint .
richard gere is made to talk the entire movie in an irish accent , which detracts from his otherwise lifeless and dull performance .
sidney poitier is probably the most disappointing element in a overwhelmingly disappointing movie -- not that his performance is bad or anything , it 's not , but it is sad that hollywood wo n't use this talented actor in any part other than an fbi agent ( shoot to kill , sneakers ) .
writing a good plot and a good screenplay , like i said , is hard , but it can be done .
it was n't done here .
it is our job as consumers to reward good screenplays and to denounce bad and uninteresting ones .
do not go see this movie .
you 'll only encourage the producers to make more just like it .
instead , stay home and rent day of the jackal , or in the line of fire , or a fire safety video , for crying out loud .
anything other than the jackal , which lives up to its name by gnawing the dead bones of other , better movies .

Answer:
N