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

[EX Q]: romeo is bleeding wants to carry the unusual flavor of reservoir dogs or bad lieutenant .
with director peter medak , whose previous credits include the good films let him have it and the krays , and top - notch character actors gary oldman and lena olin , they seemed likely to be a successful combination .
those mentioned films , however , brought something to the screen that romeo is bleeding
did not : a solid , well - written screenplay .
call me cynical , but the jobs of writer and producer do n't seem to mix well .
gary oldman plays jack grimaldi , a good cop turned bad , selling information to the mob and cheating on his wife .
his cheating is obvious enough to obtain his nickname , although the name does n't provide any insight or analogy to the shakespearean character .
jack has become addicted to " feeding the hole " , a hole in the ground where he stores his payoff money .
when he realizes his colleagues are being shot , he feebly attempts to get out .
gary oldman 's performance is disappointingly weak ; he seems nearly bored .
in the process , he also gets tangled - up with mona demarkov , a russian mobsterette who wants to take over the territory from top boss falcone , played adequately by roy scheider .
demarkov , played by lena olin , is a tough but tremendously sexy woman with seemingly no problems maneuvering within the mob world .
this character is combination of both linda hamilton and arnold schwarznegger from terminator 2 .
i ca n't remember seeing a character quite like her .
after being shot , handcuffed , and thrown in the back seat of a car , she still manages to cause an accident , kick out the windshield with her legs , grab a suitcase full of money ( plus some important documentation ) , climb through the rubble , land on her shot leg , and still succeed at running for safety .
what a woman ! lena olin 's performance is the only glimmer in this dismal film .
anabella sciorra is wasted in her role as romeo 's wife .
there is little insight into her character .
she 's depressed , she makes obvious references , she mopes around the house .
juliette lewis , as romeo 's girlfriend , is treated with the same cliche attitudes , although ms .
lewis ' portrayal certainly did n't improve it .
both women were anything but sexy or attractive .
poorly developed characters aside , the screenplay also suffers from several logistical problems .
it is so discouraging to watch a film and want to shout at the main character ( not ) to do something .
for example , jack and his friends attend a funeral to hang in the background to scope - out the mob scene .
fine .
jack spots the big boss with his goons by the gravesite .
fine .
what does jack proceed to do ?
he brushes his friends off by telling them he is n't feeling well , then strolls over to the boss .
why ?
the boss had all ready threatened him ; falcone simply takes the opportunity to issue more threats by ordering his goons to take off some of jack 's toes by the gravesite .
i guess they were n't worried about any federal agents lingering around after the funeral . . .
.
or here 's another : demarkov set - up her own death by cutting off her arm with a circular saw .
she proceeded to set the place on fire .
would n't the flames burn off the fingerprints ?
are n't dental records more important ?
as bright and resourceful as she was supposed to be , could n't she come up with a better plot ?
( and it took her no time at all to get a good - fitting , functional prosthesis . ) lack of attention to detail
certainly adds up in a film .
this film does n't even add up the large details .
there is little or no consistency in the story - line .
not much makes sense .
the direction lacks cohesion , surprising from a director whose previous credits are impeccable .
the moods shift , the styles shift , and no one can seem to decide if it is a serious film or satire of one .
so while it certainly is n't reservoir dogs , it certainly is n't diva .
there 's plenty more to tear apart in this film .
my advice to someone who has n't seen it to to wait until it comes on video .
there are some quotable lines that would provide a campy evening if not taken seriously .
it 's not a boring film ,
just not a good one . or an intelligent one .
[EX A]: N

[EX Q]: 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 .
[EX A]: N

[EX Q]: movies can do the two big es very well : educate and entertain .
in the best of all possible worlds , they accomplish both .
on the red planet , they fail entirely .
in the near future , a manned mission is sent to mars to observe primitive plant growth .
this film does a remarkable job of demonstrating exactly how exciting watching algae grow would be .
after some mumbo - jumbo about an ecological disaster on earth and an interminable wait to reach the fourth planet , the ship falls apart almost as fast as the movie does .
the ground crew of people
you could n't care less about
is trapped on the surface without food , water or air and stalked by a deadly rogue cyberdog .
the one potentially interesting character ( carrie - anne moss ) spends her time alone in the orbiting ship talking to a computer .
attempting to graft " 2001 " esque space mysticism with " terminator " robot horror , first time director antony hoffman ca n't seem to figure out what 's going on .
neither
can we .
did n't he have anyone who could step back from the shooting and make sure there was a coherent story ?
could n't he have used the money saved by only having to pay half a dozen actors to hire a scriptwriter ?
there are so many mis - steps .
every opportunity to create dynamic tension is thwarted by plot holes and lackluster direction .
why introduce the theme of faith vs .
science if the crewman who could comment on it disappears early only to die
_
offscreen _ ?
the audience begins the film waiting for something to happen .
two hours later , they 're still waiting .
despite our greatest hopes , there is no life on the red planet .
[EX A]:
N