In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
--------
Question: cradle will rock is the latest effort from director / actor tim robbins .
while he may have had an oscar worthy film back in 1995 ( dead man walking ) ,
he gets a little overconfident and sloppy here .
the story is confusing , and filled with many subplots , so i 'll try my best and explain it as simply as possible .
the film is based on a " mostly " true story about a federal theater in the 1930s , that produced a play ( the cradle will rock ) that apparently was offensive to some , so the government shuts it down .
it 's during the time of the depression , and all this theater wants to do is entertain and cheer up those who do not have jobs , or are poor .
between this conflict lies what seems like 10 subplots , about those who work in theater , or those associated .
also along the way are some other messages mashed together to create an even more overwhelming experience .
tim robbin 's just keeps piling on political views , and characters , that we just give up on the film , or in some cases walk out .
for robbin 's it may be a nice achievement , but to me it seemed more like a friendly get together with slightly more sophisticated dialogue , and fancy outfits .
i thought the main reason for seeing the film would be for the outstanding cast ,
unfortunately are all uninteresting , except for a few .
let me recap what each important character does , so please bear with me
( it 's the least you can do , especially if you were considering seeing this ) .
i 'll begin with those involved with the play .
there 's orson welles ( angus macfadyen ) who of course is the director of the play , the producer john houseman ( cary elwes ) , marc blitzstein ( hank azaria ) the writer of the play , emily watson , a woman who gets her break by playing the main part in cradle will rock .
outside the play there 's the : ventriloquist ( bill murray ) who wants a relationship with a federal theater clerk ( joan cusack ) , another subplot involving a painter diego rivera ( ruben blades ) who 's unhappy that his painting is too be destroyed by nelson rockefeller because he feels it to be an outrage ( john cusack ) .
there 's a few other actresses and actors who have their own stories ( susan sarandon , philip baker hall too name a few ) but those that i mentioned , were the most significant to the story .
anyway , most of these talented hollywood stars were completely wasted , except for emily watson , who does another great job , and one of my personal favorite actors john cusack , who always delivers through thick and thin .
now although most of the film was weak to say the least , there were some nice moments and some involving subjects , but all this is overblown
.
sure the free speech segment was a nice feature , but not when it becomes repetitive .
the whole film is like this , and it 's basically nothing but a headache
.
on the brighter side , tim robbin 's direction was masterful .
his camera direction seemed reminiscent to the works of paul thomas anderson 's latest magnolia , only smoother in my opinion , but even that ca n't make a movie that much better .
although it has it 's moments ( not many of them , but they 're there ) , cradle will rock stays true to it 's title , because the cradle rocked too far and tipped over .

Answer: N


Question: well , i 'll admit when i first heard about this film ( which was before dante 's peak ) i could just smell what ' twister ' had started .
so now it seems that we 're in a full fledged return to the ' 70 's disaster film era .
with ' twister ' , ' dante 's peak ' , ' volcano ' and soon ' flood ' and james cameron 's extremly expensive ' titanic ' i 'll say first off
i enjoyed ' volcano ' much more than i did ' dantes peak ' .
part of that is just being biased as
i usually enjoy anything that tommy lee jones appears in .
i 've been reading a lot about the movie being ' cheezy ' or ' hokey ' and really did n't see or think that once during the entire film .
i get bored easily and this film did n't bore me for a minute .
another thing , and boy am i bitching today !
, that bothers me is when critics and such go on about
" well that s not really possible .
"
you know what ?
i could n't give a bloody damn if it 's possible or not , really i could n't .
it 's a freaking movie and i do n't want reality thrown in my face .
i want to be able to see the impossible , the all might " what if " to many reviewers have seen one to many movies !
the special effects are the second star to this feature .
they are so amazing that i found it hard sometimes to believe they were indeed fx
and la was was not burning to the ground .
they did an incredible job and come oscar time ( if they remember ) some notice better be thrown there way .

Answer: P


Question: fact that charles bronson represents one of the most important movie icons of the 1980s represents one of the biggest and almost tragic ironies of that decade .
tragedy lies in the fact that the icon status was earned less by quality of his work in movies , but the quantity .
most of those movies were produced by cannon group , company led by israeli producers menahem golan and yoram globus .
those two men probably thought that they could be the next roger corman ,
b-
movie mentors of future hollywood legends .
unfortunately , that did n't happened , and when cannon finally went bankrupt at the end of the decade , behind it stood the huge pile of cinematic garbage , that would require at least few centuries before it reaches the camp appeal .
sadly for bronson , that garbage also contained numerous movies in which that capable character actor and action hero of the 1970s tried to raise their worth simply by being the main lead , and lowering his own reputation in process .
on the other hand , bronson could take comfort in a fact that those movies were extremely popular , especially among the audience 3 or 4 times younger than bronson himself .
one of such movies that seriously marred bronson 's reputation is death wish 3 , third sequel in the series which began with death wish in 1974 .
in the original movie , bronson played paul kersey , mild - mannered new york architect who turns into deadly street vigilante after his family fell victim to urban violence .
that movie was far from masterpiece ; yet , in it the director michael winner was skillfully offering the cinematic remedy for very real disease of growing crime rates of the time ( on the same lines like siegel in dirty harry ) .
unfortunately , six years later cannon group got rights to the character of paul kersey and
began destroying it by pumping out sequels ; even the presence of its original director did n't stop the rapid decline of the quality .
death wish 3 begins when kersey comes to visit an old friend , living in the urban wasteland of east new york , populated by young criminals and people too old or too poor to move out .
before the reunion , kersey 's friend falls victim to the street gang led by evil fraker ( played by gavan o'herlihy , probably the only noteworthy role in the film ) .
kersey decides to avenge his death and slowly prepares for his crusade , while the police inspector shriker ( ed lauter ) , ants to use him as a secret weapon in his losing war against the urban crime .
bronson , the main asset in this movie , plays the character who is nothing more than an efficient killing machine .
although bronson 's charisma does help in overcoming some implausibilities
( single man in his 60s and armed with a single pistol manages to wipe out dozens of opponents with superior firepower ) , the lack of emotions or bronson 's own commitment could be seen in a very few lines spoken in a film .
the movie authors were somewhat aware of that emotional shallowness , so they added romantic interest for their hero - public defender played by deborah raffin and conveniently terminated in order to give some more motives for kersey 's crusade .
on the other hand , emotions are much better played by confronting law - abiding , yet ethnically stereotyped citizens with their daily nemesis of street punks - ruthless enough to exercise their reign of terror on the entire city blocks , and stupid enough to be killed in droves by kersey .
unfortunately , michael winner does n't know how to work out the plot , and after torturing the viewers with mostly uninteresting characters and cliched and formulaic situations , ends this movie with a bang .
the big showdown at the end - that turns east new york into the sarajevo - like battle zone - is probably the worst part of the movie , because of the poor editing and the cheap sets and props that give away the low budget .
in short , this movie could be recommended only to the most fanatical charles bronson fans or for the people who are already desperate for 1980s nostalgia .
( special note for trekkies : marina sirtis , the actress who played counsellor deanna troi in star trek : the next generation could be spotted in a small role of portorican wife ) .

Answer:
N