In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
--------
Question: the idea at the center of the devil 's advocate , which is , thus far , one of the three or four best films of 1997 , is that no matter what decision is made , evil will triumph -- god is a trickster , satan is a humanist -- " the last humanist " .
he appears in many guises , and seduces many men and women -- in his own words , " vanity -- by far my favorite sin " .
al pacino plays this role with relish , and gets to chew some delectable lines ( " lemme givya a piece o ' inside wisdom on god .
..
" , " i have a million names . .. " ) , as john milton -- the devil .
the main idea -- that he can appear as anyone , in any form ( in this case , a buisness man )
, harkens mainly back to terry gilliam 's the time bandits . but the film ,
is something else , something original .
part of what makes it so very good , is that it never takes itself too seriously -- it dabbles with morality , vanity , death , and child abuse , but does n't try to become any profound study of power .
this is a marvelous confection -- cocky , funny , thought provoking .
it is also entertaining .
there is no way you could possibly predict the ending
-- it pulls back upon itself , drawing purely out of the mind 's eye .
the final shot is more creative , more daring , more challenging , then anything in cinema since the white sock in the coen 's fargo .
the central themes are fascinating ( sometimes reminiscent of james ' the turn of the screw , and oates ' accursed inhabitants of the house of bly ) , and the product that is built around it really wows .
its nice to know that things like this are still being made .

Answer: P


Question: james l . brooks , one of the developers of the simpsons and director of broadcast news , returns to the big screen with this entertaining , if slightly flawed comedy .
nicholson plays melvin udall , probably the most horrible person ever on the screen .
he 's racist , homophobic , and never has a good word to say to anyone .
so , nobody talks to him , except waitress carol conelly ( t .
v sitcom star hunt , who was last seen in twister , 1996 ) .
naturally , udall , conelly and gay neighbor simon bishop ( kinnear ) who nicholson hates , all hit it off in the end .
like good will hunting ( 1997 ) and titanic ( 1997 ) , even though the outcome is completely obvious , as good as it gets is an enjoyable , funny and warm comedy .
nicholson is hilarious as melvin , churning out insults with superb relish .
only nicholson could get away with the lines that melvin delivers .
hunt is also good as waitress carol , and easily rises to the challenge of nicholson .
there 's also ( thankfully ) a bit of chemistry between them .
kinnear , as the gay neighbor , seems to have a slightly underwritten role , he 's more of a plot convience than a character .
although his performance is good , his character just seems to exist to help melvin and carol come together .
in fact , the scene stealer is simon 's dog , who is funnier than nicholson .
but then again , pets are always cute on screen .
providing solid support is cuba gooding , jnr ( jerry maguire , 1996 ) and yeardly smith ( who is the voice of lisa simpsons in the simpsons ) although gooding is n't as good as is character in maguire , he is still fun .
he overacts a little , but not so much as to be annoying .
smith is also good , although she has a fairly small role .
even director lawrence kasdan ( body heat , 1981 ) makes an appearance as a doctor .
but this is primarily nicholsons film , and
every scene he 's in , he 's steals it .
he 's character is so hateful , though
, it 's amazing that anyone talks to him at all , especially carol .
and this is the films main problem .
it 's totally unbelievable that carol would ever consider liking melvin .
she does n't fall in love with him naturally , the film forces her to fall in love with him .
also , melvins character seems to go too nice , too quickly .
i would doubt anyone with a character like melvins would be able to turn back to a nice , loving person .
it would take a helluva long time , much longer than this film would like to make out .
brooks direction is good , though , if a bit average , but he usually manages to get an emotion out of the audience .
he handles the comedy scenes better than the sentimental ones ( he tends to pile on to much schmaltz ) but
generally he 's good .
there 's also a nice soundtrack by veteran composer hans zimmer .
but , generally , as good as it gets achieves what it sets out to do , which is to make the audience feel good by the end of the movie .
the movie is a bit overlong , but nicholson is such good fun that the running time passes by pretty quickly .
overall , as good as it gets is a fun movie , even though it may be unbelivable , and certainly worth seeing
( if just for jack nicholsons performance . ) not quite as good as it gets ( pardon the bad joke ) , but still good fun .

Answer: P


Question: the uncompromising nudity bared throughout petrice chereau 's intimacy has already garnered much notoriety , but it 's in the naked faces of fearless actors mark rylance ( angels & insects ) and kerry fox ( welcome to sarajevo ) that the tender ache of emotional resonance is discovered .
with sharp , intelligent eyes that reflect experience and maturity , rylance and fox are refreshingly detached from the false glamour of hollywood idols .
their sex scenes together are bracing in their raw honesty , in the acceptance of flesh and messiness .
less apparent , but no less remarkable , are the astute observations of behavior revealed through those carnal beats of haste and hesitance , often without a single line of dialogue .
not aiming for the spiritual poetry of in the realm of the senses or the philosophical transgressions of crash , chereau keeps his sexual odyssey firmly grounded in terms of straightforward character development .
that may be the very reason why intimacy seems unerringly impressive but never particularly significant on more than a tactile , sensory level .
the themes of human isolation are barren and obvious , a science project devoid of any especially groundbreaking hypothesis .
intimacy does manage to stand out from lesser portraits of " human interconnectedness " and pinter - esque rummages through psychological dirty drawers ( okay , kill me ) .
shallow though it might sound ,
it 's amazing how much is filled in through an inspired cast , perceptive camerawork , and imaginative ways of treating the love scene .
those ingredients are too assured and confident to merely dismiss as icing on the cake , especially since they are the substance of the cake itself . adapted from a pair of short stories by british novelist hanif kureishi , intimacy weaves desperate lovemaking between two strangers in london .
every wednesday , jay ( rylance ) and claire ( fox ) meet in his cluttered , dank apartment for an hour or two of sexual release from their uninspired lives .
he 's been head bartender at a posh restaurant for over six years .
she 's a mystery to him but her glum workaday appearance reveals a similar dissatisfaction .
they 're both married , but his relationship has curdled into an embittered separation .
as the weeks draw on , jay obsessively takes it upon himself to uncover claire 's personal routines .
in his attempt to gain a fuller semblance of who she is , he opens wounds that had n't existed before by single - handedly corrupting the fantasy .
if it were n't for a few unnecessary subplots involving jay 's brother and his bevy of disgruntled co - workers , this minimalist premise might be described as a modern fable on the perils of wish fulfillment .
chareau 's restless camera ( once again wielded by superb and ever - attentive cinematographer eric gautier ) is less appropriate here than in his family transit - oriented those who love me can take the train .
the scenes that linger are the still ones where rylance and fox separately , pensively attempt to carry on with their makeshift household routines .
these are often captured in lingering , unblinking wide shots that view them stranded amidst their drab workplaces and homes .
separation proves haunting in a melancholy series of intercut shots as rylance and fox undress on opposite sides of the room , crawling across the floor to meet in the center .
despite being as restless as a fly during the hyperactive restaurant scenes ( all the better to blend in with a hustling crowd of gabby trendsetters ) , you 'd be hard pressed to find a single uninteresting image .
intimacy takes an interest in its sordid world of the lower - middle class , with lonely pubs and busy shopping streets -- it also understands the people who inhabit those spaces , viewing them with sympathy scraped raw .
an evaluation would be incomplete without highlighting the great timothy spall ( the robust scene - stealer of many a mike leigh collaboration ) .
as claire 's cuckolded husband , this jocular heavyweight plays out his handful of bitter pill scenes with the unforced menace and self - effacing embarrassment of his imposing bulk .
bangs in his eyes , his mouth forming into quizzical pouts and dry smirks , he may seem the fool in his barroom encounters opposite a sarcastic , gleaming mark rylance ( whose jay has arrived on the scene looking to stir up some trouble ) , but spall is no one to trifle with .
his overreaching best pal demeanor suggests a mind abuzz with secret passageways of guile , his pointed questions only na ?
ve if you choose not to read into their crafty insinuations .
in his unassuming way , spall 's carefully etched interpretation of hostility buried under a mountain of surface propriety may become one of the most criminally underappreciated performances of the year , but maybe also one of the best .
he 's that good .

Answer:
P