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

it was only a matter of time before a dilbert - esque office comedy hit the screens .
however , rather than coming from dilbert creator scott adams , office space is instead based on the work of another animator , mike judge , creator of beavis and butthead and king of the hill .
in his live - action directoral debut , judge
aptly spoofs corporate culture .
the story is certainly not very involved , but there is plenty of truth and humor to fill the gaps .
peter ( ron livingston ) is a programmer working at the initech corporation .
every day in his mundane life is worse than the one before .
. . in other words , every day is the worst day in his entire life .
he 's stuck in a boring job with eight different supervisors , all obsessed with administrative trivialities .
he 's smitten with joanna ( jennifer aniston ) , a local waitress , but has n't the guts to even introduce himself .
everything has simply made him a complete , nervous wreck .
but all of that changes when , after an unintentionally over - effective visit to a hypnotherapist , peter loses all of his inhibitions .
he realizes his lifelong dream : to do absolutely nothing .
he begins to blatantly disregard the nonsensical instructions of his boss , bill lumbergh ( gary cole ) , doing whatever he feels like .
peter 's friends and co - workers , samir ( ajay naidu ) and michael bolton ( david herman ) . . .
no , not that michael bolton , are perplexed by their friend 's sudden change in attitude .
but , they have larger things to worry about : rumors about that initech is about to begin downsizing . . . as bleak as much of this sounds , let me assure you that office space is a comedy , and quite a funny one .
although it shares the same absurdist office humor of the dilbert comic strip , office space is actually based loosely on the series of milton cartoons which aired on saturday night life .
each mundane detail , taken by itself , seems completely , regrettably , plausible .
yet , when combined into a whole , the picture which results is absolutely surreal .
ron livingston tackles his role straight - faced , and becomes much funnier because of it .
his character is n't simply being a clown lampooning around the office , but rather seems possessed by a zen - like clarity .
he is operating on a higher plane , where everything suddenly makes sense , and from this vantage point , he allows the audience to smirk at the absurdities of life .
anyone who has had to deal with the inefficiencies of corporate bureaucracy , or who has ever been frustrated with the technology of modern life , will recognize many of the characters and situations in the film .
in fact , in addition to being wildly humorous , the film may actually prove to be cathartic .
the animated roots of office space show in the film 's lack of complexity .
most of the characters in the film can be quickly summarized by a particular personality quirk .
one employee , milton ( stephen root ) , is practically a flesh - and - blood cartoon .
however , despite their simple nature , the characters still manage to be surprisingly funny .
it 's not required to have a corporate background to enjoy this film ( though the situations may seem exceedingly far - fetched if you are unfamiliar with just how close to reality they really are ) .
the film is flimsy and absurd , but also very funny .
P

synopsis : original " jurassic park " survivor alan grant ( neill ) is tricked by paul and amanda kirby ( macy and leoni ) into leading an expedition to an island overrun by dinosaur , to rescue their stranded son .
grant 's team is picked off one by one as they encounter dinosaurs both new and familiar , and grant grows to realise that some breeds are more intelligent than he previously thought .
review : there is one reason why " jurassic park iii " is better than its immediate predecessor , " the lost world : jurassic park " .
the latter wasted 129 minutes of my life ;
the former , only 94 .
the first " park " was a marvellous film , full of awe - inspiring sights , interesting characters , and genuine thrills .
its two successors have been pale imitations , amounting to hundred - million - dollar b - grade horror movies .
at least this third entry realises it ; whereas " the lost world " tried to justify its existence with a ludicrous and overextended plot , " jurassic park iii " simply sticks its characters on an island with a bunch of dinosaurs and lets the mayhem begin .
there is a desperate sense of deja vu presiding over this movie ; the computer - animated dinos are no longer novel or exciting , and even the first - time presence of aerial lizards scarcely improves the situation .
remember that wondrous first trolley ride through the park in the original movie ?
nothing in this rehash even comes close .
add in execrable dialogue from screenwriters buchman , payne and taylor , and phoned - in performances by the normally capable macy and leoni , and
it is difficult to recommend the film to anyone but dino enthusiasts .
at least neill makes some effort to retain the dignity of his character , and there is much less gore than in " the lost world " , making this installment more suitable for children .
N

one might expect a cathartic viewing experience walking into a new jean - luc godard film .
after all , he was a founding member of the highly influential french new wave .
he is also an esteemed film critic , lending intelligence and historical perspective to us in much of his writing .
however , his latest creation , in praise of love , is possibly the most exasperating film experience of the year .
the abstract concept on which the film is based had merit , to dissect love into the following four categories : meeting , physical passion , quarrels , and reconciliation .
these four universal truths would be revealed through three different couples : young , adult , and elderly .
it is edgar 's ( bruno putzulu ) self - appointed task to capture these moments after a recent breakup , to define a central idea :
" it 's only when things are over that they make sense .
" whether this project will end up a play , film , or opera remains undecided .
the thesis is simple enough that , if played right , it could really hold sympathetic value for anyone .
instead what ensues is an hour and a half of repetitive vignettes
, the next scene no more engaging than the last . only once does any character utter something worthwhile , but by the time it happens you 're
so thoroughly bored you can easily miss it .
but do n't fret , it will surface again .
you could easily sleep through whole sections of the film ( as some fellow critics did ) and wake up in a scene exactly like the one you nodded off in , not having missed anything worthwhile .
but you hold hope for some time .
the background music keeps you in a state of urgency , and even suspense , for the first few conversations .
it 's only after repeated failures to pay any of this off that you lose all hope .
and with speeches like , " i am thinking of something , but i can only think of that something when i am thinking of something else , " how can you expect to hold anyone 's interest ?
to godard 's credit
, he certainly knows how to frame a scene .
the black and white footage used for the first half of the film is starkly beautiful .
watching edgar read while walking along a train track on a mountain makes you wish you had something to ponder along with him .
and if this film had anything poignant to say , you would have , which makes you all the angrier at the numerous missed opportunities .
the environments , be it city or country , are impeccably captured in crisp detail , but the script never complements them . unfortunately , godard also manages to pillage his photographic eye by randomly
cutting to black numerous times within any given scene .
sometimes these breaks are used for chapter headings , but these are even more cryptic than the spoken words .
the second half is composed of nauseating hyper - color that often blurs the image .
you suddenly feel like a doomed character straight out of scanners .
the only scene that makes any sense is one that complains about the united states bastardizing history in the making of movies .
steven spielberg is picked on in particular .
while i 'll grant that this does happen , and i tend to shy away from watching such garbage , it 's still a pointless focus for a film that purports to articulate the specific qualities of couplehood .
it just goes to show , an intelligent person is n't necessarily an admirable storyteller .
the days of breathless are no more .

N