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

[EX Q]: well , i know that stallone is 50 years old now , but in daylight he does n't look it !
daylight is a great disaster movie . if you 've seen cliffhanger , you 'll know stallone 's character already .
a guy with a bad past , but is in the right place at the wrong time .
a tunnel connecting new york and new jersey has both sides collapses when a group of robbers collide with a truck carrying * very * flammable toxic waste .
a dozen or so people survive the collapses and the incinerating fireball ( and what a fire ball it was ! )
stallone , a former emergency medical service man , is chauffeuring a rich couple around , when they reach the outside of the tunnel , before the explosion .
then , 30 minutes into the movie , boom !
>
from here on , the plot takes a back seat , and we are treated to some of the best camera work and action staged .
most all the action is plausible and will hold you at the edge of your seat .
there are a few melodramatic parts here , but , they tend to work out well .
there is no general antagonist in this film , but the action and suspense makes you forget all about that .
daylight is a great film
, i saw a non - matinee showing of it , and i thought it was worth every penny .
the characterizations are mostly flat , one dimesional , but they have enough in them to get you to care for some of the characters .
rob cohen ( dragonheart )
does a great job with this film .
[EX A]: P

[EX Q]: this is the worst movie i 've viewed so far in 98 .
the avengers = silly = man dressed in a bowler hat + woman wearing tight leathers
> evil scientists dressed in teddy bear suits + greater evil , sir august de wynter wearing kilt .
the question is what could have gone wrong with a potentially great idea with big name cast ?
the same question was probably asked of last year 's stinker batman and robin .
i feel the production got a little too smug ,
the script a little to smart and direction was somehow lost in the chaos of random events that collided together to form a movie .
my greatest criticism rests on the fact that there was no chemistry between emma peel and john steed ( thurman and fiennes ) ?
something that was a vital element of the 60 's tv serial of the same name .
the dialogue goes on and on about tea and other finer british perks , but does not allow much room for character development and interaction , except to perhaps grate on the viewer 's nerves .
one wonders why the dynamic pair bother kissing in the end except for pure english formality .
connery as sir august , does not fair better than thurman or fiennes .
his dialogue is as erratic as stormy weather , mostly embarrassing and poor quality .
if there is a movie you would prefer never to see , i believe the avengers would be a good choice .
for one thing , you will not have to witness a product that is far inferior to the three high profile names that is associated with the title .
i can not understand how something
so poorly produced could have been released , but i put it down to one of those freak happenings in nature , like lightning you ca n't see it coming until it hits you .
[EX A]: N

[EX Q]: instinct is the kind of movie that inexperienced moviegoers will undoubtedly label as " powerful " or " touching " .
i have a name for it myself : " gross " .
this is the sort of film where somebody stands up to a bully , the bully looks at the " rebel " threateningly , about to hurt him , and then everyone else whom the bully has heretofore controlled stands up too .
how that scene is still present in so many movies today appalls me : are n't present day moviegoers beyond being " inspired " by something like that ?
this is one example ( there are actually some more in instinct alone ) of filmmakers insulting the audience 's intelligence .
instinct 's plot is brimming with potential : world - renowned anthropologist ethan powell ( anthony hopkins ) disappeared for two years whilst doing research in the jungles of africa .
he was found and is coming back to the united states a convicted killer ; he murdered to african policemen who were allegedly trying to capture him .
after committing a few more brutal acts of violence in the airport , the authorities stick him in a prison 's " psychotics ward " . assigned to do an evaluation on powell is a bright ( or so we are told ) young psychiatrist theo caulder ( cuba gooding jr . ) .
caulder starts out doing the evaluation merely for the purpose of furthering his career .
of course ( and no mainstream filmmaker would ever have it any other way )
he starts really caring for powell and he becomes fixed on helping powell prove that he is not a psychotic and that he should not be in prison .
and then there 's the inevitable " heartless meanie " character , in the form of donald sutherland who plays caulder 's mentor .
he cares for caulder but does everything he can to discourage him from helping powell .
let 's get one thing straight : dr .
theo caulder is the most blatantly incompetent psychiatrist i have ever seen , on screen or off .
any good shrink will listen to what his patient has to say no matter the subject because any good shrink will learn a great deal about his patient that way . not good old theo .
no , he asks purposefully pointed questions and when powell dares to venture to another subject caulder says " we need to talk about this right now .
"
this is a flaw only in the sense that it detracts from instinct 's already dubious credibility ; unfortunately it 's also the least of its problems .
director jon turteltaub , who made the delightful john travolta vehicle phenomenon as well as the surprisingly above - par cool runnings decided to make this movie so shamelessly sentimental that , contrary to what this movie 's promotion would have you believe , it has much more in common with patch adams than with the silence of the lambs .
it 's not the kind of sentimentality that can almost bring tears to your eyes ( what dreams may come aptly demonstrated that )
but the kind that brings vomit up your esophagus
( excuse the graphic depiction ) .
it aims to " inspire " rather than to touch hearts .
as yoda would say , inspire it does not .
it is the ultimate sign of futility when a screenwriter ( the very experienced gerald di pego ) has to resort to literally telling the audience a movie 's story .
indeed , somewhere in the beginning of instinct , one of the characters actually reads aloud the film 's plot to another character .
this , like the instance i mentioned in the first paragraph of this review , is a horrid insult to our intelligence .
i am forced to wonder whether turteltaub and di pego did not think that we could figure out what instinct is about simply from regular conversation .
i think that anthony hopkins is one of the greatest screen actors , and he chews the scenery in this movie , brilliant as ever .
oscar winner cuba gooding jr .
on the other hand is dreadful .
his performance is at least part of what makes his character seem so incapable of being a shrink .
i liked the guy in jerry maguire as well as in as good as it gets but here
he fails to project any shred of credibility or real feeling .
i love animals , and instinct 's prominent save the gorillas / live in harmony with nature theme
is certainly something i could sympathize with . however this movie 's execution is completely unacceptable .
tone down the violence and this will be a chick flick . ?
1999 eugene novikov
[EX A]:
N