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

[Q]: long ago , films were constructed of strong dialogue , original characters , memorable plot points , and solid acting .
one of the best examples that hollywood now completely ignore these qualities is found in the new film where the heart is .
this opus about the power of love and the redemption of family follows the tragic , and i mean tragic , life of novalee nation ( natalie portman ) .
hitting the road with her hick , guitar - playing boyfriend in a rusted - out gm , novalee dreams of the blue skies of bakersfield and sipping chocolate milk beneath a plastic umbrella with her unborn baby , due in a month .
stopping off at a nearby wal - mart for a quick rest , novalee 's boyfriend decides to take off and leaves her there .
novalee then decides to secretly hole up in the wal - mart ( because she 's not the brightest bulb in the stagelights ) .
a wacky librarian ( keith david ) comes to her rescue when she goes into labor one night while she is camped in the outdoors section of the store .
then the she moves in with a family , befriends everyone in town -- including ashley judd 's character ( who has five kids and still can work part - time as a nurse )
-- fights off religious freaks , survives a tornado , breaks the heart of the wacky librarian that saved her , receives an inheritance , builds a martha stewart - esque house , becomes an award - winning photographer , and manages to always look like she stepped out of a cosmo shoot , all while not once doing anything with her kid .
this film is terrible .
the directing is awful : it seems director matt williams had an index card with six angles written on it and used every one of them , over and over and over again .
we get pathetic and ugly acting by natalie portman , who can do good work .
a disjointed pacing of key scenes and a time structure so confusing that it would throw steve prefontaine off .
a subplot that actually validates the actions of the boyfriend who abandoned novalee in the wal - mart parking lot .
an embarrassing display of emotions by the characters , making the audience ill .
taking two great comedic screenwriters , babaloo mandel and lowell ganz , and forcing them to write drama on par with oprah 's book club .
altogether , it has the feeling of being trapped at home , watching a very bad television mini - series and wishing it to end , only the remote is broken .
however , the main problem with the film is that it never answers the most poignant question brought up : where is the heart ?
no one ever seems to find it in this piece of junk .
[A]: N


[Q]: as we see the terrible events that unfold before our eyes in the middle east at the moment , hollywood does n't loose the oppertunity to get involved , by telling stories and expressing opinions .
this film centers on a relationship forged throughout the adult lifetimes of two marine colonels , hays hodges ( tommy lee jones ) and terry childers ( samuel l . jackson ) .
they fought side by side in vietnam , where childers saved hodges ' life by shooting an unarmed pow .
that 's against the rules of war but understandable , in this story anyway , under the specific circumstances .
certainly hodges is not complaining .
years pass .
hodges , whose wounds make him unfit for action , gets a law degree and becomes a marine lawyer .
childers , is now a respected and much - decorated hero that has served his country with his life and sould .
because of his excellent record , childers is sent to yemen to rescue the american ambassador ( ben kingsley ) , cowering in the embassy under assault from violent demonstrators and snipers blasting from rooftops .
childers does what he has to do : evacuate the family and protect the men under his command .
after three marines die and the colonel thinks he sees ground fire , he orders his troops to shoot into the firing crowd .
more than 80 yemeni men , women , and children are mowed down .
childers is immediately accused of ordering his men to fire on a crowd and murder of unarmed civilians .
he persuades his old friend hodges to represent him in the courtroom drama that occupies the second half of the film .
did childers violate authorized u . s .
military rules of engagement ?
or are there simply no rules in war ?
the answers to these stereotypical questions are obvious , but the inconsistent plot immediately raises all sorts of other questions .
the murder of 83 " innocent civilians " has to result into something greater than a simple trial in the u . s .
where is the accusations from the arab leaders ?
where is the u . n . ?
the film ends without even telling the most interesting story : what happens on the international arena ?
this film ( in a way akin to films such as " a few good men " ) has already been accused of breaking the rules of morality and ethics and even of racism .
these accusations are pretty heavy , but also unfair .
what director william friedklin truly broke was the rules of decent filmmaking
. one of the earliest apparent problems with ' rules of engagement ' is its lack of credibility .
the entire operation in yemen may remind us about what happens in the middle east right now , but is overdone , contrived and unrealistic - as if a chain of events had to happen in a particular manner in order for the plot to proceed .
a lot of it is so cheesy that no one could possibly accept it as reality .
that is precisely why it 's not offensive .
it is completely unobjective .
many stories are started and never finished .
many questions are asked , but never answered .
a lot of parallels are referring to nothing .
it seems that neither the director , producers or the screenwriter can make up their minds about the contents of their film .
is it about arab mentality ?
america 's foreign policies ?
america 's role in the world ?
corruption in the higher circles ?
it goes on and on .
it consists of countless stories , but not a definable plot .
it tries to be everything for everyone and ends up being nothing for no one .
i think that it is ironic , because director william friedkin 's probably most acclaimed film was " the exorcist " which had a silly story , but became a rather effective film .
in this case you have a strong story with many possibilities and the result is a silly film .
though several scenes bare the mark of professionalism ( such as the impressive battle scenes ) , his latest film does simply not engage .
i believe that friedklin is a director that is absolutely depended on great scripts and talented producers in order to succeed .
it 's obvious that he has neither and the result is therefore a catastrophe .
the characters feel designed , unreal , merely shadows , with no life outside the conflict .
even the actors can not save this film from going under .
though both jackson and jones act admirably , with performances that are as good as you get with a script like this , it is not something that these great actors can boast of .
they have roles that they could play blindfolded with their hand on the back .
jackson is gray and jones uninteresting .
the rest of the cast , including ben kingsly , blair underwood and guy pearce are simply waiting for their paychecks .
the time has come for the verdict .
on the charges of complete lack of objectivity , i find this film guilty .
on the charges of breaking the rules of reasonable filmmaking , i find it guilty .
but on the charges of racism i find this film not guilty , because of it 's inconclusive and often silly plot
that lacks objectivity everywhere , not only when concerning the arab population .
i must admit that the film is dangerously near the line of being racially offensive and i do think that screenwriter stephen gaghan went a bit too far , portraying the yemeni people almost as stereotypical hollywood bad - guys .
this is very sad , since in a time like this it is crucial to not lose objectivity and proclaim the truth .
however , it is absolutely necessary to remember that the muslim terrorists are responsible for most of the terrorist activity in and outside the united states .
and that it 's not a coincidence that u . s .
residents in the middle east , including yemen are on constant maximum alert .
[A]: N


[Q]: robin williams is a comedic genus .
that is , he is one when he 's in a film that allows him space to move .
" flubber " straps him in a straitjacket , covers him with duct tape , stuffs him in a coat closet and piles furniture against the door to make sure that he does n't get out
.
in a re - make of its own 1961 " absent minded professor " , disney offers us proof that more is definitely less .
recycling old films ( " that darned cat " , " 101 dalmatians " ) dressed up as new is the newest money machine from the home of the mouse that roared .
professor phillip brainard ( williams ) is a terminally forgetful scientist teaching at a small college .
his fiancee , sara jean reynolds ( marcia gay harden ) , president of the college is none too happy with him because he 's left her waiting at the altar due to his lack of short - term -- and long - term -- memory .
she 's giving him one more chance .
he blows that chance when he invents " flubber " ( flying rubber ) and is so excited by his discovery that sara jean is once again awaiting him in her white dress .
his tardiness is helped along by his jealous flying robotic assistant who wants him all to herself .
it 's not all bad news .
flubber is a green jello that can magnify and reflect energy that is applied to it .
brainard realizes the commercial potential within the goo can save the school from bankruptcy and being taken over by the town 's evil industrialist charles hoenicker ( raymond barry ) .
while he 's busy with his new breakthrough , the slighted sweetheart is being wooed by his sleazy rival wilson croft ( christopher mcdonald ) .
there 's a flying car , flubber - enhanced basketball game and an assortment of broken lab equipment : none of which are the least bit interesting or funny .
at one point , my son looked around the audience and asked " why are these people laughing ?
" although williams turns in one of his least inspired roles , he is easily the most lively of the actors .
everyone else comes across as half - asleep .
the re - make is successful in that respect .
it feels like a bad disney movie from the sixties .
i remember the original as being charming , but my guess is that the memory from almost four decades ago has been artificially enhanced by the years .
there have been some updates .
fred macmurray 's flying model t has been replaced by a t - bird .
his faithful dog charlie is now " weebo " , the hovering robot .
the biggest change is that , with sophisticated computer animation , we now can have films show off special effects without being at all entertaining
.
flubber is anthropomorphized into a being supposedly with personality .
the gloop has little arms and legs and splits into tiny little gloopettes for a big dance number .
this has nothing to do with the story .
the only possible reason is to create merchandising opportunities so that kids can badger their parents into taking them to mcdonalds for the toys .
not that contributing little to the plot is a big problem .
there are very few aspects of the film that move the story and those that do do n't make sense .
the discovery of flubber is going to save the college because brainard can sell his flying car to ford .
anyone with half a brain would be able to see that his intelligent flying automaton is worth billions .
it 's unbelievable that his lover ( well , probably not a lover -- after all this is disney ) starts dating croft after the aborted wedding .
there 's not one appealing component of this man .
after the professor discovers that smearing a golf ball with the gunk causes it to bounce uncontrollably around his lab wreaking havoc , i cringed as he picked up a bowling ball .
this guy is beyond forgetful , venturing into the certifiable .
co - writer john hughes used to direct light - weight but thoughtful teen films .
the care behind " pretty in pink " and " the breakfast club " all went out the window after his " home alone " franchise heated up the box offices . looking much like " home alone 3 1/2 " , " flubber " even features a couple of vapid goons who get banged around and a cute little boy who screams a lot .
in some ways , it 's difficult to judge this film .
i have a suspicion that i 'm not it 's target audience .
after all , i measure my age in two digits .
[A]:
N