In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
--------
Question: i like movies with albert brooks , and i really like movies directed and written by albert brooks .
lost in america and defending your life are two of my favorite comedies .
his humor is of a kind that is not very prevalent in movies today , inundated as we are with films which revel in their aim toward the lowest common denominator .
you will rarely see any slapstick in an albert brooks film , while the dialog will not be as oppressive as in some of the independent " talk films " which are finding their way into theaters .
the situations in which his characters find themselves are ones we can often identify with , but even if we ca n't , brooks has the talent to make them comfortable , and therefore we laugh .
teenagers and jim carrey fans probably wo n't find an albert brooks movie very funny , but people who look for more than what we could find on television probably will .
put simply , brooks ' comedy is intelligent .
mother is albert brooks ' latest film , and it does not disappoint .
brooks plays john henderson ,
a middle - aged science fiction writer just coming off his second divorce .
he makes an attempt at dating , but fails miserably .
he then has dinner with his brother jeff ( rob morrow ) , a successful sports agent who seems to live the ideal life .
jeff has a good job , a loving family , and most of all , a warm relationship with their mother beatrice ( debbie reynolds ) .
after dinner , john witnesses a telephone conversation between jeff and beatrice , and is at the same time amazed and sickened by how hunky - dory the dialog is .
in comparison , beatrice always hints at a fault in john and his career every time she talks with him , and john gives it right back to her .
at the end of one of their conversations where beatrice has just picked apart john 's life , she says , " i love you , " and john replies with , " i know you think you do .
"
the thing is , beatrice is not overt with her criticisms , but instead gives them in that mothering way which is tantamount to nit - picking and guilt loading .
it 's the kind that goes something like , "
yes , dear , i think you do that wonderfully , but .
.. .
"
it seems as though nothing he does makes her happy .
there 's always the big
but .
john believes that his mother is somehow connected to his failed relationships with women , either because of his flawed self - esteem caused by his need for validation , or perhaps because he tends to unconsciously seek out women who remind him of his mother in an oedipal manner .
he comes to the conclusion that since his problems are rooted in his boyhood home , he should move back in with his mother for a while just to see what kinds of feelings come out , and by that be able to sort out why his life is the way it is .
"
a great experiment " , he calls it .
brooks ' own brand of humor really shines in this film , especially in the interaction john has with his mother .
there 's a scene where john has just arrived at his mother 's house , and after having driven from los angeles to sausalito , and having explained to his mother about the " great experiment " , beatrice asks , " now explain to me again why you do n't want to stay at a hotel .
"
she still does n't get it , and it is absolutely hilarious .
in the same scene , we get little glances at the life his mother leads when she tries to feed him food that is no longer fresh .
she apparently buys in great quantities and refrigerates it until the lettuce is wilted and the sherbet is iced over .
when john points out the ice on the sherbet , beatrice tells him not to worry about the protective glaze .
"
you 've named the ice ? " asks john .
he 's also surprised at the variety of items
beatrice keeps in the refrigerator , such as a twenty - pound block of cheese .
"
the freezer was a good invention , " says john , " but it 's not supposed to be used for everything .
that 's why it 's smaller than the refrigerator .
"
it 's something most of us find strangely familiar .
brooks is also a master at employing the non sequitur .
for example , in defending your life , his and meryl streep 's characters are in a comedy club having a discussion .
when they 're finished and walk out , brooks cuts to the comic on stage who is just at the point of delivering his punch line , " and so the moral is , if you have to fart , go outside !
"
you do n't know what the joke was because you could n't hear him during the entire scene , but i must have laughed for the next five minutes , it seemed so out of context .
in this film , brooks uses the same trick a couple of times to open or close a scene .
i do n't want to give them away , but suffice it to
say they work just as well as they have in the past .
john 's purpose for staying with his mother is to learn , and we as the audience learn right along with him .
his mother is not the fascinating type to begin with , but as john spends more time with her , we learn things about her personality and her lifestyle that give her depth .
watching the character of beatrice unfold is every bit as enjoyable as the humor that accompanies it each step of the way .
on screen , brooks does an excellent job playing this kind of character
: you get the feeling he often believes he is the only sane person in an insane world .
in a way , he 's very much like yosarian of catch-22 , expect with something of an attitude .
casting debbie reynolds as beatrice is perfect .
she assumes the part with ease , even moving and speaking a little slowly , and is just so adorable it 's hard to get mad at her character .
this only helps the audience to share the frustration john feels when dealing with her .
as his first choice , brooks originally wanted to lure nancy reagan out from her acting retirement to play beatrice , but the former actress and first lady could not leave her husband , who was beginning to show symptoms of alzheimer 's disease .
that may be just as well , since reynolds lends a softness to the character which enhances it immensely .
rob morrow also does a good job at playing the younger brother who has always been mother 's favorite and , for all his success in his job and family , is slowly exposed as a mama 's boy .
the only things that hold this movie back from being better are a couple of plot holes .
a solid connection is not really made between john 's troubles and his reasons for living with his mother .
additionally , the end results of the experiment do not necessarily jibe with the stated goals , and although this may have been sloppy screenwriting , how can you be mad at the guy who also wrote this ?
: beatrice : you must think i 'm some kind of moron .
john
: no , i think your someone who thinks i 'm a moron .
beatrice : well , it takes one to know one .

Answer: P


Question: plot : a group of asbestos cleaners get a job removing the gunk from an old insane asylum .
as each day passes , the crew members begin to discover things about the place and themselves which set other things in motion .
saying anything else about the plot would be a crime .
have fun . . .
critique : " i feel like shooting myself in the head
" are the first words that came out of my mouth after seeing this movie , a good indication as to what kind of film to expect here .
this ai n't your average " happy go lucky " kind of picture .
this is a deliberately slow - paced mystery - horror film drenched in atmosphere , with a very creepy insane asylum ( in which most of the film takes place ) , very few clues up - front and lots to talk about afterwards .
will it bore some people to sleep ?
you bet it will !
is it made for the scream audiences of the day ?
absolutely not !
i guess you can describe this film as a horror movie for the " cerebral crowd " .
a film that patiently unwraps itself frame after frame , giving away very little with each step and each sound , unwinding itself until its final scenes offer up a world of revelations and plenty more to discuss later .
i 've always loved movies that have me talking about them afterwards like the shining and lost highway and this film fits right into that group .
in fact , i guess i can pussyfoot around the actual word all i want but the best way to describe this kind of movie is a " mindfuck " .
if you feel like watching a movie that moves very slowly , gives you a handful of characters with divergent backgrounds , tosses a few very ambiguous and supernatural cookies your way and is extremely disturbing once you put it all together , well ,
then this movie is definitely for you !
it 's the kind of film that you actually have to see twice to fully appreciate ( damn , i missed that whole " peanut butter " thing ! )
and one that will likely creep the shit out of you if watched alone in the dark .
" brrrrrrrrr .
.
.
now what was that sound in the basement ?
honey , can you go check ? " and one thing this film does n't have , unlike its hollywood - ian counterparts like the haunting , is special effects .
in fact , that 's one of the greater things about this movie : it feels real because it looks like it 's actually taped on video with very credible actors in very credible circumstances ( i did some research
and it was , in fact , shot on digital video .
. .
ah - ha ! ) .
another great thing about it is that it 's actually very gory and somewhat violent in theme , and yet we rarely see anything of the sort on the big screen ( it 's mostly implied , kids ! ) .
and as clich ?
d as it might be to say .
. .
it 's usually much scarier when stuff is left to our imagination or implied in movies as such .
other films that this one reminded me of include henry : portrait of a serial killer and the blair witch project , with that same real sense of dread , brooding and terror .
the film does however move awfully slow and if you really do n't get " into " it completely ( you really need to concentrate here ) , you will lose the motion of the story and the pent - up tension might be released .
but overall , this film is yet another great example of the horror genre making a very cool comeback this year with no tight tanktops in sight .
and with david caruso acting like the king hotshot like only he can , how can you go wrong ?
definitely not a film for everyone but
a must - see for anyone looking to throw themselves into the psyche of the disturbed ( count me in ! ) .
stanley kubrick would be proud !
oh yeah . . .
so where 's that gun again . . .
?
where 's joblo coming from ?
the blair witch project ( 4/10 ) - blair witch 2 ( 7/10 ) - the haunting ( 3/10 ) - the house on haunted hill ( 7/10 )
- lost highway ( 10/10 ) - the pledge ( 6/10 ) - the shining ( 9/10 ) - the sixth sense ( 8/10 ) - unbreakable ( 8/10 )

Answer: P


Question: words i thought i 'd never write : the sequel to urban legend lacks the grace , wit , and power of the original .
put the gun to my head , pull the trigger , and put me out of my misery .
better yet , put the horror genre out of its misery .
when you 've finished watching urban legends :
final cut
, you 'll share my same grim point of view thanks to the horrible acting , terrible script , and ridiculous directing which has become all too common today .
urban legends : final cut is a smorgasbord of stolen movie ideas ( mainly from the blair witch project and scream ) : fabulous people with perfect teeth and skin , one creepy film school , and a dog eating a freshly removed kidney from one of the movie 's hapless victims .
urban legends delivers a story about a bunch of film students working on their thesis films to win the coveted " hitchcock award " which guarantees the winner a director deal in hollywood .
one female filmmaker ( jennifer morrison , the freaky dead girl from stir of echoes ) writes a fiction script based on a serial killer who kills his victims according to " urban legend " tales .
suddenly
, her entire crew starts getting bumped off with urban - legendary homicides , but the bodies are always missing and she is often the only witness to the killings .
the killer wears a fencing mask and a long black overcoat ,
looking like a scorned olympian out to avenge his defeat in sydney .
why this is scary is never explained .
of course , the golden rule of sequels is that there must be least one recurring character for continuity 's sake .
urban legends has one minor , recurring character from the original who we never cared about anyway
( the security guard , of all people ) .
the other central problem is that this character has already seen the urban legend killings once before
, but she 's utterly clueless about what 's going on around her .
call it suspension of disbelief .
this film is also a prime example of
how horror films are now completely dead in the water .
the last decent horror film was the blair witch project , and that seemed more like a snuff film than fiction .
the stalking killer with crazy motivation has become a tired clich ?
, as everyone seems to have forgotten : real horror is not about what is seen but about what is unknown .

Answer:
N