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

[EX Q]: " idle hands " is distasteful , crass and derivative .
if an original thought found its way into this horror - comedy it would die of loneliness .
plus , you have to question the judgment and sensitivity of studio executives who would green light the release of a movie dealing with the slaughter of innocent teen - agers the week after the tragedy in littleton , colo .
the movie is insulting to horror film fans and teen - agers .
the plot , what little there is , deals with anton ( devon sawa ) , a high - school slacker who 's hand goes on a murderous rampage after becoming possessed .
along the way the hand kills anton 's parents and his two best friends .
the friends , also slackers , are so lazy that they return from the dead because the walk into the light was too far for them .
that is the level of this 's atrocity 's humor .
the movie treats death as a joke .
" idle hands " is gruesome and morbid .
the performances are stereotypical and cartoonish .
i realize this is supposed to pass for comedy , but recent events have surpassed what is on the screen .
it is not the fault of the filmmakers that real life has overtaken reel life .
and i can only presume that the writers of " idle hands , " terri hughes and ron milbauer , were trying to make some statement about today 's young people and their values in a satiric vein .
however , it 's hard to laugh at death these days , especially ones involving young people .
with the real horrors of the world put before us on television ,
a stale pastry such as " idle hands " should be held from release for a few weeks or months to give us time to catch our collective breaths .
" idle hands " is bad , no matter the circumstances in the world outside .
but the context of recent events only heightens its shortcomings .
the time is not right for this type of movie .
and as far as " idle hands " goes , the time may never be right .
this is a movie that shoud be consigned to the trash bin of cinema .
[EX A]: N

[EX Q]: a common complaint amongst film critics is " why are n't there more literate scripts available ?
" quiz show gives signs of hope that the art of writing is n't dead in hollywood and that we need not only look to independent films for thoughtful content .
paul attanasio 's script takes what could have been a tepid thriller ( the quiz show scandals of the late 50s ) and delivers a telling parable about the emptiness of the post war american dream and the golden bubble that surrounds and protects tv networks and their sponsors .
the film is riddled with telling symbols
( e . g .
a ' 58 chrysler , a radio announcement of sputnik ) but is never heavy handed . deft direction by robert redford and keen performances by ralph fiennes , john turturro and rob morrow
dovetail perfectly with the carefully honed script .
redford departs from the usually overlight , " cable tv quality " sets and camera work so common in recent 20th century period pieces .
quiz show
perfectly captures the colors and textures of the eisenhower years .
although i was only 4 years old when the " twenty one " scandal broke , enough of the 50s icons survived throughout my childhood for me to recognize the authenticity of redford 's almost tangible palette .
from plastic covered furniture to carefully coifed contestants , the images ring true from that era of rampant consumerism , of a generation that had gone through 15 years of depression and world war without " disposable income , " before the manifestation of its american dream .
the film deftly weaves several themes together , from assimilation and exclusion of jews from " the good life , " to the lengths that a scion of a literary family will go to to match his father 's fame .
though the 50s audience that is " rocked " by this scandal may initially seem naive to us , they should appear all too familiar , with our current national passion for the rise and fall of icons like michael jackson or tonya harding .
charles van doren and herbie stemple were the overnight mega celebrities of their day .
the tv audience is almost a fourth main character , always at the center of the decisions being made on their behalf .
at the film 's end , the credits roll past slow motion footage of that same 50s tv audience , mindlessly laughing at some piece of fluff .
like the distorted mirror that captured a blurred swastika at the end of cabaret , this " mirror " may reflect an image we 're not all that comfortable with .
[EX A]: P

[EX Q]: seen september 13 , 1998 at 4 p .
m at rotterdam square mall cinema 6 , theater # 2 , with chris wessell for free using my sony / loews critic 's pass .
[ theater rating :
* * 1/2 : good seats , average sound , picture unstable ] " rounders " is exactly the kind of movie parents do n't want their kids to see .
it 's not that it 's a drunken orgy of sex and violence , but
because it 's a film that flat - out says you can make a career out of gambling .
and to take make things " worse
" it proves this through its original , fascinating story .
there have been countless crime films both past and present that evoke the " noir " mood , that is , the dark , shady atmosphere where the vices of the world become more fascinating on screen than they would in real life .
this film starts off in the tradiational noir style , introducing us to the underworld of modern gambling where the stakes are high and so is the price for losing .
matt damon stars as mike mcdermott , a 20-something law student in present - day new york city who tells us how the game of poker is really played .
damon narrates throughout the film , but the entire opening scene is voiced - over so perfectly to completely and totally define the setting .
mike 's about to go up against teddy kgb ( malkovich ) , a russian gangster who looks like a serial killer .
but then again , he practically is one and the film does everything to convey that sense - the look in his eyes , his slow movements , his intricate mannerisms - all combined with the classic noir cinematography of isolated brightness within the darkness of the underworld ( literally ) .
damon in the flesh might seem a little out of place with his expensive clothes and perfectly - groomed features , but his narration is what brings it all together .
he never sounds like he 's reading from a script , nor that he 's trying to embellish anything ,
it just comes natural to him .
the screenwriters use the right words and phrases to describe the mood , from the smell of the air , to the logic involved in reading the other guys ' faces and cards , and all without sounding remotely trite .
immediately we get the sense that poker is n't for gamblers , but for near- geniuses with nerves of steel .
the game is a quiet war , with strategies just as complex and the same sense of honor among the soldiers .
the gangsters mike plays against are the same ones that might kill someone for scratching their car , but when it comes to the game of poker , all respect is due to the winner because he is truly the better man .
the film does an excellent job in establishing its atmosphere during the first act .
it concentrates so much in this aspect that the background and the progression of the story stumble a bit .
we learn only a little about mike , both past and present .
presently we know he has a girlfriend named jo ( gretchen mol ) who he constantly argues with over his gambling .
they go through a few break - up / make - up cycles until mike 's childhood pal and fellow rounder " worm " ( norton ) is released from prison .
it 's not at all surprising worm owes thousand of dollars to the mob , but what is surprising is how the film is able to take such a predictable element and execute it the way it does .
technically , the plot is n't unlike many children 's sitcoms in which the " good " kid 's " bad " friend gets the good kid in trouble and yet the good kid remains friends with the bad kid .
what this film does is use a different medium to tell that story .
mike and worm have been in over their heads their entire lives , but both share a passion for out - thinking the other player who is trying to do the same to them .
where as worm prefers to go the sleazy route of cheating ( hence his jail time ) , mike always takes the cards he 's dealt and works with them .
sometimes they pay off ( i .
e .
his ability to pay his way through law school on his gambling money ) , but
other times they do n't (
i .
e .
the fact he takes himself out of the game and works a steady job after dropping $ 30 , 000 on a single hand ) .
once things start happening the film is able to expand and develop its plot into an intricate web of detail and mood .
mike and worm bob and weave through all kinds of games at all kinds of places , from socialites ' mansions , to taking the tourists at atlantic city , to outwitting the gangsters that control it all .
everything they come into contact with is a big poker game in that everything 's a battle against the cards destiny deals .
one scene demonstrates this perfectly in which mike is told by a judge ( martin landou , in a perfectly cast and performed role ) that destiny is everything and yet nothing at the same time .
matt 's good at gambling
but he 's also got potential to be a great lawyer .
he could go professional as either , but with one he could lose everything or win big , but with the other there 's stability but not much risk involved .
can someone who 's gambled his entire life really cash in his chips and leave ?
if the film had been just a subtle lesson in poker - playing , then the ending is our test .
everything is told from mike 's perspective , but we 're finally able to recognize some things on our own .
this makes the final , against - all- odds showdown seem like just that .
it works just like the game it revolves around - showing us some of the cards , but still evokes the element of the unknown , and the consequences thereof .
what separates " rounders " from most other films about games is the fact the challenge and the skills are more important than winning in the end .
[EX A]:
P