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

[Q]: the most amazing thing about paul cox 's innocence is how unlike a movie it is .
i mean that as the highest compliment .
if most studios were to profile an elderly couple who rekindle a 40-year - old romance , i 'd want to run and hide .
the sex scenes would be handled as a farce , producers would shed 20 years off the characters ' ages ( so susan sarandon and harrison ford could star ) and true love would shine through any obstacle without explanation and consequence . along with a charming romantic story , the australian / belgian innocence shows how an increasing sense of mortality combined with revisiting the past while being entrenched in the present can make something that seems so right seem downright questionable .
the romance gets started when former musician andreas ( charles " bud " tingwell ) , learns that his true love , claire ( julia blake ) , lives nearby .
they decide to catch up on old times , but soon find themselves in a reinvigorating affair .
complicating matters is andreas ' frail health , and claire 's longtime husband ( terry norris ) , who ca n't understand why he 's suddenly become obsolete .
in my mind , the movie is less about the relationship between andreas and claire , than the feelings of everyone involved .
john , claire 's husband , endlessly questions what he did wrong .
claire initially insists she 's a grown - up , but admittedly behaves like a child , a prospect that thrills and disappoints her .
andreas , an agnostic , begins to question his fate , a message cox delivers in a memorable dream sequence .
cox litters the movie with flashbacks , including the repeated vision of a roaring train .
it 's a reminder of andreas and claire 's past love ( as young lovers , they met by train ) , but as it recurs , we get the feeling that the past and the present have clashed .
a pall is cast on the whole affair .
a master of the understated , cox strings together a series of memorable moments .
in andreas ' dream sequence , amidst the roar of the train and conversations , we get the whole picture of andreas and claire 's love .
we also get glimpses into john and claire 's relationship .
during a silent candlelit dinner shortly afterward , claire admits to john about her indiscretion , telling more than any monologue could .
all that 's heard is the scraping of forks against plates .
the characters are unlike anything i 've seen
-- they 're people .
so many times , movies and especially television portray senior citizens as gratingly spunky .
or they 're reduced to comedic buffoons .
ordinary people with a pile of emotions , claire and andreas are n't sure what the next step is .
they do want to be happy , which consists of an entirely different set of conditions than what they 've known throughout their adult lives .
bravo to cox , who wrote the script , for not making john a monster , so that claire 's affair is automatically justified .
norris is so effective
as john that he makes andreas and claire 's love difficult to accept .
we feel for him .
he 's a decent man .
sure , he may have become complacent , but he never expected this , especially now .
with so much presented to the audience , it 's only expected that the material gets a little drawn out and repetitive , which it does .
however , in bringing up tough questions and not offering easy answers , cox displays a skill and ?
lan is n't likely to be surpassed by anyone anytime soon .
[A]: P


[Q]: jean - luc picard ( patrick stewart ) and the rest of the crew of the u .
s .
s .
enterprise are back for their third outing in the ninth film based on the 1960 's series , star trek .
gone are kirk , spock and mccoy and in their wake in the very able and very talented cast from star trek : the next generation .
as usual , a crisis is brewing and it is up to the crew of the enterprise to make the galaxy safe again .
this time out the united federation of planets and an alien race led by f .
murray abraham are trying to move some colonists off a planet against the colonist 's will .
it turns out that this planet is the fountain of youth and the federation and their alien buddies feel that is should be used for the good of everyone and not just a few hundred colonists .
of course picard feels that this sort of treachery is wrong , so he disobeys direct orders and vows to help protect the colonists .
insurrection is a lighter movie than the last two star trek films .
the film focuses on the lofty question of whether the rights of society as a whole outweighs the rights of a small group .
in this respect it gets back to the roots of star trek by disguising social commentary as science fiction .
it does n't do a bad job , other than it tries to inject too much humor into the story line .
many of the jokes are your typical inside star trek - fan - only jokes , while many of the others just fall flat .
the other criticism that i had with the story was that it ignores common sense .
there are only a few hundred people on this whole planet , why do they have to be moved ?
the explanation is that the planet has to be bombarded with deadly radiation so that this fountain of youth effect will be strong enough to help heal f .
murray abraham 's aliens who number only a couple of dozen .
so the basic story line is bad enough in that we have a few hundred being booted out for a few billion , at least that 's plausible .
but in reality we have a few hundred being moved for the benefits of a few dozen , which makes no sense whatsoever .
the other little hiccup in logic is the inclusion of worf ( michael dorn ) , the trusty klingon .
worf was on star trek : the next generation , so they want to include him in the films .
no problem so far .
worf is now a character of star trek : deep space nine , so the writers have to find a way to have him show up .
in the last star trek movie , first contact , the included worf in a credible fashion , in this one , the writers are so lazy that the completely gloss over why he is even in the movie .
what little explanation they do give is so small that you would have missed it if you were n't hanging on every word on the screen .
my minor problems with the movie aside , star trek : insurrection does have an overwhelming number of good points as compared to its bad ones .
while many of the jokes do miss the mark , many are pretty good , even for non - trekkies .
the special effects are among the best for the star trek series .
the action is plentiful and well done .
this is a very good - looking movie .
it should come as no surprise to anyone who ever watched star trek : the next generation that the acting is first rate .
it is very obvious that these actors have been working together for over a decade .
they interact with each other with a skill that few other ensemble casts can muster .
most star trek fans probably will not be disappointed with this latest film in the series .
if you 've always hated star trek , there is nothing here that is going to change your mind .
star trek : insurrection is not the best film in the series , but it is good enough to dispel the long standing tradition of the odd numbered films in the series being far inferior to the even numbered ones .
[A]: P


[Q]: elmore leonard has quickly become one of hollywood 's favorite authors .
out of four film adaptations in as many years ,
the witty and inventive out of sight gives get shorty a run for its money as the best leonard adaptation around .
george clooney stars as jack foley , a nice bank robber .
. .
you know the type , he uses his charm and his wits rather than a gun .
but even charming guys end up unlucky , and jack ends up in jail .
but not for long .
he plots an escape with the help of his best friend , and fellow robber , buddy bragg ( ving rhames ) , and their slow - witted pothead associate , glenn michaels ( steve zahn ) .
but jack did n't count on u . s .
marshal karen sisco ( jennifer lopez ) . appearing at the right place at the wrong time , karen gets involved in foley 's escape attempt and the subsequent manhunt to bring him in .
however , karen develops a rapport with jack foley , and finds that she begrudgingly likes the guy .
but , can love prosper on opposite sides of the law ? or can karen straighten out jack before he goes too far in pursuit of just one last crime .
clooney , who has had a string of solid , but never stellar , film roles , delivers his best performance to date .
he blends into his role here perfectly as the risk taking jack foley , who 's willing to gamble everything on the chance that karen sisco might be his true love .
jennifer lopez does an excellent job as well .
she actually has a trickier role than clooney , as a woman who has to balance her emotions with her sense of duty .
she and clooney develop good chemistry together .
the film boasts a superb ensemble .
steve zahn gives a hilarious performance , and steals nearly every scene he 's in .
don cheadle is appropriately sinister as a violent ex - con who may or may not be teaming up with foley .
albert brooks is enjoyable
as a white collar criminal who talks too much for his own good .
out of the cast , only dennis farina seems underused as karen 's ex - lawman father .
steven soderbergh gives the film sharp and stylistic direction .
with an affectation for freeze frames , he delivers a unique take on the film 's action and love scenes that places out of sight a notch above routine crime films .
a recurring series of flashbacks makes the film seem more complex than it actually is .
devoid of its bells and whistles , out of sight is actually a fairly straightforward crime story .
however , there are only a few spots in the film that seem bare , and they pass quickly .
with smart dialogue , good characters , and an excellent cast , out of sight easily smoothes over the rough spots in the plot and delivers on both the action and romantic fronts .
[A]:
P