In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
--------
Question: larry flynt is a self proclaimed smut pedlar and the owner / publisher of the multi - million dollar hustler publications company .
the people vs .
larry flynt is the story of larry flynt 's fight for the freedom to circulate and sell his pornographic magazine , hustler .
based on a true story , the film is almost a documentary in that it 's a very vivid and detailed look at larry flynt 's life .
woody harrelson gives an excellent performance .
he conveys flynt 's peculiarities and his character with depth and focus .
by the end of the film the audience actually finds themselves , somewhat grudgingly , liking larry flynt .
this is some feat given flynt 's apparent lack of any morals or ethics and his extremely smutty and childish behaviour in court .
however , flynt has a number of things going for him , he 's rich , he 's funny , and most importantly , he says exactly what he means .
larry flynt 's wife , althea leasure is played by courtney love .
larry meets althea at one of his clubs , and they fall in love ( a very sexual and open love ) .
both of them indulge in a world of too much sex , and eventually too much drugs .
flynt had been taking an excessive amount of pain killers after being paralysed from the waist down ( which was especially upsetting for him ) by an assassin .
althea had joined him in taking the drugs .
following an operation flynt decides to stop taking drugs , althea does not have any such plans , nor the determination to follow them .
as the film progresses we see her become increasingly frail and sick .
courtney love obviously has a great understanding for althea 's situation , as
she is brilliant in portraying althea in every respect .
it 's extremely sad to watch althea literally wither away .
edward norton plays flynt 's lawyer , alan isaacman .
again , this is a solid performance .
the audience finds it easy to sympathise with isaacman who somehow puts up with flynt 's courtroom antics .
flynt is not only childish in the courtroom , but downright rude to the judges , and lands himself in a lot of trouble ( and even in a mental institution ) because of it .
isaacman is very easy to like , and great at proving ( in quite clever ways )
his points to the court .
milos forman has done a great job in directing
the people vs .
larry flynt .
it is not really an exciting or thrilling film , but instead a highly interesting portrayal of a true story .
due to larry 's character it is also , at times , a very funny film .
however , it is much more than that .
it is about the fight for freedom of speech , anti - censorship , and the right to be able choose for oneself what to see and buy .
an excellent look at flynt , his life , and his story .
keep a look out for the real larry flynt who makes a cameo as judge morrissey .

Answer: P


Question: when walt disney pictures announced a live - action feature based on the ' 60s cartoon series of " mr . magoo , " special interests groups representing the vision - impaired let out a cry of dismay .
mr .
magoo , they claimed , would be an insult to the men and women they represented .
in fact , they were wrong .
mr .
magoo is not just an insult to the blind and near - blind ,
it 's an insult to every human being who has the misfortune to suffer through this dreadfully unfunny , 90 minute atrocity .
it 's stating the obvious to remark that disney appears to have run out of original ideas
.
look at their roster of 1996 and 1997 releases , and you 'll see a shocking list of retreads , including 101 dalmatians , george of the jungle , jungle2jungle , that darn cat ! , flubber , and now mr . magoo .
the best of these ( george of the jungle ) was mildly entertaining .
the worst , mr . magoo ,
exposes just how painful a bad movie experience can be .
the first problem with mr .
magoo is the script .
despite the collaboration of naked gun scribe pat proft , mr . magoo is comically barren .
from beginning to end , there 's not a laugh to be found .
every attempt at humor -- and there are lots of them -- falls flat with an audible thud .
you 'd think that out of the dozens of gags jammed into this film , at least a few would work , but that 's not the case .
i 've had more laughs during ingmar bergman pictures .
then there 's leslie nielsen , who looks , sounds , and acts absolutely nothing like the animated character ( memorably voiced by jim backus ) .
in the past , nielsen has proven his comic aptitude with roles in movies like airplane and the naked gun .
lately , however , he has been getting lazy , taking parts in the likes of dracula : dead and loving it , spy hard , and mr . magoo .
even if nielsen was in top form , it would take an incredible stretch of imagination to see him as magoo ( especially since we 're reminded of the original by the short cartoon segments that open and close the film ) , but " top form " is not a phrase i would use to describe his performance here .
this is strictly a take - the - money - and- run operation .
the story , which , like many disney stories , can be described in one long sentence : magoo is the only witness to the theft of a rare jewel from a museum , and , as he is trying to apprehend the thieves on his own , the police mistake him for the robber .
the cops are played by ernie hudson and stephen tobolowsky , who take their lumps early and often .
the bad guys are kelly lynch ( who does a lot of martial arts - type kicking ) , nick chinlund , and malcolm mcdowell ( who has the good sense to look embarrassed ) .
matt keeslar portrays one of magoo 's sidekicks -- his nephew , waldo .
the bumbling man 's other , more interesting companion is a dog named angus .
most of mr .
magoo 's humor comes in the form of failed slapstick .
the cartoon violence level in this film does n't approach that of home alone 3 or flubber , but it 's still pretty acute , with characters getting hit on the head with sledgehammers and knocked off snowy precipices .
there 's a non - violent bit with magoo preparing a chicken dinner that could have been funny if it was handled better , but , compared to mr .
bean 's recent , similar misadventure , it does n't hold up well .
then there is the series of lame jokes that result from magoo 's near blindness , such as the occasion when he mistakes a wild animal for a baby .
i 'm willing to cut director stanley tong a little slack .
tong , a hong kong film maker trying to break into the hollywood market , has helmed several jackie chan movies , including first strike , rumble in the bronx , and supercop .
his chief talent , that of choreographing martial arts fights , is wasted here ( despite some high kicking by kelly lynch ) .
like john woo ( hard target ) and ringo lam ( maximum risk ) before him , it appears that tong has been consigned to the purgatory of making a bad movie as his entry into the american mainstream .
it is worth noting that , unlike many disney films which hold a perverse appeal for the under-10 crowd while driving parents to distraction , mr . magoo appears to bore viewers of all ages .
the screening i attended was wall - to - wall kids , and , for the most part ,
they did n't seem to be enjoying themselves .
when the film was over , i asked one little girl what she thought of it .
her pained expression confirmed the adage that a picture can indeed be worth a thousand words .
mr .
magoo is the kind of movie that should be rejected by any potential viewer
, sight unseen .

Answer: N


Question: perhaps it 's time for me to say a little about my reading habits .
i really do like to read , and i 've enjoyed many books in my lifetime .
my problem is that i 'm a slow reader , and not very dedicated -- i 'll enjoy portions of a book and then set it down for months at a time
( it 's taken me the last six weeks to get through the first one hundred pages of anna karenina , even though i 'm loving the book ) .
in addition to this , i typically do n't read anything created after the 19th century .
the only reason i bother with this bit of information is because i feel bad admitting , time after time , that i have n't read any of the books on which these films are based ( the only exception , i believe , is great expectations ) .
however , i do n't think it should be necessary to read the book beforehand in order to judge the quality of the film .
needless to say , i have n't read the elmore leonard novel out of sight , on which steven soderbergh 's new film is based .
i ca n't say how faithful of an adaptation it is , or if it lives up to leonard 's vision .
i can say that it 's a terrific film , with sharp acting , great dialogue , and pumping full of energy and style injected by soderbergh .
it 's certainly a nice distraction from 1998 's lineup of brainless blockbusters , all hopelessly wishing that size mattered .
out of sight proves that it does n't .
i had originally written george clooney off as a one - note actor , incapable of depth but occasionally showing a little flair .
after seeing his latest performance in this film , i 've changed my mind --
this guy can act , but he also has that forceful presence that most certainly will make him one of those $ 20 million superstars .
here , he plays jack foley , a middle aged guy who robs banks for a living .
he does it because it 's fun
, i think , but the film opens with him getting caught because his car wo n't start .
he goes to jail -- which is interesting -- only to break out five cinematic minutes later with the help of his friend , buddy ( ving rhames ) .
we 're then introduced to karen sisco ( jennifer lopez ) , a u .
s .
marshall who , conveniently , is waiting with a shotgun as jack escapes .
fortunately , they take her hostage , and she and jack spend some quality time in the trunk together as buddy drives them to safety .
the central conflict arises when both jack and karen become obsessed with one another , though their respective jobs make them superficially incompatible .
we soon learn that the film is not told in sequence ( and , since this is a gritty crime comedy , flashbacks of pulp fiction should arise ) .
at first , i kind of felt that it was a gimmick , but i guess it was a gimmick in pulp fiction , too .
it 's a fun gimmick , though , and soderbergh treats the material with enough humor that everything comes off naturally
.
i 've only seen a few of soderbergh 's films ( i was impressed both with kafka and sex , lies , and videotape ) , but i think he 's excellent at what he does .
he 's an artist without making it obvious ,
and without being pretentious , which is always admirable .
he uses tricks , yes ( lots of freeze - frame stuff here ) , but
it all adds to the smooth and quirky currents in the film .
as i said , clooney is terrific , and he 's matched by lopez .
lopez is , of course , beautiful , but
she can act , too .
i can sense that she 's honing in on her skills , for she comes off more natural here than she has in any of her previous ventures ( not that stone gave her much help in the loathsome u - turn ) .
the two actors have arresting chemistry with one another -- the best scene in the film , by far , is the seduction scene .
the brilliance of this scene is also due , in part , to soderbergh , for he cuts back and forth from their quiet discussion in a bar to the physical act which takes place a few minutes later .
the scene is a series of soft nuances and glances , layered upon light dialogue , and the result is one of the better love scenes in recent cinema -- meaningful and engrossing .
the supporting cast is strong , led by the always - reliable ving rhames .
dennis farina , who plays karen 's father , is good , as is don cheadle as the profoundly stupid villain .
steve zahn , who plays jack 's nearly - brain dead accomplice glenn , steals all of his scenes
( and that 's in a film where every scene is already at a high level ) .
all of the actors are helped by the dialogue and the intelligently - constructed script by scott frank .
out of sight is certainly a light film , although there are a few heavy moments that will linger in the memory .
overall , i can recommend it simply as great entertainment .
not every film has to change your life , and it 's nice to see a movie that uses the art to tell a great story and simply to entertain its viewers .
as for the book , this film is good enough to make me believe that there might be something in the text worth looking at .

Answer:
P