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

[Q]: arriving in a barrage of hype , the blair witch project is one of the biggest box office success of the year .
however , like the golden child , although blair witch has made a lot of money , it 's not very good .
donahue , williams and leonard play themselves as three students who set out to make a documentary about the blair witch myth .
the film is made up of the camcorder footage they recorded , which means grainy footage and woozy camera angles .
although events start of normal , they get weird pretty quickly , while the threesome argue more and more as the journey goes on .
although an interesting premise , the blair witch project amounts to nothing more than a missed opportunity .
the biggest mistake the film makes is to let three mediocre actors the chance to improvise .
most of the dialogue is ad - libbed , and still manages to sound like a poor b - movie .
the ' script ' eventually degenerates into shouting matches , with the f - word included a lot to sound like students .
there are breaks in these arguments where some creepy events occur , but then it 's back to the shouting and swearing , which gets very tiresome very quickly .
if i wanted to see three people get lost in the woods , shout a lot and swear , i 'd go on scout camp .
but no , the audience is meant to get some entertainment factor out of this , but i 'm not quite sure how .
the supernatural parts of the film are actually interesting , especially if close attention is paid to the story developing first twenty minutes .
with no music and no budget to work with , the film has to depend on natural , psychological scares , which are sometimes well delivered , sometimes not .
i never really felt truly scared during any part of the film , although there is a small sense of fear underlying throughout the film .
however , because the actors are so irritating , the scares are lost when it eventually reverts back to heather saying ' what the f * ck is that ? '
a lot , and mike giggling like a loony .
there 's also the niggling fact that these student filmmakers do some really stupid things .
the main problem is the fact that even though these hapless bunch could be killed at any moment , and are hopelessly lost , heather still insists on filming it all .
the film gives a half hearted reason why she should want to do this , but it is n't very convincing .
also , the students have no idea how to survive in the woods , such as following a large river flowing through the woods to civilisation .
there are also some parts where the ' amateur ' camcorder footage is obviously staged , heather 's apology being a major one .
the blair witch project , in the end , just fails to deliver .
i suppose if you 've been lost camping before , the film may deliver some chills , but this is no use for the other 99 % of the paying audience who have n't been lost in the woods .
apart from the final minutes , the film is mind boggingly unscary , and the shouting matches get hideously dull .
the spook scenes are short and far between , and any other horror movie could probably achieve the same amount of fear that these scenes provide .
although a good idea ,
it 's not executed well enough to be a fun , scary cinema experience .
it 's a worrying fact when the website ( http : //www . blairwitch .
com ) is better than the film .
[A]: N


[Q]: i remember really enjoying this movie when i saw it years ago .
i guess my memory really sucks .
there is very , very little that is funny in caddyshack .
the laughs are few , and far between , and what there are really are n't that great .
caddyshack , as the name implies , more or less centers on one young caddy working at an exclusive country club .
michael o'keefe plays said caddy .
why they cast this unknown , fairly untalented actor in the lead role is completely beyond me .
the movie does n't seem to have a real plot , just a series of scenes that are little more than opportunities for the rest of the cast to mug at the camera .
the only real story , if you can call it that , was a subplot involving the mentally disturbed greens keeper , bill murray , who is having his own private little war against a gopher who is ruining the course .
most of the marginal laughs come from rodney dangerfield and ted
knight mugging and overacting for the camera
-- with painfully limited success .
bill murray is slightly amusing in places , but fairly wasted .
the biggest waste of all is chevy chase , who did n't even crack a smile on my face with his character 's lame zen - like approach to golfing .
there are a few decent scenes involving the interaction between dangerfield and knight , but they are far too infrequent to carry the movie .
i guess that 's what you get for basing a story around an unknown kid .
i 'm not sure what the writers of this thing were thinking of , but i really think it was something far removed from comedy as they were putting pen to paper .
nothing about this movie works .
it would n't have taken a genius to figure out that this thing was n't going to fly .
most of the scenes just could n't possibly be funny .
it 's as if the writers where off in their own little brain damaged world .
i 'm sure scenes involving chevy chase and his oneness with the golf ball were supposed to be funny .
in reality , they were painfully embarrassing to watch .
there is a scene at the club pool where all the caddies go wild for the " hot babe " of the movie walking by in her bikini .
olive oil would have filled out this swimsuit better than this girl .
everything about this movie was just completely implausible as far as the comedy was concerned .
maybe if you were drunk out of you mind or high off some sort of illegal narcotic
this thing might be funny .
but for
the rest of us , stay the hell away from caddyshack .
[A]: N


[Q]: in intolerance , d .
w .
griffith told four different historical stories at the same time , cutting from one to the other .
each of the stories builds to a fast - paced climax .
in magnolia , paul thomas anderson tells several stories each just tangentially connected to the others .
yet the stories and where they are going are all independent .
what is strange about these stories is that they are all synchronized .
each story builds to a tense moment ( or what appears to be intended to be a tense moment ) but then lets the tension dissolve .
while the tension dissipates one character starts singing a song and in each plotline the major characters sing along , even though they are not in the same scene .
then toward the end the stories each build to a tense moment again .
it is almost as if the characters are somehow psychically linked .
this creates some strange effects .
the stories are about empty desperate people with dysfunctional relationships .
the strands have varying degrees of bizarre content .
we have the story of a dying man earl partridge ( jason robards ) wanting to get in touch with his son and make amends .
phil parma ( philip seymour hoffman ) is his nurse who is frantic to help partridge achieve his final goal .
partridge 's young wife linda ( julianne moore ) is getting more and more anxious as partridge dies , but for an unsuspected reason .
frank mackey ( tom cruise ) runs the kinds of self - help seminar that businesses like so much , but he aims his at teaching disaffected men how to be real shit - heels in dealing with women in an angry backlash to women 's lib .
officer jim kurring ( john c .
reilly ) is a patrolman who has a need to feel he is making the world a better place .
jimmy gator ( philip baker hall ) hosts
a popular children 's tv quiz show that really exploits and destroys children as we see from the stories of current quiz kid stanley spector ( jeremy blackman ) and former quiz kid donnie smith ( william h . macy ) .
the film juggles all these stories for over three hours , but even after all this time not one story is resolved satisfactorily .
each story moves toward a single bizarre common climax , but it is not one that seems to do much but derail each story .
the common climax itself is ambiguous in many ways and it fails to really tie up any of the stories .
the film seems to be built around strange events and weird history , but it really has little to do with the content of the stories , though they all are connected in part by one weird event .
magnolia will probably bring some much deserved attention to paul thomas anderson , though in my opinion his two previous films , hard eight and boogie nights were better told stories .
it is interesting that one starts to look forward to actors from anderson 's company .
john c .
reilly seems to be a standard fixture .
particularly notable is philip baker hall who gave a mesmerizing performance from the first scene of hard eight .
here he several of the characters are mesmerizing , but that characteristic is not really used .
as studies of characters these stories are each worth following .
as well - rounded stories with a beginning , middle and end , they leave something to be desired .
but the film is willing to do the unexpected and that helps make the film worth sitting through .
i rate it a 7 on the 0 to 10 scale and a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale .
heavy spoiler .
. .
heavy spoiler .
. .
heavy spoiler .
. .
heavy spoiler .
. . during the strange climactic event of the film we get multiple messages from the filmmaker that the event we are seeing really does happen . and in actual fact , it does . since biblical times rains of frogs have been interpreted as signs of displeasure of the gods .
it is , however , a perfectly natural , if somewhat unnerving , phenomenon .
the cause is associated with whirlwinds .
we know that tornadoes over land can rip up land and even objects of some size from the ground and hurl them into the air , holding them aloft .
the reader may remember the unfortunate cow in twister .
smaller objects can be hurled high into the atmosphere and then be kept aloft by the updrafts for surprisingly long periods of time much as hail and chunks of ice are .
when the whirlwind is over water , animals near the surface , frequently fish and frogs , may suffer the same fate .
essentially they are vacuumed up by the whirlwind , held aloft by updrafts , and finally dropped elsewhere .
so while the rain is possible , some doubts do creep in .
the rain of frogs depicted in this film may be of greater scale than i had pictured for a rain of frogs .
it seems unlikely the frogs would still be alive when dropped .
it is not clear that geographic conditions are right for los angeles to have this sort of phenomenon .
( frankly i have no idea on these points . )
otherwise the event was quite believable .
what we see in this film is much more credible than the phenomena we saw in volcano .
in the film it is left ambiguous if the rain is a sign from god since there are many references to exodus 8 : 2 . " and the frogs shall come up both on thee and upon thy people , and upon all thy servants .
" however a rain of frogs , though it feels biblical , is most definitely not a biblical portent .
note that the previous verse says " and the river shall bring forth frogs abundantly which shall go up . . . , " so the bible is referring not to a rain but to an infestation from the river .
the only other reference to frogs in the bible is as a symbol for uncleanness in revelation 16 : 13 .
[A]:
P