In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
--------
Question: i love movies .
i really do .
every time i watch great movies like goodfellas ( 1990 ) or raiders of the lost ark ( 1981 ) , a tear comes to my eye due to the awesome talent , skill and entertainment that is on display .
even lower grade films such as the naked gun 33 1/3 ( 1994 ) or ghostbusters ii ( 1988 )
while not exactly brilliantly well made , are certainly not a waste of celluloid and present entertainment value .
then there 's my favourite martian , the exact opposite of what a movie should be : a hurried , poorly written and acted movie with one goal , to make money .
disney , ever since the lion king ( 1994 ) have lost their magic touch , but this dross just shows how far disney have sunk
.
christopher lloyd plays a martian who crash lands in front of t .
v reporter 's tim o'hara car ( daniels ) , and soon tim finds the martian in his home , trying to recover and fix his spaceship .
along with his ' zoot ' spacesuit , voiced by wayne knight , must fix his spaceship before it explodes , and also try to stop his identity being revealed to the public , firstly by o'hara , but later by rival t .
v presenter brace channing ( hurley ) , by calling himself tim 's ' uncle martin . '
' laughter ' is supposed to arise from the ' comical ' events , but never does .
many bad films have good intentions , but my favourite martian does n't appear to try to provide any entertainment .
filled to the brim with wham bang special effects , my favourite martian offers little more than some nice eye candy .
christopher lloyd mugs his way through the entire movie
, i 've never seen a man pull a face for 93 minutes until now .
jeff daniels plays ' staple nice guy ' and his role is useless .
his performance is incredibly lazy , although his paperthin character does n't deserve more than the performance he gives .
darryl hannah looks as pretty as ever , but her role is somewhat , erm , limited .
hurley mistakes ' acting ' for ' shouting and looking like a twit ' and wins the david wilcock award for ' most irritating , godawful performance in a moving picture . ' way to go liz !
for the supporting cast , disney manage to assemble every character actor out there , during the film i was going ' he was the guy in .
. .
ah .
. er . . . ' before finally giving up and switching off . another major setback is the staple ' comedy sidekick . '
unfortunately , the writers ( sherri stoner and deanna oliver , if anyone cares ) forget that a comedy sidekick needs to be ' funny . '
instead , they deliver zoot , the martians deeply unfunny sidekick .
although meant to be a manic character
no doubt , every line that comes out of his ' neck ' is a dud .
a real dud .
citizen kane delivers more laughs a minute than his hell spawn piece of polyester .
even the kids in the audience were insulted by this character : not one child even bothered to smirk .
it 's a nice special effect , though .
another problems with this comedy are the gags themselves .
or rather , the lack of them .
my favourite martian reaches a new level of toilet humour : it goes past the bowl , down the pipe and into the sewer .
now , toilet humour can be funny , as dumb and dumber ( 1994 ) humorously showed .
but here , characters farting , belching and almost getting crapped on ( literally ) is not ' amusing . '
it 's insulting .
there 's one good gag right before the credits , but it appears the guy who wrote that gag tragically died and his unfunny twin continued .
either that , or they were hoping that easy to please six year olds would n't mind the fact that his movie is beaten by men at work in the funny stakes .
yes , men at work .
yowza !
the fact that a lot of money was pumped into this film , and that they actually got people to agree to be in this film just depresses me even more .
there are thousands of brilliant films out there
that ca n't get distribution , yet
trash like this
gets released nation - wide with ease .
thankfully , as soon as it makes it 's money , it will never be seen again , and my favourite martian will end up where the two lead characters do near the end of the movie : down the toilet .

Answer: N


Question: robin hood :
men in tights is another mel - brooks - produced film in the classic tradition of movies like blazing saddles and young frankenstein .
mel brooks is well known for his comic look at regular life , his fast paced dialogue and sharp wit .
unfortunately , robin hood :
men in tights has none of the easy going humor of blazing saddles , none of the fun acting of young frankenstein , is devoid of the charm of spaceballs , and is even lacking the good , solid dialogue of history of the world .
it is , in short , one of the worst movies i have seen mel brooks , or anybody else , produce .
the plot borrows heavily from the well - received kevin costner movie of last year , robin hood : prince of thieves .
this is not surprising in and of itself , and could have been used to great comic effect , mainly by parodying scenes from the orginal movie .
mel brooks does not take advantage of this , however , and uses the film to launch several ideas into the air , none of which connect and none of which are explained later on .
the movie 's scenes could be shuffled around in any order and one would be hard pressed to notice .
cary elwes , of princess bride fame , plays robin of loxley , a man who was captured in the crusades , fighting with king richard .
he escapes and , joining with a man named achoo
( i am sure you can see the obvious joke ) , fights in england to reclaim his name and the throne for richard , which has been captured by evil prince john , played by funny comic richard lewis .
he also tries for the love of maid marian and attempts to overthrow the evil " sheriff of rottingham " .
a good adventure plot that is sadly unused .
elwes and lewis are both excellent comics , but the dialogue in the movie is simply excruciating .
neither actor has any good words to work with , and the lines simply are n't funny , nor believable .
perhaps the worst example of this is when the group of merry men encounter a man playing a macaulay culkin clone from the hit movie home alone .
this particular scene is so out of place and so badly acted , and followed by so many other scenes of equal miserable ideas , that i really felt like leaving the theatre .
much of the audience continued to look at their watches throughout , and some left the theatre .
chuckles were few and far between , and they mostly dealt with visual jokes ( such as an old , beaten up horse from " rent - a - wreck " ) then from any dialogue whatsoever .
scenes that could have been classics , such as the archery contest , are ruined by poor acting .
perhaps the largest problem with the movie is that it is simply offensive .
the basic plot , that robin has received a key that will unlock the chastity belt of maid marian , is not witty nor funny .
mel brooks as a circumcision - giving rabbi is also offensive to me and others in the audience ( not all jewish , either ) .
the movie simply tries to hard trying to be funny and by and large fails .
the addition of a blind man who stumbles around , falling off cliffs , walking into ledges and being a general buffoon could have had some humorous potential , but is also made terribly offensive .
the only reason to see this movie is the surprise actor at the end who plays king richard .
he is well worth waiting for , if you can stand an hour and half of unfunny dialogue , excruciating visual humor , old puns , ancient jokes and bad acting .
if you ca n't , do n't even bother watching this miserable film .

Answer: N


Question: disaster films have a tendency to be very formulated and very cliched .
to see a disaster film with actual originality , or at least a decent plot twist , would definitely be a welcome surprise .
unfortunately , folks , it 's not likely .
dante 's peak is cliched , and at times corny , but also pretty decent . to be honest , i was n't very interested in seeing this film , and word of mouth , as well as several reviews , did n't make it sound promising .
so
i was pleasantly surprised that to find that this movie was n't bad at all .
it 's pretty run of the mill , but it 's not something i would say is merely " ok " to watch .
in case you do n't know , dante 's peak is about a volcano and the city which lives in it 's shadow , dante 's peak ( who would 've guessed , eh ? ) .
pierce brosnan plays the volcanologist sent to study the volcano and , perhaps more by hunch than actual scientific proof , is determined that the volcano will be arupting in the very near future .
due to the lack of more substantial evidence , nobody warns the small town , and when they finally do , it 's in the middle of the town meeting that the volcano finally blows .
brosnan , all around good guy , will , of course , save the day .
. .
or at least the mayor of dante 's peak ( linda hamilton ) .
naturally the two will become infatuated with one another .
( if you think i just ruined a plot development , you have n't seen very many movies ! )
there 's also the virtually neccessary kids and pet dog to tug at your heart strings .
and of course , the kids or the dog ( at least one or the other ) will do something heroic . . .
but hey , i do n't want to ruin all the surprises !
if there was a part of you that was hesitating seeing dante 's peak merely because it was rumored to be a waste of time ,
i urge you to watch it and decide for yourself .
it 's not brain food , but it succeeds at what it 's meant to be . . .
an enjoyable , suspenseful movie about the fury mother nature can unleash !

Answer:
P