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

Ex Input:
much ballyhoo has been made over this new version of " lolita , " made in a time when one would think that a faithful adaptation of the infamous novel could be made , over its use of pedophilia , and as such , it 's important to address it straight - forwardly , before any other ideals such as goodness and themes can be discussed , as this film has been in film limbo for a number of years , lying around in vaults san a distributor , and having critics waiting to either hail it
a masterpiece or call it anticlimactic horseshit .
when seeing this film , after all the hoopla , keeping in mind that there are people , namely me , who are fans of the novel , who have been eagerly awaiting this flick since its creation . . .
well , you just have to wonder why no one really picked it up for distribution .
what 's even worse is that seeing this " lolita , " especially the first time and if you 're familiar with anything " lolita , " is admittingly very anticlimactic .
this is a real pity because when you really sit down to watch this film , ignoring all the crap that has preceeded it , it 's really quite a film , perhaps the best film by director adrian lyne ( although , really , look at its competition : " flashdance , " " fatal attraction , " and " indecent proposal " ) , at least besides " jacob 's ladder .
"
i 've seen this " lolita " twice : the first time , i was n't so blown away .
it seemed overly dramatic and surprisingly unaffecting .
the second time , not really thinking about how i 've waited for what seems like forever to see it and how i 'm seeing it on a tv set on a premium cable channel and not a giant movie theatre ,
it really affected me emotionally .
the story itself is a surprisingly heartbreaking one , which is why it 's such a good novel , and why this is such a good film .
the story of a pedophile obsessed with a young 14-year old girl named dolores a .
k .
a . lolita is great because it 's not trash for the perverted
but because it 's about human obsession with things that are out of one 's reach .
its protagonist , the comically - named humbert humbert , is not your average pedophile , but a seriously wounded human being who embodies how we are all destroyed by our sick obsessions and idosyncrasies .
the character of lolita is almost a symbol of the forbidden apple in christian mythology , something that will destroy us but that we ca n't live without .
these ideas are all worked into this film nicely , but done in a way that is not heavy - handed at all , but instead lyrical and emotionally devastating .
the focus of this film , and the reason for making it , it seems , was to really penetrate the emotional depths of the novel and bring them to life on the screen in beautifully dramatic images , and scenes which are blatantly over - stylized .
the tone of the book is a comical one , but it 's also a tragic one , and humbert , telling the story from his perspective , blows every single thing out of perspective .
humbert exists in a fantsy world of his obsessions and desires , and this reflects the way the entire film has been designed .
we get a sense that perhaps it 's by doing this that humbert has really trapped himself into a fate that will ultimately leave him haggard and destroyed .
he weeps uncontrollably and never lets himself get over his original 14-year - old love , and allows himself to embody her as lolita .
he lets his feelings for her navigate all his decisions , and by the end , he has nothing but overly - dramatic feelings for her .
the story recognizes the extreme of this , almost out of a test , seeing if the readers will really sympathize with someone who is socially deemed a pervert , and one almost wonders while reading the book if the author , vladimir nabokov , wrote the book as a means to bring into focus his own sick obsessions , and perhaps bring them to peace .
the weirdest thing about this film is that by the end , when humbert has reached the finale of his obsessional journey , we can easily sympathize and even identify with him .
the opening and final images of the film are the same , and who has n't done a similar action , that is wandering about without any sense of reality or anything else but a deep sadness in us ?
this is the second time the novel has been adapted for the screen , the first time being filmed in - shock - 1962 , by stanley kubrick , who could n't possibly have brought the novel to the screen with as much faithfulness as lyne has been able to do , but did the next best thing : he economized for everything and came up with a droll black comedy about obsession in general .
in that film , he used the traps of society as benefits .
the studio demanded the final scene , that of a heinous murder , come first in the film so to portray humbert first as a murderer and second as a pedophile . . .
and when you see it , it gives the film depth of a man trapped by obsession .
the censors would n't allow anymore than a couple glances and subtle dialogue to show the , um , relationship between humbert and lolita , so kubrick decided to play it as comedy , but still allow the tragedy to seep through . looking at these two versions , especially after reading the novel ( and we all know that when we 've read a novel and see a film adaptation , we are bound to be angered by any size differences ) , it 's really impossible to compare them .
they both go for different things , and one has a lot more room to be as sexually frank as the novel was .
and although it 's true that several scenes are similar , and are thus up for comparison , overall it 's unfair to say which one is better and which one is worse .
i have never been one for saying the level of greatness of a film adaptation of a novel is deemed by how faithful it is , and i wo n't say that here . however ,
this film is pretty amazing , mostly because hey , i loved the book , and this film nearly reminded me of it .
it does n't have nearly as much wit ( a couple comical scenes , and even a lot of good chuckles , but just not totally witty ) , but it does have the same emotional toll that the novel had .
some of that is in the casting of the two leads .
jeremy irons , with his deep , soft british voice and gentle look , is an amazing humbert .
he 's droll in a very unique way , and , well , no one can look distraught the way he does .
he brings a wonderful sympathy to the role that goes beyond pathos and really comes up as being easy to identify with the audience .
and when he looks at lolita with love , and she looks at him with lust , you know that he 's her prisoner for as long as he lives .
and dominique swain , who plays the title character , is rather incredible .
she pulls off the tough role even better than sue lyon did in the original , wonderfully balancing the qualities of seduction , bratiness , and self - centeredness that marks the character .
it 's easy to see why she surrenders to humbert : she loves the attention , and knows that she can have her way with him at any time .
when he denies her something , she blackmails him effortlessly ( a scene involving a rocking chair and a little foot action is damn near classic ) , and when he stands up to her , she weeps and runs away , leaving humbert to follow her .
there are two other minor characters in the film , one who 's a road block in the beginning , and the other who 's a reappearing threat to the relationship .
the former is charlotte , lolita 's mother , played by melanie griffith .
in the book , charlotte is a monster of a woman : overbearing , constantly scolding her child , overly - religious , and ultimately selfish .
and she 's the one obstacle humbert
has to overcome to obtain his goal , at least in the beginning .
as played by shelly winters in the original , she represented all these qualities ; as played by griffith here , she 's about half of them .
it 's annoying to watch a film and play a game where you try to see who could have done the role way better than the one on screen without mentioning the actor who played them first .
and even though griffith is not really bad , persay , she 's nothing more .
the other is clare quilty , the writer who is also trying to seduce lolita , and succeeds , but at a price .
langella takes a totally different direction than the one peter sellars took in the original .
quilty was a comic character in the original :
a threat in the form of many forms , popping in states of rambling , german , proning , and eventually drunk .
langella takes the other route , allowing all of the creepiness to be unearthed , and the result is a character who exists in shadows and low shots , and who meets a wonderfully ironic ending , the exact opposite of what we thought of him .
as you can see , most of these are not improvements or mistakes done on the part of lyne and his screenwriter , stephen schiff , but just parts of a whole new look at the novel , at least cinema - wise .
this version is beautiful , and perpetually saddening .
the camera movements are stylized , and each shot is breathtakingly rich .
the acting is for the most part wonderful , and when we watch it , we really get a sense that for humbert , who is telling the story , the only two people on earth most of the time were humbert and lolita .
more importantly , it takes us right up the brink of emotion , then jumps right over it .
by the end , with humbert sadly driving recklessly in his car , following what he says is the only part of his life he does n't regret , we feel that we all lose to something we can never have .

Ex Output:
P


Ex Input:
i still ca n't figure out why people went in droves to see this movie .
now before you go assuming i 'm some sort of high brow snob , who ca n't appreciate a little dumb humor , let me say that i love cheap humor .
i thought there 's something about mary was one of the funniest films that i have ever seen and it was certainly one of the best films of 1998 .
low brow adolescent humor can be a lot of fun , the problem with the waterboy is that it is just low brow and adolescent , there is no humor component .
i wanted to like the waterboy , i really did .
i think i only laughed maybe 2 or 3 times throughout the entire movie .
actually , i smiled a couple of more times on top of that .
not a great record for a 90-minute film .
the problem with the waterboy is the same as most other adam sandler movies .
those responsible for this mess seem to think that the sheer fact that sandler walks around using a goofy voice and playing dumb the entire movie is a substitute for actual funny material .
nothing could be further from the truth , as matter of fact , sandler 's idiot voice started to get on my nerves at points in this film .
it 's really a shame too , because this film had the potential to be very funny .
i personally believe that sandler is probably a very talented comedian , it 's just that so far he has n't been able to find the right film to showcase his talents .
if his only talent is making goofy voices and playing morons , my guess is that his career in the movies will go down the same road as the vast majority of the former stars of saturday night live .
most of whom are now happily no longer in the entertainment industry .
sandler plays a 31-year - old , somewhat mentally challenged , waterboy for a college football team .
the team 's somewhat mentally disturbed coach ( henry winkler ) realizes that his waterboy has a great deal of pent - up rage , which , if harnessed properly , would make him a force to be reckoned with on the football field .
you can figure out the rest from here .
sandler joins the team and this once lowly waterboy becomes a football star .
as i said , the film had a great deal of potential .
the idea was a decent one , but the main potential of this movie is a result of the cast .
all of whom are very good , just hamstrung by really , really , lousy material .
even sandler , annoying goofy voice and all , has enough charisma and natural comedic ability to overcome some of his bad material .
even as unfunny as his character is , i still found myself rooting for him throughout the film .
but it is the supporting cast that i feel most badly about .
if their material had been just a bit better , this film could have been such a funny movie .
fairuza balk plays sandler 's leather - wearing biker - chick love interest and does a great job playing sleazy and sexy at the same time .
winkler is great as the coach who uses a " coaching for dummies " -style book to help him get through games .
the real standout though , is kathy bates .
even with some of the worst material of her career to deal with , she is still a treat to watch in her role as sandler 's overprotective and overbearing mama .
even with the performances of bates and winkler , there is absolutely no way i would recommend this movie .
although i get the distinct impression that without them , this film would have ranked in negative numbers for me .
which is sad , because i ca n't really put my finger on a particular element of the movie and single it out as the cause of the disaster that it became .
it 's obvious that those involved , specifically the actors , tried very hard to make what they thought was going to be a funny movie .
it 's just too bad that 99 percent of all of the jokes fell flat .

Ex Output:
N


Ex Input:
a movie laced with a good blend of action , comedy , and a heavy dose of musical celebrity guest appearances sounds pretty gourmet , but even the best ingredients can be thrown together in the wrong way , creating a dismal and unsatisfactory product .
eighteen years after the blues brothers hit theaters , blues brothers 2000 is being unleashed , minus half of its original duo ( the late john belushi ) and nearly all of its original charm .
dan aykroyd reprises his role ( as well as his co - writing credit ) as elwood blues , the sharp dressed con man who wreaked havoc on a self - proclaimed " mission from god " along with his brother jake and
their blues brothers band nearly eighteen years ago .
as we begin , elwood is being released from a state penitentiary along with the news of his brother 's death in prison years ago .
completely on his own , elwood decides to trace his roots back to the orphanage where he spent his childhood , only to discover that everyone he has ever known has passed away .
but elwood is n't completely without family .
it seems he has a half - brother of sorts - not a real brother mind you , just the illegitimate child of his bluesman pseudo - father curtis ( cab calloway from the first film ) , who has also passed on .
despite inklings from mother superior mary stigmata ( kathleen freeman ) to do otherwise , elwood seeks out his only remaining family in an effort to start up an all new blues brothers band .
working as a police commander , cabel chamberlain ( joe morton ) , has an immediate disliking for elwood , who nonchalantly fills cab in on his mother 's affair years ago and then goes on to steal his wallet .
following elwood around is the lonely orphan buster ( j . evan bonifant ) , who quickly learns to become a mini - elwood .
when bartender mighty mack mcteer ( john goodman ) joins the group , the blues brothers band is complete , and once again , the group travels the country , crashing cars , blowing things up , and obstructing peace with more than just solid blues rock .
meanwhile , cab 's personal vendetta against elwood leads him on an impassioned manhunt for his next - to - next - of - kin .
> from this point ,
the movie turns into a series of music videos with a few bits of acting in between .
those hoping for an interesting and/or funny yarn are given too many musical interludes while those heavily interested in the music are given too much of a story .
only the extremely avid blues fans should attempt getting thru these two hours .
for those people , it may be worth it , for luckily there is much more music than shoddy attempts at acting , but when the story does intrude upon the festivities , the film is heavily bogged down with unfunny jokes , musicians turned stiff actors , and the pointless 10-year- old buster attempting to add some sort of home alone cuteness to the whole thing .
appearances by musical legends such as aretha franklin , james brown , eric clapton , and a whole slew of others are the high points of the film , but they also confirm why these people are musicians and not actors .
blues brothers 2000 is deserving of one whole star simply because if you really , really love this kind of music , you might kind of , sort of like this movie .
many , many scenes are nauseatingly unfunny , and if you do n't have a passion for very deep blues / rock ,
you 'll be bored out of your skull .
much of this film seems nothing more than aykroyd 's self - serving vanity project , but no matter how much fun aykroyd may be having with this , none of the excitement is passed on to the audience . and seeing three guys in three - piece suits goofily dancing around with poker faces can only be funny for so long . unfortunately , those two seconds are over about fifteen minutes into the film .

Ex Output:

N