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

Answer: P


Question: 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 .

Answer: N


Question: on the basis of this film alone , i never would have predicted that , in two years , quentin tarantino would become the country 's biggest hotshot director .
reservoir dogs
has hints of the tarantino brilliance that emerged in pulp fiction , but is a much less substantive , more conventional crime story than the big pf .
here 's what the two movies do have in common . . .
--scenes of intelligent , amusing dialogue with no relevance to the plot --a story that jumps back and forth in time rather than going in a logical , chronological sequence --graphic yet necessary violence
--an engaging crime story --dialogue liberally spiced with swear words and racial / gender slurs --three of the same actors ( harvey keitel , tim roth and steve buscemi )
--a mexican standoff ending , although this one is considerably less optimistic than pf reservoir dogs is an entire hour shorter than pulp fiction because it 's only got one story to tell rather than three .
crime lord joe cabot ( veteran actor lawrence tierney ) has assembled five criminals who have never even met each other to pull a diamond store heist .
the five are instructed not to reveal their real names or personal details or anything the cops could use if one of them was captured and interrogated .
instead , they are all given code names off the color chart -- mr .
white ( keitel ) , mr .
pink ( buscemi ) , mr .
orange ( roth ) , mr .
blonde ( michael madsen ) , mr .
brown ( tarantino ) and mr .
peach ( tarantino 's chin ) .
most of the movie 's running time is spent with mr .
white and pink waiting at a warehouse for the others to arrive .
mr .
orange , meanwhile , is on the floor , dying from a gunshot wound .
the police had arrived at the scene of the crime way too soon , leading white to believe one of the five was an informant .
the story 's background unfolds through a series of flashbacks , of the crime itself and the meetings between joe and the criminals prior to the crime .
eventually , blonde arrives with a police officer hostage , and what follows is a truly brutal , uncomfortable torture scene .
let 's just say picasso would be inspired by what blonde does to the cop 's ear .
a lot of the time , reservoir dogs seems like your typical gangster heist - gone - wrong movie , but there are a few sequences that are uniquely tarantino .
the opening scene in the coffee shop starts the movie off on a high note the rest of it does n't live up to , as the criminals plus joe have a conversation on , among other things , tipping philosophies and their interpretations of madonna 's " like a virgin .
"
another scene involves roth 's lengthy manufactured story about running into a group of cops and a police dog in a bus station bathroom while carrying a giant bag of marijuana .
neither of these have much plot relevance but are given ample time to develop , like the captain koons gold watch speech in pulp fiction , only here these sequences are more enjoyable than the rest of the movie .
reservoir dogs is good
but it 's no pulp fiction .

Answer:
P