In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
--------
Question: synopsis :
in this cultural exploration , a chinese american computer engineer named fang ( peter wang ) decides to take a month - long vacation to visit his sister mrs .
chao ( shen guanglan ) , her husband mr .
chao ( hy xiaoguang ) , and their teenage daughter lili ( li qinqin ) in beijing after 30 years of separation .
fang brings his asian american wife grace ( sharon iwai ) and his college - aged son paul ( kelvin han yee ) along , both of whom do n't speak chinese .
the encounter between the two families allows the audience to compare the eastern and western cultures as well as the ambitions of individual characters .
opinion : sometimes a film is plot driven .
sometimes it 's a character sketch .
a great wall ( 1986 ) can be called a culture sketch , as opposed to a character sketch because it gently compares a chinese american family to a beijing family .
fang 's family is thoroughly americanized .
fang is an upper middle class professional who enjoys jogging and argues with his boss .
his wife ca n't cook chinese .
his son has a white girlfriend and complains of racism when fang encourages him to befriend an asian girl .
meanwhile fang 's beijing sister advocates absolute loyalty to the ' work unit . '
her husband is a retired official who has heard rumors of american depravity ( homosexuals running the streets ) , and her daughter lili longs for american freedoms in a youth culture where studying for college entrance exams is the most important thing in life .
the two families spend a month slowly learning about each other .
there is no ultimate ' answer ' or final comprehensive understanding after the month - long vacation .
the film is neither here nor there ; it 's a neutral , meandering , gentle , portrait of life on both sides .

Answer: P


Question: best remembered for his understated performance as dr .
hannibal lecter in michael mann 's forensics thriller , manhunter , scottish character actor brian cox brings something special to every movie he works on .
usually playing a bit role in some studio schlock ( he dies halfway through the long kiss goodnight ) , he 's only occasionally given something meaty and substantial to do .
if you want to see some brilliant acting , check out his work as a dogged police inspector opposite frances mcdormand in ken loach 's hidden agenda .
cox plays the role of big john harrigan in the disturbing new indie flick l .
i .
e . , which lot 47 picked up at sundance when other distributors were scared to budge .
big john feels the love that dares not speak its name , but he expresses it through seeking out adolescents and bringing them back to his pad .
what bothered some audience members was the presentation of big john in an oddly empathetic light .
he 's an even - tempered , funny , robust old man who actually listens to the kids ' problems ( as opposed to their parents and friends , both caught up in the high - wire act of their own confused lives . )
he 'll have sex - for - pay with them only after an elaborate courtship , charming them with temptations from the grown - up world .
l .
i .
e . stands for long island expressway , which slices through the strip malls and middle - class homes of suburbia .
filmmaker michael cuesta uses it as a ( pretty transparent ) metaphor of dangerous escape for his 15-year old protagonist , howie ( paul franklin dano ) .
in his opening voice - over , howie reveals a morbid preoccupation with death on the road , citing the l .
i .
e .
highway deaths of filmmaker alan
j .
pakula , songwriter harry chapin , and his own mother on exit 52 .
he 's both fascinated and disturbed by the l .
i .
e . , and those feelings are projected onto big john ( who follows howie around in his bright red car , but never makes a move to force the boy to do something he does n't want to do .
this makes him much more complex than the usual child molesters seen in movies -- he 's a beast , but ashamed of it . )
l .
i .
e . would have worked best as a half - hour short film about howie 's ill - advised foray into big john 's haven .
there is unnecessary padding with howie 's miserable dad ( bruce altman ) in the hot seat for a white - collar crime , degenerate youngsters who get their kicks from robbing middle - class houses , and some homoerotic shenanigans with wise - ass gary terrio ( billy kay ) , a handsome artful dodger . rather than add to the themes of suburban ennui ( not that we needed another movie on that subject ) , these awkward subplots pad out the running time to adequate feature length .
concurrently , the relationship between howie and big john is evenly paced and exceptionally well acted .
cox , sporting a baseball cap and a faded marine tattoo , is all bluff and bluster .
dano is quiet and at first glance seems so withdrawn as to be transparent .
we 're so used to child actors whose dramatic choices are broad and obvious ( calling haley joel ! ) , it 's surprising to see one who actually listens throughout any given scene .
the restraint is admirable .
but l . i .
e . 's
screenplay does n't always give them the best material .
when howie reads big john a walt whitman poem , the moment feels a bit too precious .
director michael cuesta lingers on an ecstatic reaction shot of big john , who may as well be hearing glenn gould performing bach 's goldberg variations .
it 's too much .
there are also some obvious dramatic contrivances involving big john 's other boy toy ( walter masterson ) , jealous over the newbie .
this plot thread predictably leads to violence .
not content to be a haunting , observational portrait of teen alienation in a royally screwed up world ( like terry zwigoff 's superb ghost world ) , cuesta lacks the confidence in his own work to end on an ambivalent note .
it 's typical of unimaginative cinema to wrap things up with a bullet , sparing the writers from actually having to come up with a complex , philosophical note .
in this regard
, l . i .
e .
( and countless other indie films ) share something in common with blockbuster action films : problems are solved when the obstacle is removed .
how often does real life work this way ? to extend the question : if a movie is striving for realism , do dramatic contrivances destroy the illusion ?

Answer: N


Question: although i had not been a viewer of the " rugrats " television series , i went into their first animated feature film , " the rugrats movie , " with a positive attitude .
the trailer looked cute enough , after all .
after seeing it , i think the words in my recent " antz " review , in which i stated that it was the worst film of its type since 1995 's " the pebble and the penguin , " were a bit premature .
" the rugrats movie , " is
bottom - of - the - barrel children 's fare at its worst , and starts to make , " antz " look good in comparison .
as in the show , " the rugrats movie , " is about a group of very little friends , ranging from babies to a three - year - old .
the head of the group , tommy pickles ( e .
g .
daily ) , becomes distraught when his mother has a newborn baby named dill ( get it ?
dill pickles ? . . .
hardee - har - har ! )
and is informed by his three - year - old cousin , anjelica ( cheryl chase ) , that the new babies always take all of the attention away from the other children .
when the other children , chuckie , and twins lil and phil , suggest taking dill back to the hospital , tommy goes along with it , but on their way there , they crash in the forest , and become lost , running into wolves and circus monkeys , among other things .
"
the rugrats movie , " judging from the idea of being lost in the woods , could have been a potentially fun family film , and there were many different things that could have been done with the story .
so what did the writers choose to do ?
why , they set up a protracted , cliched scene where the children almost go over a waterfall , of course !
for the youngest of children ( ages 3 - 7 ) , " the rugrats movie , " may very well entertain them , judging from the audience
i saw this with .
of course , if you looked around at all of the older kids and their parents , they were all desperately struggling to stay awake , and that included me .
for an adult , " the rugrats movie , " is a piece of garbage .
the plotline is unoriginal and the writing has absolutely no wit or charm .
there is n't one laugh to be had in the film , nor is there any excitement . if anything is even marginally good in the picture , it is the bright animation style , so it is especially unfortunate that it was n't to service a more quality film .
"
the rugrats movie " is doa from the start .
i am all for a worthwhile family movie , but sometimes an animated film comes along that is simply awful .
as said before , young children may like it , but even they deserve better than this . for adults , it is a nearly unbearable , excruciating chore to sit through .
as for me , " the rugrats movie , " is not the worst of the year , nor is it the most deeply hated , but
it is the most boring .
parents : do yourselves a favor and take your kids to see the rerelease of , " the wizard of oz .
"
that is a picture that contains a great deal of magic and wonder , two things of which , " the rugrats movie , " is completely missing .

Answer:
N