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

Q: capsule : godawful " comedy
" that 's amazingly shabby and cut - rate , and rather bereft of laughs
.
i was having a bad week in my life when i saw austin powers :
international man of mystery .
i desperately needed something to cheer me up , or at least distract me so i could get a clear head .
get some perspective .
even dumb movies can do that for me , sometimes .
i tried hard not to let my dejection affect my judgment , but i am certain now that austin powers would have also sucked rocks through bamboo shoots on the day i won the lottery .
michael myers has taken a character that would barely have supported a five - minute sketch on saturday night live and stretched it to the length of a feature film , padding it out with toilet jokes and the sort of props - strategically - positioned - between - naked - actors - and - camera gags that benny hill got tired of fifteen years ago .
the plot , what little there is of it : back in the swinging mod hep sixties ( i do n't think i 'm doing a disservice to the movie 's attempted early look and feel by describing it that way ) , sexy british secret agent austin powers tangled with his nemesis dr .
evil .
evil launched himself into orbit and cryogenically forze himself to return decades later , when powers was out of the picture .
powers also had himself frozen , and he wakes up to find the nineties a very hard time to deal with .
the basic gag , that of powers ' total inability to cope with the nineties , is not so much exhausted during the course of the movie as never even really dealt with .
the bulk of the movie is taken up with dumb jokes of several basic rubrics : james bond gags ( of which this movie has no end , right down to the silly character names ) , inept slapstick , toilet humor , and strategically placed props . . .
the movie 's amazingly bereft of ideas , come to think of it , with a couple of bright exceptions .
one is dr .
evil 's son -- there is a sidesplitting scene where father and son go to an encounter group , chaired by carrie fisher -- and the other is a throwaway gag where austin mimics various forms of transportation from behind a couch ( it 's a visual gag -- hard to describe , and hard to recommend seeing the movie for ) .
a lot of sixties kitsch has been resurrected and thrown on the screen for this movie , but it 's desperate rather than clever .
instead of skewering the whole thing , it 's a rather bloodless and unfunny tribute
.
myers himself is also desperate : he 's given an idea to play , not a character .
plus , the attempts to make the character work by giving him a relationship with another sexy ( albeit " nineties " ) agent are a waste of time .
i wanted to have the movie end with him trying yet again to get it on with her , only to have her deck him one .
with a couple of exceptions , the movie misses all of its own best moments .
the movie even looks cheesy , and not in a good way : i kept wondering if it had been transferred down from hi - def video or something , so grainy was the film stock in a good many scenes .
the whole thing has the air of being done on the cheap .
my definition of comedy is simply : did it make me laugh ?
the few times that i laughed in austin powers were completely offset by the time i spent cringing and wanting out .
the most damning thing i could say about the movie is that wayne and garth would most likely have shoved it into mike tyson 's shorts and sent it sailing .

A: N
****
Q: _ in brief : _ this film needs no introduction . if you have n't heard of it , then you must have been up in space on a sabbatical , and if you have n't seen it -- well , i suspect you 're in a small minority !
first thing 's first ?
is it all it 's hyped up to be ?
well , yes ?
and no .
it 's a good film , and there 's a lot to like about it , but it 's not without its problems .
when i saw the first trailer for " titanic " , it was when i went to see " bean " last summer , i think , my intial reaction was --
ai n't that downright sick to make a disaster movie out of such a dreadful , real - life tragedy ? !
i mean , what 's happened to hollywood 's script - writers , have they run entirely out of new ideas ?
gads ,
whatever next , i asked myself , how about an action film based on hiroshima starring jean claude van damme ?
i was not entirely filled with anticipation , but then i was n't alone in that respect .
it 's when it came out in the cinema , to rave reviews ( well , mostly ) and
anyone who 'd been to see it seemed disturbingly obsessed by it that i started to take notice !
i did n't see the film until several months after its release ( by which time my sister had seen it about four times ! ) , so i went with a slightly more open mind , but i still did n't think i 'd enjoy it much .
did i ?
yes
and no .
mainly yes , i 'm happy to say .
the first hour or so was beautifully done , not so much because of the scripting
( i 'll talk about that later ? ) but because the re - created ship and sets were stunning to look at , as was cameron 's directing , and the performances of the principal cast were so strong that the " human " aspect of the story , the romance between rose ( kate winslet ) and jack ( leonardo dicaprio ) , was enchanting
.
the film is told via flashback , with gloria stuart playing the elderly rose in the modern day ( you knew that , a ' course ! : - ) ) .
well , it 's an often effective device to use in storytelling -- though sometimes it can fall flat .
does it work here ?
in script form it does n't add all that much to the story .
what does add a lot to the story is gloria stuart , whose stunning performance is the strongest , most moving of the film .
her presence brings a much deeper level of passion , and depth to the story , and though her appearances are relatively brief , the film would have suffered without her . also impressive are dicaprio and winslet , who wholly succeed in rising above the often poor dialogue , and the bond they form is both heartfelt and moving
.
it 's an old story , you know -- forbidden love ala romeo and juliet -- but it works , and jack 's " rescuing " rose ( in both literal and figurative senses ) and teaching her to live life for what counts was pointed and touching .
in fact , i enjoyed the first half of the film a lot , largely because winslet and dicaprio bring such and charm , energy to the romance .
it 's engaging , touching and very enjoyable .
there 's more than a tinge of poignancy to it as well ,
simply because you know it 's not going to be a happy ending .
which leads us to the second half of the film .
we all knew it was coming .
i 'm sure director cameron was looking forward with eager anticipation to it , because as he 's stated in interviews , the real thrust of the story ( for him ) was the sinking , and the jack / rose romance was a merely a manipulative plot device to get you emotionally into the film .
i think that understates the importance of the romance , as i found it far more enjoyable than an hour of watching people die .
the iceberg arrives , and the captain announces that titanic will have sunk in about an hour .
and it is an hour .
my goodness , we do n't miss a second of that hour ?
gratuitous ?
well , perhaps not by today 's standards , i 'm sure there 's been far worse produced under the banner of " entertainment " in other films .
but i certainly was n't prepared for how shocking and graphic the last hour or so would be .
not that i 'd expect the word " understatement " to be part of cameron 's vocabulary ( he who brought us such , umm , vivid films as " terminator 2 " and " aliens " ) .
is it overdone ?
i thought so .
understatement can sometimes work wonders in conveying tragedy .
no , no one expected a happy ending , but i did n't quite expect the horrendously shocking and powerful scenes we were bombarded throughout the film 's second half .
still , whether it was overdone and heavy - handed or not , if it was the shock - factor cameron was after it worked , because i was shocked and moved , in fact i spent most of the last hour in tears !
you really could n't help but get emotionally involved ,
whether it was wishing someone would knock that dreadfully psychotic fiance of rose 's overboard or desperately hoping that rose would rescue jack , or that jack would rescue rose , or that they would both survive .
perhaps the most harrowing scene was when the ship has sunk , and those that sunk along with the ship freeze to death on the water surface .
the bit where rose lets go of jack 's hand , while promising she 'll never let go in her heart was particularly heart - wrenching , and the sight of rescue boats sailing amid the ocean of corpses was a pretty powerful image , to put no fine a point on it .
i loved the ending , however , which was both moving and slightly uplifting following the horror of the past hour and a half .
so , we 've established that the film is powerful and moving , if the last hour was rather excessive . have n't mentioned the script .
plot - wise
it 's ok , though the jack / rose relationship was beautifully developed
,
but i 've a feeling that 's to the actors
credit if anything .
as for the dialogue ?
well , titanic is set in 1912 .
it 's a period drama .
but i saw very little indication of period in so far as the dialogue is concerned .
did they really use phrases like " goddamn it !
" back in the turn of the century ?
i doubt it .
would someone talk like this : " do ya love the guy or what ? " .
i doubt it .
is such dialogue as " i saw the iceberg , and i see it in your eyes now
" not just a bit ? clumsy ?
yes it is .
a little more attention to dialogue would not have gone astray , and cameron himself is to blame ( he wrote the script ) .
stick with directing , dude .
but its more than redeemed by the acting , with dicaprio and winslet on fine form , ably supported by a strong cast .
star of the show was gloria stuart , though --
why did n't she win that oscar ? !
after all , they were throwing oscars at " titanic " left , right and centre , but gloria was perhaps the most deserving nominee . directing - wise cameron does a spectacular job .
like i said , his vision was a bit excessive , but at least he directed it well .
i have n't even mentioned james horner 's beautiful score .
utterly heavenly , though when your dad and sister play the soundtrack a lot you do start to get a bit bored with it !
; - ) i 've finished my rant , which lasted a lot longer than i thought it would !
just leaves a couple of questions ; was it worth all those oscars ?
hell , do n't talk to me about oscars .
bloomin ' farce .
it was deserving in a number of departments , though .
last question ; is it , as some suggest , one of the best films of all - time ?
nope , i do n't think so .
it 's certainly one of the most powerful and memorable films i 've ever seen ,
but i do n't think it quite ranks as one of my all - time favourites .
and as for the fact they 're reportedly making a " titanic 2 " ?
well i guess that 's typical hollywood for you !

A: P
****
Q: my friend here in film school just made a two minute - long film for one of his classes that includes a staged anal rape scene , done by two guys and shot on the shadow of the incident , with a banana being used as the instrument of penetration . as sick as this all is , watching it is one of the most admittingly hysterical moments i 've ever witnessed .
sure , it may be in bad taste , but what the hell is bad taste other than something that may be offensive to some but is riotously amusing to the rest ?
then there 's " caligula .
"
this film features incest , necrophilia , beastuality , anal rape , homosexual felatio of both sexes , elaborate and lengthy orgies , a greased - up fist forced up a man 's rear , wine poured down a man who 's had his urinary tracts tied off , a penis chopped off and fed to hungry dogs , etc , etc , etc .
this could very well be a respectable film , and if could have been had
the following not occurred : a ) the events were graphically shot in clear view ; b ) the tone was not that of trying to shock comically but to , well , show " historical accuracy ; " c ) the film was a 20 million dollar production with lavish sets , a rather impressive cast , and a whopping 2 1/2 hour running time .
produced and funded by none other than bob guccione , owner of penthouse magazine , " caligula " comes across as the most hysterical dramatic picture since " plan 9 from outer space " because underneath there 's a sense that everything this film is doing is not only accurate and justified , but also brilliantly entertaining .
after all , it 's not really the fact that this film features the aforementioned disgusting moments , but that it actually believes in them as dramatic weaponry .
no film should be discarded because its content , because film is never about what it 's about , it 's about how it 's about ( as the old cliche goes ) .
those who bash this film for content are glancing over the biggest and most obvious problem with " caligula , " and that 's that
it 's nothing but overdramaticized bullshit from start to finish , without a second of credibility in its mammoth running time .
" caligula " allegedly tells the true story of the evil roman emporer of the same name , a man who was so insanely decadent that his assasination came as a blessing . . .
or so i guess , even though almost every single roman emporer was assasinated as well and for much the same reasons .
the film opens on the wrong note
, of course , with a quote from mark appearing before any image graces the screen , using the over - used passage " what shall it profit a man if he should gain the whole world an dlose his own soul , " depite the fact that the opening scene of the film is of the emporer before he was an emporer , fucking around with his own sister in a field ( i suppose if one has to lose their soul , one has to have a soul in the first place ) .
the plot is so incomprehensibly done that all i or anyone else can make out of it is that caligula ( disastrously played by the great malcom mcdowell , a performance that does the opposite that his performance in " a clockwork orange " did ) is next in line for the throne but ca n't wait for the current emporer , tiberius ( peter o ' toole - ditto , only for his performance in " lawrence of arabia " ) , his grandfather , to die .
. .
so he kills him and ascends to the throne .
then he abuses his position , marries a woman ( helen mirren , who retains her dignity as an actor by not exactly acting )
so he does n't just have to sleep with his sister ( a dreadful teresa ann savoy , there to be pretty , naked , and willing to hop in the sack with mac or anyone he asks her to hop in with ) , abuses his position a little more , a little more , and a little more , and then , i believe , invades england
, then is killed off .
the filler , instead of recounting his life , is supposed to be , as guccione claims , the ultimate portrait of decadent pagan rome , complete with orgies , vicious deaths , and lots of nudity .
but instead of being the historical accurate film it really really wants to be , it instead becomes guccione 's twisted masturbatory image of what it could be like .
oh , is n't it great that they just loved having sex ? and that they killed people so disgustingly ?
and would n't it be great if i could make a couple bucks by selling this shit off as accuracy even though it 's so blatantly real bad porn that i 've completely convinced myself that it 's not .
i mean , why not just show a roman orgy when i can spend a good ten minutes examining every single facet that makes it up .
and it 's not just that it 's disgusting or vile or
whatever adjective you want to use to describe this film - it 's that in a film where the entire feel it 's going for is n't felt ,
it 's also the sloppiest expensive movie of all time .
the sets are lavish , but so blatantly innacurate that i wonder if no historian wanting to have his name on this film explains this .
but that does n't matter since the cinematography is so dark that you wonder if a light meter was used at all , making this not only dark and ugly , but just plain dark .
the camera operation is also the worst i 've ever seen in my entire life .
not only does this film hold the record for the most unnecessary zooms in one single shot ever , but often the camera will lose its subjects and pan around till they find them , then have them out of focus .
the editing is so sloppy that some scenes are absolutely impossible to follow .
there is no writer to speak of (
what the hell does it mean that it 's " adapted from an original screenplay by gore vidal ? " ) , but nevertheless , the dialogue is shit , so laughably bad that i ca n't in good faith believe that anyone with an iq over 5 could say them with a straight face ( my favorite being the line when caligula inquires the doctor about the health of the dying tiberius : " he could go at any moment , but with care , he could last a year or so .
" ) the music in this film is mostly prokofiev and khachaturian ( they use his gorgeous " adagio of spartacus and phrygia , " ad nauseum ) , used in an attempt to give the film some emotion , but instead feels as if it was shipped in from elsewhere .
the orgy scenes ( and one infamous lesbo scene between penthouse pets lori wagner and aneeka dilorenzo ) are the result of reshoots by guccione himself , which are so obviously removed from everything else in this film that it only adds to the embrassment ( every five seconds or so , the film cuts to random nudity , as if it was afraid its audience would forget this film is rated " x " ) .
john gielgud represents the only voice of sanity , walking around in his brief role as if he was constantly the mantra , " i 'm going to kill my agent , i 'm going to kill my agent . . .
"
and so on and so on , for over 2 1/2 hours , making " caligula
" about as exciting and enriching as a three hour college lecture class and twice as deliriously annoying . guccione , in his pursuit of historical accuracy has instead made a film that is such a painstaking , arduous task to watch in its entirety that i doubt anyone can sit through an hour of it without irreversible psychological damage .
throughout the entire film , the presence of guccione is easily felt , as if he were standing there at the edge of the screen , pretentiously looking down upon us saying " look what i can get away with !
and if you do n't like this , then you 're a prig , and worse than that , you know nothing about history !
"
uh huh . there 's a clear difference between historical accuracy and doing something that 's artistically good .
a film which showed roman decadence as something that was perhaps liberating for some but could not last - that would probably make for a good film .
but using historical accuracy as a licence to get away with any kind of disgusting - for - disgustingness'-sake acts is total , total bullshit
, and all i can say is that guccione and the makers of this film have lost any kind of touch with either entertainment or eroticism , and have developed a pathetic and sadistic taste for both , judging from this film .
there 's a film that came out in 1989 called " the cook , the thief , his wife , and her lover , " a magnifcent film by legendary cult director peter greenaway ( also starring helen mirren ) , which deals with graphic sex , heartstopping violence and gore , and even a little cannibalism for good measure .
that film not only never patronized its viewers , but also handled them in a way that was shocking , yes , but also , in a bizarre way , entertaining and totally involving .
there were real characters there in a real situation , and best of all passion and just the right amount of restraint as not to get off on the fact that it 's going to be offensive to many .
that film achieved everything it wanted to do , and has since retained a status as one of those cult films that is not only popular but actualy good .
and it 's everything " caligula
" might have been but , alas , was n't .

A:
N
****