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

meet joe black ( reviewed on nov .
27/98 )
starring brad pitt , anthony hopkins , claire forlani in " meet joe black " , brad pitt plays death .
that 's all that really needs to be said , but nevertheless , i will provide the three of you that have seemingly been living in a cave with a plot description .
death decides to take a holiday , what with all the rigors of soul - collecting and all , and forces anthony hopkins into showing him what it 's like to be human .
death assumes the body of brad pitt , and from there , much trouble ensues .
for one thing , death - as - pitt falls in love with hopkins daughter , played by claire forlani .
obviously this enrages hopkins , because really , what can death offer ?
besides eternal damnation , of course .
there is also a sub - plot about forlani 's ex - boyfriend ( she dumps him for pitt ) trying to take over hopkins company .
" meet joe black " runs just under three hours .
i 've always thought that such obscene running times should be limited to historical epics .
" meet joe black " is neither historical nor is it an epic , though i get the feeling martin brest ( the director )
desperately wants it to be .
every single scene in the movie goes on about 3 - 4 minutes too long .
and the ending takes about 20 minutes longer than it really should .
a severe editing job could have made this movie excellent , instead of just good , which is what it is .
pitt , an actor i normally loathe , is actually quite engaging as death .
i believed his performance , and i could see why forlani 's character would fall in love with him .
i have to agree with roger ebert , though , who found it hard to believe that an entity that 's been around for all time would n't know what peanut butter was .
that has nothing to do with pitt 's performance , of course , but it is a little distracting .
hopkins gives his usual excellent performance .
he 's able to portray the angst of a man who knows he has very little time left , without making him an obnoxious whiner .
and in her first major studio role , claire forlani is surprisingly good .
she has a sweet tenderness that allows the audience to instantly root for her .
so , " meet joe black " is
a good movie hampered by it 's ridiculous running time .
had the film been cut by an hour or so , i have no doubt that i would be calling it one of the best movies of the year in this review .
P

robert benton has assembled a stellar , mature cast for his latest feature , twilight , a film noir mystery set amid the fading stars of hollywood .
paul newman stars as retired detective harry ross .
harry has spent the last couple of years doing odd jobs for jack and catherine ames ( gene hackman and susan sarandon ) , a pair of married actors who have fallen from the limelight .
when jack sends him on a routine delivery job , however , the old instincts kick in .
soon , harry is wading through a mystery where friendships and lives are on the line , and he no longer knows who to trust .
there are plenty of familiar faces throughout twilight , in addition to newman , hackman and sarandon .
james garner plays raymond hope , a former cop and one of harry 's best friends .
stockard channing plays verna , harry 's former partner , and possibly a former love interest .
reese witherspoon is mel , the distrustful daughter of the ames ' , and liev schrieber is her scuzzy boyfriend .
giancarlo esposito appears as harry 's bumbling detective protigi , and john spencer is a suspicious police captain .
with a cast like that , it 's almost worth watching twilight just to stargaze .
luckily , there 's more to the film than some sort of actor 's recognition ceremony .
twilight has a solid film noir - ish plot .
it may not have as many twists and turns as some of the classics , but it has much more than a lot of what passes for film these days .
the major cast members all deliver strong performances , as can be expected of their caliber .
however , none of them have that little extra oomph which would make them memorable .
the supporting cast is enjoyable , if a little underdrawn .
stockard channing 's character , in particular , is a cipher .
there 's more to her character than the film takes the time to describe .
it 's a minor , but irritating , flaw .
with a solid cast , and a good plot
, there 's a lot to recommend about twilight .
it 's biggest flaw is actually its short running time .
at a slim 94 minutes , there 's a lot of stuff that 's packed into an awfully small package .
still , the chance to see newman , sarandon and hackman working together is worth a cramp or two .
P

i am a steven seagal fan .
i only say this now because " mufti splenetik " is n't my real name and because i probably need to explain why i went into this film expecting great things .
any proud seagal fan worth his beans will tell you that the seagal formula is something you can depend on .
seagal films can always be counted on for minimal dialogue , heaps of expendable baddies with extemely crunchable bones ( which we 'll always hear when seagal does his limb - twisting thing ) , rarely a female co - lead in sight ( unless it 's a real - life model - wife who has n't worked since weird science ) and , usually the worst possible titles you can imagine .
not to mention very straightforward plots , generally all - round bad dialogue and mr implacable leather - face himself in that same black outfit he 's been in since nico doing his " my hands are sharp , nimble knives " thing , seagal the stoic , sir petrified ponytail , duke of dull .
in the glimmer man , seagal breaks out of this formula : he gets a * sidekick *
, attempts to banter , and puts on a new vest .
he 's also put on quite a lot of weight .
small potatoes , you may say , a man should be able to accessorize and banter if he wants to , but damnit , if it ai n't broke , why fix it ?
( more on this disappointed person 's dashed expectations later ) .
as jack cole , seagal is a homicide detective with a questionable past .
while he and his partner ( played by keenen ivory wayans ) are investigating a series of ritual killings , cole himself becomes a suspect , especially when a background check run by campbell reveals practically nothing on cole .
it turns out that cole is a former trained government assassin ( you just ca n't trust these homicide detectives ) , someone whom victims used to catch just a glimpse of in the jungle before he pounced on them , and hence , well , you know , that " glimmer man " thing .
an increasingly fishy homicide investigation in the present soon leads to the gradual uncovering of a larger , more threatening conspiracy that involves a crooked businessman ( bob gunton ) , cole 's former cia boss ( brian cox ) and deals involving chemical weapons .
the glimmer man plot is pretty standard stuff , drawing ( as with his other films ) elements from the hotter films of the year ( eg , se7en ) .
it 's the other changes that disappoint .
for example , although there 's a fair amount of violence in this movie , there 's also the disastrous pairing of seagal with keenen ivory wayans , probably the best known of the wayans tribe ( how many are there , exactly ? ) from television 's " in living colour .
" wayans plays whiney straightman to seagal 's bead - adorned and brocade - draped cole , keeping up his " are you crazy " part of the dialogue with wasted zest .
as campbell , wayans confines himself to bemoaning his new partner 's eccentric habits , but the chemistry between the two is minimal , and seagal 's wooden comebacks make for painful watching .
a cook in under seige 2 , seagal is now a buddhist who speaks chinese and wears prayer beads and intricate silk jackets over his normal black ensemble .
he chants , refuses to fight unless truly provoked and introduces campbell to powdered deer penis to cure his allergies .
again , a benign ( if trite ) plot device except for the fact that these new character traits require seagal to speak more than usual .
heck , he has to deliver punchlines and carry a steady conversation with someone other than himself for a large part of the film .
is that a lot to ask of the seague ? too much .
seagal 's best characteristic used to be that he knew his purpose in this already complicated world of movies : to crunchily snap off bad guy appendages , and to do it silently , and alone .
not for seagal , the snappy one - liners of arnold and stallone , nor the attempts to show that he can act , much less think .
no kindergarten cop , no oscar , just simple , unadulterated deathblows .
that 's really how it must have started : like - minded fans who knew what they wanted streamed in to watch the seague do his thing , knowing that never in the seagal universe would they ever have to see him do anything else .
we trusted him .
we got to know him .
now , betrayal .
i do n't know if i can watch another seagal movie without that little niggling doubt that he 's going to try to be funny again .
i 'll try , but it wo n't be easy .
if you have n't watched the glimmer man yet ,
you might want to wait for the video to come out .
it 's easier to just fast forward the dialogue parts and linger on the action sequences .
after all , if we ca n't depend on our fantasies , what can we depend on ?
the flying inkpot rating system :
* wait for the tv2 broadcast .
*
* a little creaky , but still better than staying at home with gotcha !
*
* * pretty good , bring a friend .
*
*
* * amazing , potent stuff .
*
*
*
* * perfection .
see it twice .
mufti spelenetik is still a steven seagal fan .
everybody makes mistakes once in awhile .

N