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

[Q]: by the time dennis quaid , the ostensible star of switchback , makes his first appearance at about the 22-minute mark , you may find yourself wondering why he bothered .
after all , writer / director jeb stuart has already set up a fairly promising pair of parallel story lines .
the first finds amarillo , texas sheriff buck olmstead ( r . lee ermey ) facing a hotly - contested election battle just as a brutal double homicide is discovered at a motel in his jurisdiction .
as olmstead begins his investigation , we also meet the two men who come to be our prime suspects .
lane dixon ( jared leto ) is an enigmatic young hitchhiker ; bob goodall ( danny glover ) is the jovial motorist who offers lane a ride from texas to his utah destination .
all the necessary conflicts seem to be in place -- the internal struggle of olmstead over the clash between good politics and good police work , and the external struggle as one of the two travelers eventually becomes villain to the other 's protagonist .
but then quaid shows up as grimly determined fbi agent frank lacrosse .
lacrosse is certain that the amarillo murders are the work of a serial killer he has been tracking for nearly two years .
he 's not supposed to be tracking him any more -- according to the bureau , they 've got their man -- but lacrosse has a very important reason for believing otherwise .
two months earlier , lacrosse 's own son was kidnapped by the killer , and the boy has yet to turn up anywhere .
lacrosse knows his killer 's work , and he knows that the man is still out there somewhere trying to continue their game .
it would n't be fair to reduce everything that 's wrong with switchback to quaid 's presence , but it 's a pretty good place to start .
there 's a reason lacrosse feels like an intruder in the narrative instead of its vital center :
as a dramatic actor , dennis quaid possesses exactly one facial expression and one vocal intonation .
we can tell lacrosse is determined because his face is a perpetual tight - jawed , sourpuss pucker ; we can tell he 's grim because every word comes out in an eastwood - esque rasp .
a more flexible performer might have given weight to the character , pulling the audience into his haunted intensity , making switchback _ his _ film .
quaid
merely looks annoyed and slightly constipated .
it 's tough to become emotionally invested in a character 's turmoil when it looks like all he really needs is a big bowl of bran flakes .
even without quaid , it does n't appear that switchback would have stayed on course .
the early scenes between leto and glover have a lively energy , building our curiosity over which man -- the taciturn kid or his gregarious benefactor -- is the real threat .
unfortunately , stuart tips his hand far too early in the game , both through the pitch of the individual performances and the facts he chooses to reveal .
once the mystery of the killer 's identity is dispatched , the interaction between leto and glover becomes stale and predictable
.
in fact , " stale and predictable " describes the direction that switchback takes in general , falling back on far - too - common hollywood devices like cats jumping out of nowhere , a climactic fistfight on board a freight train , and edgy law enforcement agents .
it 's too bad stuart was n't willing to spend more time with sheriff olmstead , far and away the most interesting and appealing character in the film .
played with atypical restraint by r .
lee ermey
, he 's a wonderful , unconventional hero who seems genuinely comfortable accepting the consequences of acting on his convictions .
a film focusing on the olmstead would have signaled a film - maker willing to take a few risks with his casting and story - telling .
instead , stuart places his trust in a " name " star who ca n't carry the material .
maybe next time he 'll throw away that one crucial page in the script , the one where the grimly determined fbi agent wanders onto the scene to muck up a perfectly good story .
[A]: N


[Q]: cradle will rock is the latest effort from director / actor tim robbins .
while he may have had an oscar worthy film back in 1995 ( dead man walking ) ,
he gets a little overconfident and sloppy here .
the story is confusing , and filled with many subplots , so i 'll try my best and explain it as simply as possible .
the film is based on a " mostly " true story about a federal theater in the 1930s , that produced a play ( the cradle will rock ) that apparently was offensive to some , so the government shuts it down .
it 's during the time of the depression , and all this theater wants to do is entertain and cheer up those who do not have jobs , or are poor .
between this conflict lies what seems like 10 subplots , about those who work in theater , or those associated .
also along the way are some other messages mashed together to create an even more overwhelming experience .
tim robbin 's just keeps piling on political views , and characters , that we just give up on the film , or in some cases walk out .
for robbin 's it may be a nice achievement , but to me it seemed more like a friendly get together with slightly more sophisticated dialogue , and fancy outfits .
i thought the main reason for seeing the film would be for the outstanding cast ,
unfortunately are all uninteresting , except for a few .
let me recap what each important character does , so please bear with me
( it 's the least you can do , especially if you were considering seeing this ) .
i 'll begin with those involved with the play .
there 's orson welles ( angus macfadyen ) who of course is the director of the play , the producer john houseman ( cary elwes ) , marc blitzstein ( hank azaria ) the writer of the play , emily watson , a woman who gets her break by playing the main part in cradle will rock .
outside the play there 's the : ventriloquist ( bill murray ) who wants a relationship with a federal theater clerk ( joan cusack ) , another subplot involving a painter diego rivera ( ruben blades ) who 's unhappy that his painting is too be destroyed by nelson rockefeller because he feels it to be an outrage ( john cusack ) .
there 's a few other actresses and actors who have their own stories ( susan sarandon , philip baker hall too name a few ) but those that i mentioned , were the most significant to the story .
anyway , most of these talented hollywood stars were completely wasted , except for emily watson , who does another great job , and one of my personal favorite actors john cusack , who always delivers through thick and thin .
now although most of the film was weak to say the least , there were some nice moments and some involving subjects , but all this is overblown
.
sure the free speech segment was a nice feature , but not when it becomes repetitive .
the whole film is like this , and it 's basically nothing but a headache
.
on the brighter side , tim robbin 's direction was masterful .
his camera direction seemed reminiscent to the works of paul thomas anderson 's latest magnolia , only smoother in my opinion , but even that ca n't make a movie that much better .
although it has it 's moments ( not many of them , but they 're there ) , cradle will rock stays true to it 's title , because the cradle rocked too far and tipped over .
[A]: N


[Q]: vikings v . bears ?
no , this is n't the lineup for monday night football .
rather , these are the two opposing forces that will battle to the death in " the 13th warrior , " a film that is as dramatically flat as it is gratuitously gory .
based on michael crichton 's book , eaters of the dead , this viking saga tries to evoke the mysticism of fabled norsemen and the glorious battles that they fought .
their strength and honor would eventually etch their place in history among the greatest warriors that ever picked up a sword .
luckily for the vikings , however , their warring abilities were not as clumsy as this film .
antonio bandaras is ahmed , a travelling ambassador .
accompanied by his friend ( omar shariff in a cameo ) , they eventually come across a small viking village .
we see that the vikings are an extremely proud group whose greatest strength is their fortitude .
they laugh heartily , revel in their arrogance , and sing songs of battles won .
but their festivities are about to be halted when a messenger boy arrives to tell the village leader that a great evil is threatening their land .
help is needed quickly .
an elderly , fortune - telling witch arrives .
after a brief incantation , she proclaims that 12 warriors and one more " not of norse blood " are needed to ensure victory .
personally , i always wonder why people believe these oracles when they look so haggardly and on the brink of insanity .
nonetheless , 12 men eagerly accept their place while ahmed becomes the pivotal 13th .
the group then sets out to do the greatest battle of their lives .
of course during their ride , ahmed becomes the target of fun for the other 12 burly viking warriors .
but he ably shows that it 's not the size of the dog in the fight but rather the size of the fight in the dog .
he is able to overcome the proud arrogance of the vikings , but will his skills ( and that of the group ) be enough to defeat whatever evil is menacing the countryside ?
it does not look promising .
these creatures , resembling bears , are strong and have high morale .
they are fearless and display a desire for decapitating the heads of their enemies .
they attack by the hundreds and the next strike will come soon .
the warriors prepare their defenses and pray to their gods .
they are ready to sacrifice their lives .
"
this is a good way to die , " says one of the fallen warriors .
despite the larger - than - life battle sequences , i was unmoved by the entire experience .
at many points , i was even confused . for example , somewhere in the middle of the film , a sub - plot creeps up involving the prince of the threatened land .
he seems to have an agenda to elevate himself to greater power during this crisis .
however , the sub - plot never fully materializes , and we are left scratching our heads
as to the purpose of its inclusion .
there are other questions that i had , but
the real problem was that the story ( little of it that there was ) offered no characters to love or hate .
the leader of the viking warriors had the most charisma .
however , banderas 's role is completely underwritten
and it is unclear why being the 13th warrior makes him so special .
an entire rewrite of the ahmed character is in order .
also , much of the action takes place during torrential downpours or at night , which made battles very difficult to follow .
i would have preferred more time looking at the viking culture and how their beliefs shaped their decision to do battle against the enemy .
as it stands , the film manages more confusion than intensity .
it would make thor cry .
[A]:
N