In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
--------
Question: historical epic as a genre was almost banished from hollywood in early 1990s .
for many critics , scholars and , most importantly , film producers , it was a thing of the past - something that could have attracted crowds only in the era of black - and - white television and non - cgi special effects .
but in 1995 , same as in the case of dances with wolves five years ago , there came the man who decided to use of all his energy and talents of actor , producer and director in order to revitalise that particular genre .
and , same as in the case of dances with wolves , he was awarded for his effort with " oscars " .
the name of the film was braveheart , and the name of its director and main actor was mel gibson .
the plot chronicles the life of scottish warlord and folk hero william wallace ( 1272 - 1305 ) .
in his time , english king edward i " longshanks " (
played by patrick mcgoohan ) has almost completely subdued entire british isles , including scotland , whose proud inhabitants are now subjected by " ius primae noctis " and various other forms of humiliation and oppression by english knights .
although english had killed his father many years ago , young scottish commoner william wallace ( played by mel gibson ) does n't care about politics and wants only to have peaceful life with his new bride murron ( played by catherine maccormack ) .
murron 's death changes that and wallace takes arms and , together with small but dedicated band of followers , begins guerrilla campaign that would systematically destroy almost every english garrison in the country .
through time , more and more people join his ranks and in 1298 wallace 's rag - tag army scores surprising victory against english knights in the battle of stirling bridge .
but the newly won freedom is endangered by the internal squabbles between scots themselves , especially nobles under pretender robert the bruce ( played by angus macfadyen ) , who would n't like to have a simple commoner as a national leader .
braveheart was only the second film in the directorial career by mel gibson , so it would n't be fair to compare it to the better known genre classics directed by david lean or anthony mann .
however , even when we apply such criteria braveheart is more than decent historical epic that takes new and refreshing approach to the genre .
the most noticeable element of this approach is naturalism .
while older hollywood films set in medieval europe used to give fairytale - like vision of picturesque castles , splendid costumes and knights in shining armour , gibson shows us the extremely unpleasant world of poverty and feudal injustice where might made right and life was hard , short and brutish .
this general unpleasantness is especially underlined in the scenes of battle , where hand - to - hand combat is naturalistically displayed in all its gory details , never seen since verhoeven 's ultra - naturalistic flesh & blood .
compared with this naturalistic approach , most of old hollywood epics look like stage plays .
braveheart also employs humour at the right places , not only to make bloody realities of medieval british isles more bearable to sensitive audiences , but also to underline its down - to - earth atmosphere , so different from previous historical epics .
what makes braveheart " larger than life " is his protagonist .
mel gibson obviously invested plenty of his energy and talent in bringing the mythical figure of william wallace and , as a result , character of 15th century poems is transformed into superhuman being that resembles late 20th century comic book hero .
wallace is more than superior to his enemies , both physically and mentally , yet he is able to show his sensitive , more vulnerable side .
naturally , when the character is based on epic poems , most of historical accuracy is going down the drain ( which was the case with almost every historical epic from hollywood in 1990s ) .
however , even those who do n't particularly care about history or are willing to give poetic license to scriptwriter randall wallace might think that he went over the top in idolising wallace , especially in the second part of film when scottish superhero manages to seduce princess isabel ( played by sophie marceau ) and make her a child .
because of that the disbelief is hardly suspended , and final scenes are n't as effective as they should be .
mel gibson as an actor is truly wonderful , and he is also helped by small army of very good british and irish actors .
most memorable of them all is patrick mcgoohan , whose cold , calculated and evil medieval monarch is one of the most effective villains seen in contemporary cinema .
brendan gleeson ( who would later become famous for his role in boorman 's general ) is also very good
as wallace 's trusted companion , as well as ian bannen is effective as leprosy - stricken king john balliol .
david o'harra is very entertaining as wallace 's irish ally , and angus macfadyen brings a lot of anxiety into his conscience - stricken character of robert the bruce .
women in this film have rather thankless roles , especially marceau as one - dimensional french princess .
catherine mccormack as wallace 's wife was more interesting , but she was eliminated from the picture early on .
from the technical point of view , the film is also very good .
photography by john toll brings a lot of scottish natural beauty to the screen .
on the other hand , the musical score by james horner employs too much of modern - day instruments for period piece set in medieval times .
although mostly welcomed by critics and audiences alike , braveheart was often criticised for homophobia and other forms of extreme conservatism .
the main reason for that was the fact that gibson , among many historical facts , chose to be faithful only to those related to sexual orientation of " longshank " 's son prince edward ( played by peter hanly ) .
he is not only presented as a villain , but also as one of the less competent in villain 's camp - and portraying of homosexuals as villains or inferior to heterosexuals is almost unforgivable sin in " politically correct " hollywood . to make things even more obvious , good guys in this film are the total opposite of effeminate and incompetent edward - rugged macho men of mountains who are more practical and efficient because they tend to employ conservatives ' common sense instead of fashionable theories of ivory tower liberals .
however , although the message of this film might look right - wing , it owes more to leftist ideology of various national liberation movements in 20th century .
according to that ideology , oppressed classes ( workers , peasants ) are better suited to fight for national freedom because their members has less to lose in that struggle and , as such , they are more radical , less willing to make compromises and more efficient ; on the other hand , privileged classes ( aristocracy , bourgeoisie ) are more likely to betray the cause of freedom and be in cahoots with foreign oppressors in order to keep their privileges .
this marxist worldview is presented in braveheart without any subtlety .
in the end , whether the audience is patient enough to discover hidden meanings or simply wants to enjoy entertaining historical epic , braveheart is more than adequate choice for all fans of this recently resurrected genre .

Answer: P

Question: stephen , please post if appropriate .
" mafia ! "
- crime is n't a funny business by homer yen ( c ) 1998 on a particular night when i found myself having some free time , i had a chance to either go to sleep early or to see " mafia ! " , a spoof of mafia and crime films such as " the godfather , " " goodfellas " and " casino " .
at 84 minutes in length , i thought that i could enjoy a few laughs before getting a good nights sleep .
but by my account , i think that my laff - o - meter only registered a few grins , one giggle , and maybe one chortle .
i suppose that you could justify your time as homage to the venerable hollywood star , lloyd bridges , who just recently passed away and whose last performance was in this film .
" mafia !
" chronicles vincenzo cortino 's ( lloyd bridges ) life . separated from his family when he was young , he escapes to america and tries to live an honest life .
but as fate would have it , vincenzo grows up to be a powerful and klutzy crime lord .
following in his footsteps are his two sons , joey ( billy burke ) and anthony ( jay mohr ) .
like all siblings in powerful crime families , they squabble over power , the future of the family , fortune , and women .
" mafia !
" is co - written by jim abrahams , who also contributed to some gut - busting funny spoofs such as " airplane " and " the naked gun .
"
but these previous movies were funny because the jokes seemed more universally understood and there was more of a manic silliness at work .
as i write this , i also wonder how many people have actually seen the movies on which this spoof is based .
crime movies in general contain a lot of profanity and violence .
it 's a tough genre to parody .
i was kind of hoping that they could somehow spoof the profanity used in all of those crime movies , maybe by having all of the tough crime lords say " please " as they decide which sector to take over , but this opportunity was never explored .
there were one or two moments that made me smile such as the scene where vincenzo is dancing with his newly we d daughter - in - law .
a gunman shoots him several times .
the impact of the bullets cause him to make these wild contortions that force the wedding band to change music styles to keep up with him , from the samba to disco to the macarena .
i think that i just gave away the best part of the film .
oh well , that just means that you can go to sleep a little earlier .

Answer: N

Question: remember back in the mid 1990s when crime and macabre movies were all the rage ? " pulp fiction " and " fargo " both managed to get oscar nominations for the best picture , and not surprisingly , a slew of rip - offs followed in the years thereafter .
that fad seems to be over but here comes christopher mcquarrie writing and directing " the way of the gun
" that at first glance looks like another of those wanna -
be 's but upon closer inspection does n't look like anything comprehendable .
it 's a crime story
so wrapped up in its own little world
it has a claustrophobic atmosphere - a film that wo n't allow the story much room to expand outside its handful of characters and somehow still manages to turn a simple premise into something so complex its ridiculous .
complexity should come as no surprise to anyone who 's familiar with mcquarrie , he wrote " the usual suspects , " which has become a cult favorite despite little critical acclaim .
that film had a great story and was well directed but had such an elaborate , confusing screenplay it leaves many viewers scratching their heads after repeated viewings .
you have to wonder if mcquarrie really had everything mapped out or if he was going for the hollywood idea that " if it 's really confusing and about criminals and cops that makes it fascinating .
" with " the way of the gun " mcquarrie seems to be capitalizing on the same idea , but this time the story is far less commercial - a shame because maybe that would have helped .
the film tells the story of two drifters with no ambition and barely a reason to live but are n't hell - bent on death either ( played by ryan phillipie and benecio del toro ) .
they get lucky when they hear about a scheme between a big - shot exec guy and his trophy wife who are going to have a baby through in vitro fertilization .
they figure they can kidnap the surrogate mother ( played by juliette lewis ) and get a nice ransom .
along the way we continually learn of the shady dealings between the exec , his wife , their hired goons and the " bag man " ( played by james caan - the only actor in the film who looks like he knows what he 's doing ) .
the exec is some kind of money launderer so he obviously ca n't call the authorities for help .
his goons and the bag man are on the kidnappers ' trail and each make different offers to get the mother back .
the exec 's son is a doctor who also gets pulled into the fray and wants to make sure his patient is all right .
meanwhile each of these characters has something hidden up their collective sleeves and the double - crosses , secret love affairs and torrid pasts come as no surprise even though little of it has any relevance at all .
mcquarrie does n't know the meaning of the word simple .
he seems to be more interested in showing us how clever he is than making a good movie .
everything has to be complicated and confusing , so much so that it 's to the point of surrealism .
nothing is what it seems in this reality , it 's one of those movies where you get dropped right into the middle of the criminal world and are expected to know most of the industry 's rules and regulations .
every scene with caan 's character exemplifies this perfectly - the kidnappers already know who he is and even chat with him , getting into conversations about " the business " and how it works and we 're hardly given a clue as to what they 're talking about .
these characters are probably supposed to be great criminal sketches but
they 're more like ideas ripped - off from sketches found in david mamet 's trash .
no one here really acts like a real person , and the story is even further removed from reality .
it 's like a dream without any appeal .
take the opening scene for example ; the phillipe and del toro characters are in a parking lot across the street from a bar or a club counting their money and stuff .
they sit on a brand - new mercedes and the car alarm goes off , the owner is waiting in line and yells at them to get away from his car
but they do n't move .
the guy and his loud - mouth , potty - mouth girlfriend and about 20 other people cross the street and gang up on them .
you 'd think phillipe ?
and del toro are ? going to pull out guns and scare them away
but they do n't , instead phillipe throws one punch and the two get beat down by a mob .
there 's a lot of things i did n't understand about this scene : first of all the owner of the mercedes is n't some yuppie or old rich snob , he 's like a hippie straight out of the 60s .
secondly , the two main characters seem to believe that they can actually take on the mob unarmed . lastly ,
it serves no purpose in the long run because later in the film the two are packing more artillery than a small country 's army . if they were suicidal they would n't have gone on the kidnapping job in the first place ( and where they get all those guns is never explained either ) .
there 's a lot more i could pick apart about this film but that would be an exercise in futility .
what it all comes down to is that nothing here is what it seems - which would be great if this movie were about pretty much any other story than what it is .
absolutely none of the characters are likable or believable .
and it 's all coated with a thin layer of black comedy which is good for a chuckle here and there
but this film is definitely not a flat - out black comedy and its use of such seems like a desperate attempt to kill screen time .
with any film you see , whether you like it or not , you can at least understand what the appeal was to it , why someone would want to make it and why someone would want to see it .
i ca n't say either for " the way of the gun , " because it has very little going for it and
i ca n't imagine anyone intelligently defending it .

Answer:
N