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

[EX Q]: is jimmy stewart the greatest actor of all - time ?
it 's quite possible .
his career spanned over 40 years , and he acted in more movies than most actors ever could .
yet , when he is talked about in the media , he is generally thought of as an actor who played one type of role : the nice guy .
and that 's really a shame .
"
the naked spur " features jimmy stewart in a role completely different than what people would expect from him .
it 's a western , which stewart specialized in around this period , and it casts him as a desperate man out to collect a bounty on a man who used to be his friend .
before he finds that man , though , he runs into two men who agree to help him , thinking he is a sheriff .
when the criminal is eventually caught , the two men discover stewart 's secret , and decide they want a piece of the action too .
the rest of the film is a suspenseful journey in which each man suspects the other constantly .
also featured is the woman travelling with the criminal , well played by janet leigh .
we 're never too sure who 's side
she 's really on until the end .
leigh is an actress probably best known for her role as the " shower lady " from " psycho " , and that 's unfair .
she gives a strong performance as a woman who is pulled between these two men .
stewart gives a performance unlike anything i 've ever seen from him .
he usually keeps cool no matter what occurs , but here , he gets downright hysterical at times .
i think perhaps he took this role to prove to the public that he was more than just a " nice guy " .
his performance borders on psychotic at times , but
i loved watching every second of it .
it 's roles like this one that make me admire him as much as i do .
he was an actor unafraid to take chances , and even ruin his public image .
[EX A]: P

[EX Q]: much ballyhoo has been made over this new version of " lolita , " made in a time when one would think that a faithful adaptation of the infamous novel could be made , over its use of pedophilia , and as such , it 's important to address it straight - forwardly , before any other ideals such as goodness and themes can be discussed , as this film has been in film limbo for a number of years , lying around in vaults san a distributor , and having critics waiting to either hail it
a masterpiece or call it anticlimactic horseshit .
when seeing this film , after all the hoopla , keeping in mind that there are people , namely me , who are fans of the novel , who have been eagerly awaiting this flick since its creation . . .
well , you just have to wonder why no one really picked it up for distribution .
what 's even worse is that seeing this " lolita , " especially the first time and if you 're familiar with anything " lolita , " is admittingly very anticlimactic .
this is a real pity because when you really sit down to watch this film , ignoring all the crap that has preceeded it , it 's really quite a film , perhaps the best film by director adrian lyne ( although , really , look at its competition : " flashdance , " " fatal attraction , " and " indecent proposal " ) , at least besides " jacob 's ladder .
"
i 've seen this " lolita " twice : the first time , i was n't so blown away .
it seemed overly dramatic and surprisingly unaffecting .
the second time , not really thinking about how i 've waited for what seems like forever to see it and how i 'm seeing it on a tv set on a premium cable channel and not a giant movie theatre ,
it really affected me emotionally .
the story itself is a surprisingly heartbreaking one , which is why it 's such a good novel , and why this is such a good film .
the story of a pedophile obsessed with a young 14-year old girl named dolores a .
k .
a . lolita is great because it 's not trash for the perverted
but because it 's about human obsession with things that are out of one 's reach .
its protagonist , the comically - named humbert humbert , is not your average pedophile , but a seriously wounded human being who embodies how we are all destroyed by our sick obsessions and idosyncrasies .
the character of lolita is almost a symbol of the forbidden apple in christian mythology , something that will destroy us but that we ca n't live without .
these ideas are all worked into this film nicely , but done in a way that is not heavy - handed at all , but instead lyrical and emotionally devastating .
the focus of this film , and the reason for making it , it seems , was to really penetrate the emotional depths of the novel and bring them to life on the screen in beautifully dramatic images , and scenes which are blatantly over - stylized .
the tone of the book is a comical one , but it 's also a tragic one , and humbert , telling the story from his perspective , blows every single thing out of perspective .
humbert exists in a fantsy world of his obsessions and desires , and this reflects the way the entire film has been designed .
we get a sense that perhaps it 's by doing this that humbert has really trapped himself into a fate that will ultimately leave him haggard and destroyed .
he weeps uncontrollably and never lets himself get over his original 14-year - old love , and allows himself to embody her as lolita .
he lets his feelings for her navigate all his decisions , and by the end , he has nothing but overly - dramatic feelings for her .
the story recognizes the extreme of this , almost out of a test , seeing if the readers will really sympathize with someone who is socially deemed a pervert , and one almost wonders while reading the book if the author , vladimir nabokov , wrote the book as a means to bring into focus his own sick obsessions , and perhaps bring them to peace .
the weirdest thing about this film is that by the end , when humbert has reached the finale of his obsessional journey , we can easily sympathize and even identify with him .
the opening and final images of the film are the same , and who has n't done a similar action , that is wandering about without any sense of reality or anything else but a deep sadness in us ?
this is the second time the novel has been adapted for the screen , the first time being filmed in - shock - 1962 , by stanley kubrick , who could n't possibly have brought the novel to the screen with as much faithfulness as lyne has been able to do , but did the next best thing : he economized for everything and came up with a droll black comedy about obsession in general .
in that film , he used the traps of society as benefits .
the studio demanded the final scene , that of a heinous murder , come first in the film so to portray humbert first as a murderer and second as a pedophile . . .
and when you see it , it gives the film depth of a man trapped by obsession .
the censors would n't allow anymore than a couple glances and subtle dialogue to show the , um , relationship between humbert and lolita , so kubrick decided to play it as comedy , but still allow the tragedy to seep through . looking at these two versions , especially after reading the novel ( and we all know that when we 've read a novel and see a film adaptation , we are bound to be angered by any size differences ) , it 's really impossible to compare them .
they both go for different things , and one has a lot more room to be as sexually frank as the novel was .
and although it 's true that several scenes are similar , and are thus up for comparison , overall it 's unfair to say which one is better and which one is worse .
i have never been one for saying the level of greatness of a film adaptation of a novel is deemed by how faithful it is , and i wo n't say that here . however ,
this film is pretty amazing , mostly because hey , i loved the book , and this film nearly reminded me of it .
it does n't have nearly as much wit ( a couple comical scenes , and even a lot of good chuckles , but just not totally witty ) , but it does have the same emotional toll that the novel had .
some of that is in the casting of the two leads .
jeremy irons , with his deep , soft british voice and gentle look , is an amazing humbert .
he 's droll in a very unique way , and , well , no one can look distraught the way he does .
he brings a wonderful sympathy to the role that goes beyond pathos and really comes up as being easy to identify with the audience .
and when he looks at lolita with love , and she looks at him with lust , you know that he 's her prisoner for as long as he lives .
and dominique swain , who plays the title character , is rather incredible .
she pulls off the tough role even better than sue lyon did in the original , wonderfully balancing the qualities of seduction , bratiness , and self - centeredness that marks the character .
it 's easy to see why she surrenders to humbert : she loves the attention , and knows that she can have her way with him at any time .
when he denies her something , she blackmails him effortlessly ( a scene involving a rocking chair and a little foot action is damn near classic ) , and when he stands up to her , she weeps and runs away , leaving humbert to follow her .
there are two other minor characters in the film , one who 's a road block in the beginning , and the other who 's a reappearing threat to the relationship .
the former is charlotte , lolita 's mother , played by melanie griffith .
in the book , charlotte is a monster of a woman : overbearing , constantly scolding her child , overly - religious , and ultimately selfish .
and she 's the one obstacle humbert
has to overcome to obtain his goal , at least in the beginning .
as played by shelly winters in the original , she represented all these qualities ; as played by griffith here , she 's about half of them .
it 's annoying to watch a film and play a game where you try to see who could have done the role way better than the one on screen without mentioning the actor who played them first .
and even though griffith is not really bad , persay , she 's nothing more .
the other is clare quilty , the writer who is also trying to seduce lolita , and succeeds , but at a price .
langella takes a totally different direction than the one peter sellars took in the original .
quilty was a comic character in the original :
a threat in the form of many forms , popping in states of rambling , german , proning , and eventually drunk .
langella takes the other route , allowing all of the creepiness to be unearthed , and the result is a character who exists in shadows and low shots , and who meets a wonderfully ironic ending , the exact opposite of what we thought of him .
as you can see , most of these are not improvements or mistakes done on the part of lyne and his screenwriter , stephen schiff , but just parts of a whole new look at the novel , at least cinema - wise .
this version is beautiful , and perpetually saddening .
the camera movements are stylized , and each shot is breathtakingly rich .
the acting is for the most part wonderful , and when we watch it , we really get a sense that for humbert , who is telling the story , the only two people on earth most of the time were humbert and lolita .
more importantly , it takes us right up the brink of emotion , then jumps right over it .
by the end , with humbert sadly driving recklessly in his car , following what he says is the only part of his life he does n't regret , we feel that we all lose to something we can never have .
[EX A]: P

[EX Q]: you would think that this film 's dismal failure would be due to american filmmakers getting hold of a brilliant british comedy and " americanizing " it .
you 'd be wrong , since full blame can be placed on the very folks who wrote and created the series : rowan atkinson , robin driscoll , and richard curtis .
should you ever happen to meet those chaps , do me a favor . grab them by the hair and yell really loudly in their ear , " what were you thinking ? !
have you ever heard the phrase ' if it ai n't broke do n't fix it ' ? !
" then walk away .
the film concerns mr .
bean ( atkinson ) and his visit to america while escorting the painting of " whistler 's mother " to an american buyer ( played by burt reynolds , in the type of bit part that his success in " boogie nights " should hopefully do away with ) .
now how or why mr .
bean is sent on this trip makes no sense , and i ca n't even describe how the film explains it .
the point is that mr .
bean comes to america and causes wacky trouble .
problems problems problems , where to begin ?
first , the score music from the tv show has been completely replaced by score that is
either at times one note away from the score from " beetlejuice " or one
note away from the score from " rob roy " .
then , the song choices are totally uninspired .
" good vibrations " ?
"
i love l . a . " ?
wow , do n't put any thought into that guys .
also , bean makes way too much noise in the film .
the character does n't speak much , but in the series you really only heard the laughter of the audience , and maybe the occasional murmur from mr .
bean .
each episode was like a chaplin silent movie .
in the film , bean is constantly moaning , grunting , whining , etc .
it 's annoying , and just plain wrong for the character .
the main problem though is that it 's just not funny
.
with each episode of the series there would be dozens of really great laughs crammed into less than 30 minutes .
multiply that running time by three however , and the laughs steadily decrease .
they even have the gaul to repeat jokes from the series .
sad , and creatively lazy
. as a series , " mr . bean " only ran for about 13 episodes or so .
why on earth did atkinson and the gang decide it was time to completely rework everything ?
13 half - hour episodes certainly had n't exhausted all possible situations .
all i can say positively for the film at this point is that it 's almost appropriate for all ages , if it was n't for a couple of scenes where it appears as though
mr .
bean is having sex with things .
and even that is n't a very positive statement .
please guys , go back to england and go back to television so you 'll make me laugh again .
[ pg-13 ]
[EX A]:
N