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

as forgetful as some people may be it is doubtful that anyone could forget their wedding , especially three times .
but , alas professor brainard somehow manages to accomplish this feat twice before the momentous night that he actually creates flubber .
it 's amazing that he is able to remember any of the processes he uses to make anything .
the whole point here is how could a man be so blatantly forgetful .
this is not absent minded this is almost mindless and he is a professor .
well , this is the case for about the first half of the movie then things begin to settle into what might truly be considered absent minded .
along the way to becoming absent minded from absent of mind the professor stumbles onto flubber .
thankfully or there would be no movie or any amusement for the audience .
the flubber is supposed to be flying rubber , but it seems to have a life of its own .
this is there strictly for the kids .
the properties of the flubber provide some antics for the audience when flubber coated golfballs and bowling balls
assail
two would be thugs .
although amusing this is not original what so ever and brings back haunting memories of home alone .
the poor professor has to save the university where he teaches at , get his fiancee back , finally stop the plotting of an evil millionaire , and do all this in the funniest way possible .
admittedly there are funny moments but
the movie is rather shallow and does not compare very well to the original ( the absent minded professor ) .
the whole scene with the basketball game was just atrocious and totally unbelievable .
the basketball players , stereotypically unqualified for the sport , somehow manage to bounce , fly and dribble their way back to being close to winning ?
this just sounds too bad to be true , the least that could have been done was keep semi close to the original movie to give this film a chance .
as for innovations and new ideas there is but two good ones in this movie .
giving life to the flubber , which is so poorly executed that it 's best forgotten , and prof .
brainard 's flying robot weebo .
giving life to the flubber would have worked beautifully if it was n't for scenes of the sort where you have the flubber dancing around on tables and books for no real reason other than to put in a bit of music and extend the length of the movie .
the life of the flubber had brief and rather whimsical moments where it might have been used well , but it was n't and in the end might have done the movie more harm than good .
now , weebo is a totally different story .
it 's a robot that prof .
brainard created but forgot how and gave something of a life too .
this is a really original idea , well maybe not , but it is an idea that is well executed and in the end makes the poor robot the most developed and real character in the movie .
yes folks the little yellow robot has more emotion and character than the characters .
the film lacks the emotional punch to pull the audience in at all .
the acting by robin williams ( prof .
brainard ) seems to be half hearted for most of the movie and in many cases quite forced .
most of the acting in the movie was so convincing as to fool only the part of the audience that had not quite yet reached the age to 12 .
people when stood up at the altar , do n't usually give third chances .
or for that matter talk to the fiancee afterwards , but what can be expected this is a children 's movie .
flubber , as a movie
does little original and is nothing special in any respect .
with the best character in the movie being something of a prop
i doubt that many people will find it all that great .
it does have its amusing moments and it is a good story in the end , but it does not wash up to the original .
kids should find this movie amusing and fun
and they 'll probably enjoy the whole movie .
as a movie it 's just a kids movie and not the best of ones at that .
N

in my review of there 's something about mary , i said something to the effect of " laughter is n't everything .
"
i now need to make a brief addendum to my postulate : laughter is n't everything , unless i 'm watching a jim abrahams film .
see , spoofs are easy with me .
i love movies , and i love movies that make fun of movies that i love .
sometimes i 'm the only one in the theater laughing .
sometimes i laugh so hard that i embarass myself because my laugh is so high - pitched in comparison to my speaking voice
( it cuts right through everyone else 's laughter ) .
sometimes i laugh so much that my cheekbones are sore by the end of the film .
abraham 's latest film , mafia !
, induced this kind of hysteria upon me .
it 's gotten some mediocre reviews , but , hey , i 'm the guy who laughs at everything .
there may be a lot of jokes that flop in this film , but there are far more that work , and i laughed so frequently that the failed jokes usually occurred as i was recovering from the previous bout of giddy madness .
i enjoy films like this because not one second of it is serious or thought - provoking .
most lighweight films that pose as comedies try to do other things , like develop characters , shape stories , and other such nonsense .
mafia !
has no pretentions about characters or story , and it exists for no other reason than to make people laugh .
the film begins on the perfect high note , with a mockery of the opening of casino .
our hero ( jay mohr ) is seen walking from a casino and getting into his car , which subsequently explodes and sends him flying through the air against a backdrop of flowing fire . to describe the story of mafia ! is absurd and pointless , but i will mention that it basically follows the framework of the godfather films , with a lot of casino references inserted throughout .
along the way , the parodies seem arbitrary , and rarely victimize mob films : pictures like the english patient , forrest gump , and jaws undergo severe and hilarious bashing .
movies like this rely on just a few things , but the most important element is direction .
abrahams has been down this path many times before ( hot shots ! , top secret ! , airplane ! , and any other film with an exclamation point in the title ) , and so i hold most of the success of mafia !
to his experience .
he takes just the right attitude in each scene , and manages to wring at least a bit laughter out of even the most oddly placed references ( one inexplicable moment seems like it wants to make fun of titanic , but it never develops ) .
the actors are all energetic , which helps a lot with the tone of the film .
mohr ( suicide kings , paulie ) , who is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors , is so good here .
he looks like he 's having so much fun that he 's containing his laughter in every scene ( watch his face in the sequence by the swimming pool ) .
he 's probably the only performer in the cast who manages to urge laughter without the help of the material .
lloyd bridges does a decent imitation of brando 's godfather , while pamela gidley is dead - on in a full - blown mockery of sharon stone .
the hard thing about writing reviews for comedies is that i 'm supposed to give examples of things and be specific .
unfortunately , i was so constantly blindsided by laughter during mafia ! that i ca n't remember a lot of what made me laugh .
but that 's a good sign : mafia !
is so funny that i was n't even given time to apply any of the scenes to memory .
i laughed so hard that it shut off my brain
.
i know that does n't sound particularly complimentary , but when watching a dumb comedy like this , the first thing i want to do is shut off my brain .
finally , a film that does this for me .
P

no , i did not read the novel by thomas hardy , " jude the obscure , " his final novel ( final because this film created such an outrage that he never wrote again -
see
: i did do some research on it ) about a man who is plagued with bad luck throughout his entire life .
but , after watching the movie , i can imagine how incredibly depressing it is .
" jude " is a satirical film from start to finish about society 's way of spitting out and chewing up those unwanted in its system , but
what 's remarkable is how timeless this film is .
the film takes place in the late 19th century ( or early 20th - was n't really sure ) , but its story could even be retold today in modern form , although it 'd be kinda different ( a given ) .
it tells the story of jude ( christopher eccleston - the psychotic accountant from " shallow grave " ) - a simple , dim - witted young man with big dreams .
in its bleak , foreboding opening , shot in grainy black and white , he gets a lesson from phillotson ( liam cunningham ) , his teacher : as they stand upon a mountain , looking upon a city in the distance , he says all you have to do is work hard and you can have anything in the world .
after marrying and divorcing an immature woman named arabella ( rachel griffiths ) because they frolicked in the hay ( literally ) but did not ultimately share anything in common , he moves away to a town with a giant university , with a chance to learn more , and get ahead in life .
taking a welding job , he works hard while studying constantly for his college bars , reciting latin over and over again , and training himself .
but when he sends his application for the school in , he is bluntly told to just remain a worker .
another reason for going to this town was because someone in his family lives there : sue ( kate winslet ) , his cousin and a very intelligent but kinda mischevious young woman who wants to be a school teacher .
she and jude click eventually and become very endearing friends , so much that when she spends the night at his flat after running from her apprentice teacher job ( for none other than phillotson at the local school ) , there are rumors that she and jude did some nasty business ( nudge nudge ) .
several twists turn in the storyline , and eventually jude and sue do do some nasty business ( an interesting scene , to say the least . . . ) , and are soon born into a controversial non - wedlock , as she eventually gives birth to their baby , and jude inherits his son from arabella , who turns up again after awhile . because they are n't married , and because they 're cousins , they run into problems with every place they go to , carrying around two children everywhere , and only staying in lodges for a very brief period of time , then moving on . if you did n't think this was harsh enough , wait till you see what happens later on . . .
the sad truth is that jude is one of the miserable people who can never get any luck in this world .
he will never gain any true happiness , and any happiness that happens to him will be fleeting , and will probably bring more horrible instances to his life .
part of it is his fault - he 's too optimistic , and too gullible .
but society has a way of taking these people , and hurting them until their death .
the ending of " jude " is bleak because it has to be ( although i hear the ending of the novel is even worse - guess i 'll have to read it now ) .
" jude " offers a satirical view on society 's cruelties , but shows no way of curing this , and thank heavens it does n't .
there 's no way to relinquish the selfishness of society , and any solution would be too small to cure such a mass problem .
satire has always been one of the few ways of changing certain people 's minds , and that 's what " jude " is .
sure , it 's one hell of a downer , but it needs to be .
the film also posesses two fantastic performances from its two leads , and some good supporting work along with it .
christopher eccleston ( slightly resembling richard edson with his new look and dumb expression ) plays jude wonderfully , sometimes bringing a big dumb smile to his face , and making him kind of child - like at other times .
kate winslet , in a pre- " titanic " performance , is brilliant ,
nailing every psyche of her character , and creating someone who 's troubled but very seductive with her personality .
kate may be the best actress in her age group ( if you do n't believe me , see " titanic , " branagh 's " hamlet , " " sense and sensibility , " and " heavenly creatures , " the latter one being my favorite performance of hers ) .
in the supporting roles , liam cunningham is a wonderfully flawed teacher , exposing all his bad parts , but ultimately being a pretty good person ; and rachel griffiths is wonderfully immature as jude 's wife , whom he never divorces .
" jude " moves at a very slow pace , and keeps taunting its viewers with chances of happiness for its protagonists , which would drive some people nuts .
but those who appreciate good social commentary with their films ,
no matter how slow or downright depressing they are ( this one is both )
will appreciate
" jude , " though i doubt anyone truly enjoys it .
P