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

Ex Input:
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 Output:
P

Ex Input:
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 .

Ex Output:
P

Ex Input:
capsule : suprisingly more of a comedy than a straight action flick , which is n't necessarily a bad thing .
not exactly oscar caliber , but
one helluva bullet - riddled good time .
extended review : you know , i remember when hitmen were evil , murderous scum .
alas , the times are a - changin ' .
in a recent string of movies , hitmen are suddenly wise- cracking , fun - loving killers - with - hearts .
this brings us to hong kong director kirk wong 's first american feature , the big hit .
oddly enough , about the same time last year a similar film , grosse point blank , was released .
advertised as a quirky comedy with hints of action , it turned out to have a suprising dosage of it .
the big hit is quite the opposite .
it was hyped as " the new film from producer john woo " , so one would it expect lots of stylized killing and action .
however , there 's a sore lack of it , which is about the only thing wrong with the big hit .
the film starts out with mel smiley and his cohorts doing a job on a white slaver .
mel , played by mark wahlberg in a dopey , milquetoast role , is a killing machine ; he flips , spins , even breakdances whilst popping caps .
sadly , he does n't get a chance to do much of it . except for the beginning set piece and the last 20 twenty minutes or so , the film is in comedy mode .
the action , at least what there is of it , is prime cut stuff .
wong , after numerous hong kong features , makes quite a nice u . s .
debut
.
however , his pacing is a bit off , with the action sequences only bookending the movie and not lasting long enough .
they start off electrifying and fresh , but just kinda stop .
normally , this would hamper a movie to the point of being unenjoyable .
luckily , we have ben ramsey 's screenplay , a bitingly funny piece of work .
the only problem is there might be too much humor , one joke makes you laugh so hard you miss the next few .
some of best gags include an oriental film maker down on his luck and one of mel 's hitmen pals that has just discovered onanism .
the only problem is how some of the minor characters are handled , some being there only for a laugh , which sometimes works , sometimes does n't .
overall , the big hit may have it 's flaws , but it makes up for them in a stylishly directed , gut - wrenchingly funny joyride .
definately one of the better ways to spend two hours .

Ex Output:
P