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]: in the company of men made a splash at the sundance film festival because , in a year plagued by brothers mcmullen - style , earnestly shallow gen - x angst pictures , it seemed to be actually about something .
it angered people , started arguments outside the theater , riled things up .
it ignited a spark of excitement in what otherwise has been a disappointing year for independent film .
having endured my share of the hype , i waited calmly for men to reach the hinterlands wherein i reside , and then checked in to see what all the fuss was about .
does men live up to its press ?
well , yes it does .
and it may make you think twice before you consider dating anyone your office .
for the uninitiated , newcomers aaron eckhart and matt malloy play chad and howard , two corporate drones who are dispatched by their nameless company to a remote branch office for a six week assignment .
chad and howard are archetypes , examples of which you can no doubt find in your own place of business .
chad is the blond golden boy , genetically engineered for success , the natural charmer who seems to glide effortlessly up the corporate ladder .
howard is chad 's boss , but he is weaker of will , the clumsy practitioner of office politics who has achieved his position through dogged persistence rather than raw talent .
we first meet them awaiting their flight in a drab airport lounge .
there chad suggests a scheme worthy of a shakespearean villain : he and howard will find a vulnerable single woman at the branch office , woo her simultaneously , win her love , and then dump her .
the reason ?
both men have recently been dumped themselves , and chad sees an easy route to revenge against the fairer sex .
"
it 'll restore a little dignity to our lives , " he says .
howard , helpless against the force of chad 's will , agrees to the plan .
they quickly spot their prey in the form of christine ( stacy edwards ) , a fragile deaf woman working as a temp .
chad moves in for the kill , flashing his golden boy smile , plying christine with lunch , then flowers , then dinner .
howard follows suit , though his efforts are in contrast ham - handed and desperate .
flattered to have the attention of two eligible men , christine dates them both .
you can guess which one she falls for .
soon a tragic lovers ' triangle develops : christine loves chad , chad loves himself , and howard loves christine on the grounds that , since she 's handicapped and shy , she just might be wretched and lonely enough to settle for him .
adult social interaction never really progresses beyond the level of junior high , does it ?
in chad , writer / director labute and actor eckhart have created one of the most chilling monsters ever committed to film - hannibal lector may eat human flesh , but chad is an eater of souls .
his evil is as subtle as a viper 's , and as easy as his smile .
we watch in stunned disbelief as he back - stabs coworkers , humiliates his subordinates , and works his deadly venom into christine 's heart .
his character would be a joke if he was n't so chillingly real-
all of us have worked with a chad , and some of us may be him .
he 's the guy who takes your job and then laughs at you for your weakness .
if one of his co - workers should happen to go postal and walk into the office with a bag full of handguns , he had best have his escape route clearly in mind .
politics is his game , and the modern cubicle - filled office is his playground .
men wears the guise of a black comedy , but it functions best as allegory .
the most controversial moment in the film happens when chad humiliates a black temp by asking him how badly he wants to succeed in the company , then forces him to prove it in a manner i wo n't describe .
the scene is charged with racism and fraught with peril .
could it happen in the real world ?
probably not .
taken as allegory , however , it is representative of the treatment of the meek by the powerful in all facets of society .
maybe it 's just the english major in me , but chad , in his motiveless cruelty towards christine and his careful manipulation of howard , can be seen as a symbol of unbridled capitalism , of greed without conscience .
the entire film is a metaphor for social darwinism- only the strong will survive .
the marvel of labute 's multi - layered script is that it can disturb each member of its audience in an entirely different way .
but does the film work as entertainment ?
its darned funny in spots , particularly in the men 's room scenes , which demonstrate the lengths to which guys will go to hold a conversation while engaged in the most basic of bodily functions .
it works less well as drama , since by necessity the characters in an allegory tend to be flat ciphers .
stacy edwards gives a measured dignity to christine , and succeeds in making us care for her
, but by the end of the film we still know nothing about her .
likewise , chad and howard are simply the sum of their actions .
by the end of the film you 'll feel as if you 've met a genuine monster in chad ; perhaps we can also classify men as a horror film .
certainly those expecting a conventional hollywood resolution to the story will walk away disappointed . but the picture is often mesmerizing , and the script is a work of fine craftsmanship , which makes it well worth your time .
like all good films , it offers a myriad of parallels to the outside world .
while watching chad in his moment of triumph , i could n't help but think that bill gates must have felt the same sort of cold , merciless satisfaction when he finally stuck it to steve jobs .
there may be a little bit of chad in all of us , but some of us have taken chad - ness to the level of art .
[EX A]: P

[EX Q]: seen april 16 , 1999 at 10 p .
m . at crossgates cinema 18
( guilderland , n .
y . ) , theater # 15 , by myself for free using my hoyts ' critic 's pass .
[ theater rating :
*
* * 1/2 : very good seats , sound and picture ] do you realize that every time you encounter a new person you 've just become part of a story ?
everyone has their own life story , both past and present , and every time two or more interact , they become part of each others ' story ( not necessarily an important or even significant part , but a part nevertheless ) .
that seems to be the basic theory behind ' go , ' where several characters ' chance encounters all effect each other in extreme ways .
in order to test this theory screenwriter john august and director doug liman assemble a cast of characters that would n't usually be the types to have an entire film revolve around them , such as a teenage supermarket cashier , a bottom - of - the - drug - food - chain dealer and two struggling soap opera actors .
these types of characters might not sound all that original , but consider that they will all be somehow effected by a strip club bouncer and his psychotic father , a mid - level drug dealer , a narc obsessed with multi - level - marketing , horny wedding guests , a zen lovemaker , two shrimp - scarfers and a cute normal teenage girl to round things out .
how they will all come together is the process the film deals with .
i 'd imagine the concept to the film started out as the creators ' testing themselves to see if they could actually pull it off and the outcome is a terrific achievement in filmmaking and the craft of fiction in general .
the film starts out as anything else , with little indication of what 's to come .
we meet ronna ( polley ) , a depressed los angeles checkout girl who does n't seem to have much desire to do anything except work just to pay her rent .
she 's not very charming , especially to her customers , but this is played mostly for laughs rather than characterization and it works .
maybe this is because she 's not a very afeminite character , but she 's far from masculine - a creative character indeed .
things start to progress when ronna reluctantly agrees to take the hours of the goofy , hyperactive , yet likable simon ( askew ) , an english teen into vices for the sake of the experiences .
this agreement starts a three - pronged storyline as it allows simon to go to las vegas for the weekend with his friends and in turn drags ronna and her friends into buying and selling an experimental drug .
the process of which will not only bring ronna close to being arrested but also to death .
nearly the same can be said for two other characters , zack ( mohr ) and adam ( wolf ) , who we do n't think much of when they first appear as supporting characters , but later will become major players to the film 's makeup - another process used by the filmmakers to elaborate on the theory of how significant insignificant interaction might be .
once the pace is picked up the film really begins to show its mettle .
when the title screen ' ronna ' is flashed shortly after the aforementioned turning point scene , it 's clear this film is n't going to employ the standard linear method of storytelling .
considering how good it is up until that point , it 's a long overdue change of pace needed in movies today .
and so the film begins to take shape , first by following ronna and her friends on a one - night adventure that begins with a drug deal instigated by zack and adam ( who were actually looking for simon ) , which does n't exactly go as planned , but that 's what keeps it all so interesting .
the second storyline starts at the same moment as ronna 's story , but this time the camera chooses to follow simon instead .
simon and his three friends head to ? vegas for a night on the town and
in the process experience things they never would have imagined .
the third arc , about zack and adam , again overlaps with ronna 's story telling much of the same story but from a completely different angle .
we 're shown things we never would have expected were going on while following ronna .
and many of the events that do happen to ronna because of zack and adam are n't even their fault - they just happened to be where they were when they were .
i 'd really like to dissect each of the three storylines and especially how the film wraps up in the end , but that would take up too much time and space and spoil everything for those who have n't seen the film .
perhaps the greatest element to the film is its constant surprises and unpredictability , and not due to plot twists or a confusing screenplay , just through great filmmaking .
still , i can list and analyze nearly everything the film does so well : ?
direction : trying to piece together such a complex story is no easy task and for a rookie filmmaker such as liman ,
it 's a great accomplishment .
he does n't just depict a story , he wraps us up in it all , pulling us into the fray so that we experience every high and low .
?
screenplay : besides being chiseled with detail and creative in general
, it 's clear the script has been inspired by many sources , with both obvious and subtle references , yet it never screams ' rip - off . '
?
tone / mood :
where other hollywood films have failed to bring the charm of the independents to the mainstream , this one is able to create its own sense of the macabre .
it 's not overly - dark or twisted and the comedy is n't so satirical for it to be considered a black comedy , more like ' macabre light . ' ?
cinematography / art direction : able to photograph both the intense and the lighthearted in the same manner . ?
characterization : for nearly every character introduced , no matter what role they play in the big picture , we 're able to get a sense of who they are , what they 're thinking and how they came to be in their situations .
even when their actions are surprising , it never seems very out of synch . ?
performances :
every actor nails their role ( see above ) . ?
theme / theory
: the film does n't seem to be concerned with conveying any kind of political or social messages , instead , it 's more of a philosophical experiment .
in fact , it might not have meant to do that intentionally , but there definitely is something existential to it all . . . .
and to think that ' go ' is just a big comedy and adventure !
( 4/23/99 )
[ see also : ' the big lebowski , ' ' clerks , ' ' jackie brown , ' ' pulp fiction , ' ' true romance ; ' also by liman : ' swingers ' ]
[EX A]:
P