In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
--------
Question: probably the most popular and praised film of all time , turned out to be a primitive and predictable costume drama with a dose of social criticism .
everyone knows about the greatest and most famous shipping disaster of all time .
and the actual catastrophe is masterfully crafted by director james cameron , combining visual -and sound effects , he re - creates the frightening atmosphere of the sinking ship in the middle of nowhere .
i liked very much
the emotional and brutal contrast between the first and the third classes .
while their cabin is slowly filling up with water , a mother is telling her children a fairytail -- " .
.
and they lived happily ever after . .
"
.
and then the ship goes down
and the few survivors are left alone under the stars and the chilling air .
however , the actual disaster is happening almost at the end of the movie , while the first two hours are just beautiful sets and bad dialogues .
in the present day , the rms titanic is explored by brock lovett ( bill paxton ) , a treasure seeker looking for the coeur de la mer diamond , lost during the sinking .
somewhere inside the ship , lovett 's crew discover a sketchbook of an artist long dead .
here , in the shape of a nude young lady , is a window into the distant age of 1912 .
lovett is extremely surprised when he get 's a phone call from rose dawson , claiming that she is a model .
she is immediately helicoptered onto the vessel , and she gets the first glimpse of the fated ship in 80 years .
as the memories come flooding back , she once again becomes rose dewitt buketer ( kate winslet ) , the fianc ?
e of wealthy cal hockley ( billy zane ) and daughter of ruth dewitt bukater ( frances fisher ) .
on board there are rich and poor , everyone trust in the ship 's designer ( jonathan hyde ) and her master , captain e .
j .
smith ( bernard hill ) .
on board the ship , rose , unhappy and restless meets jack ( leonardo dicaprio ) - a young american artist , poor , brave and attractive .
a love story slowly emerges and the two lovers must not only experience the difference between the social classes , but also face the greatest power on earth - death .
cameron could as well have called his picture " the never ending love " or " love at first sight " , as he concentrates all his energy on the young couple , and not on the disaster itself .
the plot is anything but original and the dialogues sometimes resemble a television soap - opera .
the director does n't even try to overcome his empty script . because of its primitive and predictable plot , titanic is totally depending on the visuals that truly are breathtaking .
russel carpenter 's rich , majestic and incredibly detailed cinematography is certainly award - worthy .
everything from art direction to visual and sound effects are a top notch .
but it does n't help much when the costumes are more convincing than the actors who wear them .
the actors are not to blame , because their characters are more like caricatures , in other words - fake .
jack is a man with many talents : he is a talented artist , handsome , brave , honest , strong , funny . . .
you name it .
he does n't have any dark side , he does n't make any mistakes , that for a second would make him human .
jack is perfect , but he is - poor .
on the other hand we have cal .
he is a bastard that treats rose as an odalisque and not as his wife - to - be .
he lacks everything jack possesses , but he is -- rich .
this childish contrast between the social classes is one of those things that makes titanic nothing more than a mediocre picture .
cameron knows precisely what we want to see .
his film therefore contains certain minimums to draw an audience - attractive actors , a " tragic love story " , beautiful visuals ( including expensive special effects ) , a dose of social criticism , a fascinating historical event ( we love true stories ) and last , but not least - an incredible media support , which proclaimed an average picture the " greatest film of all time " .
on the outside titanic looks perfect , but behind that sparkling curtain of incredible visuals - is emptiness - nothing to think about .
the main weakness of this film , which ironically became its success , is simplicity .
cameron enables our basic and if you wish - primitive emotions : love , hate , fear and helplessness .
everyone understands the power of love and the threat to our beautiful couple is likewise imaginable - a sinking ship .
titanic is a typical hollywood production , totally and completely dependent on visual perfection to hide its primitive plot .
it 's a good picture , but absolutely not a masterpiece .
it 's among hundreds and thousands good films released every year , not better or worse than the average american film .

Answer: P

Question: plot summary : the year is 2024 .
the ozone layer has long since gone and the earth is now protected from radiation by a shield invented by connor mccleod .
the shield , although saving lives , has made the atmosphere hot and humid .
connor is a mortal and a tired old man who has given up hope .
on returning from the opera one night connor is accosted by the leader of a " terrorist " organisation .
they have tried to find out what the company that now runs the shield unit are covering up .
connor is then attacked by two assassins sent by katana from the planet zeist ( like zeit -- get it ? ) .
they fail and connor becomes immortal again by chopping their heads off .
he then brings ramirez back to life in glencoe in scotland .
both ramirez and connor are rebel leaders back on zeist and have been sent to earth as punishment .
connor now has the option to return being the last one but opts to stay with his new found immortality and fight to find out about the company and the shield .
katana meanwhile , fearing connor would return , sets out himself to kill the highlander .
if you have never seen it . being a fan of highlander and mr .
connery , i was in the cinema as soon as i could to see highlander ii :
the quickening .
i wish it had been quicker .
i feel whatever else you can say about a film ( bad script bad music , etc . ) if you sit just plain bored through most of it then nothing much else needs to be said .
the film was short but in my opinion only twelve minutes or so
( the time mr .
connery is on the screen for ) is worth watching .
the plot sounds a little ridiculous but i was willing to give it a chance .
maybe they could pull it off .
instead , i find that the characters have completely changed from those in the first film .
it 's as if they are different people with the same names .
witness connor jumping into bed with the leader of the resistance -- where is the attitude of " who wants to live forever , when love must die " gone to ?
the love sub - plot
* must * have had footage cut out .
the highlander and ramirez both seemed aware of powers they had never mentioned before .
putting our heroes in deadly situations and then having them walk away because of some new power is very annoying .
i still want to know why connor 's coat becomes flame proof when he is immortal !
we are not given enough time on zeist to believe in it , nor are we told why advanced aliens still use swords to kill .
why not dynamite or laser saws or just plain bullets followed by a quick chop to the neck ?
i know the head needs to come off
but you could at least immobilise your opponent with laser rifles first .
to be fair one assassin tried this
but he must be the world 's worst shot .
meanwhile connor develops luke - skywalker - like powers of laser beam deflection .
as for " bad guys , " we see a rebellion on zeist , crushed easier than a grape and then the rest of the plot depends on katana being obsessed with killing mccleod in case he returns to zeist .
two assassins are sent , presumably they are meant to be good at killing but an aged connor kills them both with no problems .
no more assassins are sent .
katana , supposedly a very powerful man goes himself to kill connor .
has he no more assassins ?
has he no better ?
why was the rebellion crushed so easily then ?
michael ironside is totally unconvincing
( bring back the kurgan ) .
he seems like a cartoon character and really is n't that evil , just stupid and violent .
we see the hollywood trick of the chief nasty threatening a child again and killing lots of innocents .
yet he still seems like no threat -- perhaps because he seems too stupid to threaten connor , or maybe because his two best assassins would n't have been amiss with larry , curly and mo .
so much for plot and characters .
the music is atrocious .
it is at best intrusive and at worst annoying . bring back queen .
there was an audible sigh ( of relief ? )
when connor played a queen track in a juke box .
i believe this at least is to be corrected for the american release .
the acting is at best flat , except for mr .
connery .
lambert is uninteresting and when he delivered " there can be only one " this time around it
just made me wish there had only been one -- highlander .
michael ironside is unconvincing
; sorry , michael , i usually like you and everyone else was incredibly forgetable .
so why 2/10 ?
visually the film is interesting at all times .
it has a blade runner feel to it and some of the special effects are quite stunning .
add to this an irrepressible sean connery who smiles throughout the whole film -- or is he smirking to himself ?
his lines and delivery might make the film worthwhile
had it not been so obvious that he can not take the whole thing seriously at all
but hey
--
*
i 'd * have done it for 12 million .
oh , and i agree with a previous reviewer
, she * does * look like sharon stone but i believe it is her first film .
incidentally there is a line producer credited and i hear rumours of highlander iii : the wizard .

Answer: N

Question: i 've heard it called " jaws with claws " and that 's a fair summation of the plot , though that tag line does little to quantify quality .
director stephen hopkins ( blown away , predator 2 ) and screenwriter william goldman ( maverick , misery )
would have you believe that this is an epic historical drama about man against nature , based on what really happened in africa to the railroad workers trying to build a bridge to the 20th century .
they 've stacked the deck with two big stars ( val kilmer , michael douglas ) , a bigger production design , beautiful photography ( by academy award winner vilmos zsigmond ) , and a score
so overblown that it makes the lion king soundtrack sound like chamber music .
the movie does n't make a lick of sense , though , either as an epic or as your basic boo - fest
.
in fact , some of the bits are
so laughably ludicrous that you may think you 've stumbled into the sequel to mystery science theater 3000 :
the movie .
how about the three guys with rifles , who trap a lion and then ca n't even hit the damned thing ? or the ham - on - wry acting of michael douglas , who chews more scenery than the animals ever do ? ?
or , my favorite , lions so agile that they can even climb onto rooftops ? ! ?

Answer:
N