In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
--------
Question: eyes wide shut is n't the masterpiece many were hoping to see in stanley kubrick 's final film , but it is an impressive achievement ; a mesmerizing , haunting , adult psychodrama about marriage , fidelity and sex .
it 's a stanley kubrick film from beginning to end , consistently exhibiting the auteur 's trademark penchant for long , continuous takes , his unparalleled deftness behind the camera and his uncanny ability to extract gorgeous performances from his exhausted cast ( indeed , eyes wide shut attained infamy even before its release for its notoriously laborious shoot : kubrick , a renowned perfectionist , reportedly held his cast " hostage " on the set for nearly a year ) .
in an uncharacteristic maneuver , kubrick cast two big - name stars in the lead roles , namely real - life husband and wife tom cruise and nicole kidman .
they play bill and alice harford , a volatile couple who , during the course of a couple nights , ponder the validity of the idea that a husband and a wife must be faithful to each other .
he is an m .
d .
, she 's unemployed and we are introduced to them as they are getting ready to go to a fancy party .
at the affair , they are both propositioned and both nearly succumb to the temptation to play around with someone else .
when they return to their lavish new york apartment kidman ( after smoking a dash of weed ) inquires whether her husband had sex with two models who approached him during the night .
he ( truthfully ) says that he did not and asks what happened with that hungarian guy she was dancing with .
they proceed to argue until alice tells her spouse a lustful story : evidently some time ago , she had a thing for a young naval officer .
she admits that she was ready to give up her whole future with bill and their young daughter if this guy wanted her even for one night .
bill is jolted by alice 's story and we anticipate his reaction , but at that moment he gets a phone call and has to go " show his face " at the house of a just - deceased patient .
this turns out to be the beginning of a long and eventful night on the town .
the daughter of the dead patient hits on him
but he wisely turns her down .
he almost does the dirty deed with a kindly hooker who approaches him on the street .
then , through a series of coincidences , he winds up at a gothic mansion where a ritualistic ( and frankly , creepy ) orgy takes place , with costumed people performing various public sex acts on each other .
erotic dread mounts as cruise ( who 's not supposed to be there ) wonders the spacious halls watching the " action " until he is discovered to be an outsider .
much hoopla has been raised over the fact that warner bros .
digitally edited the orgy scene .
with the help of a computer , they put in cloaked figures to block some of the actual sex acts ( they can still be seen , just not in all their glory ) in order to avoid the dreaded nc-17 rating .
european viewers will see the film as kubrick envisioned it .
roger ebert calls the american version the " austin powers version , " and many others have bashed the alterations .
i am of the potentially controversial opinion that the figures only supplement the scene 's mystical atmosphere .
the first thing one notices about eyes wide shut is how it looks .
this is an artful , distinctively gorgeous production , shot in dark , moody hues and featuring some elaborate , beautiful scenery .
from the giant mansion used in the film 's centerpiece to the decor at the christmas party to the harford 's apartment , this film is always a pleasure to look at .
to boot , a great soundtrack makes it more atmospheric still .
at the core , behind the graphic , controversial content and unappealing mood , this is a good - natured movie that emphasizes the importance of fidelity .
it looks at sex as almost perfunctory by portraying it as unnerving rather than erotic .
it 's something superficial and yet something necessary to achieve a deeper relationship .
at the end , it seems , bill 's eyes are wide open to the special kind of love he and his wife have for each other , more meaningful than anything he could ever hope to find on the streets of new york .
kubrick
elicits wonderful performances from both cruise and kidman .
tom is completely convincing as dr .
harford , a man who seems guided solely by destiny , with no control of the course his life will take .
nicole projects a quiet intensity as the jittery yet aggressive wife and her performance is stunningly effective
: she 's headed for an oscar nod .
the movie has some help from a similarly strong supporting cast , at the head of which is director - cum - thespian sidney pollock , enigmatic and articulate as harford 's mysterious friend .
eyes wide shut is not perfect : the last hour could have used a slightly more scissor - happy editor and both cruise and kidman are too good- looking for me to believe that either would have a very strong temptation to philander .
still , this is an important work from a great director , and while it may not be on par with some of stanley kubrick 's best it is a worthy final film , a complex exploration of jealousy and faithfulness . ?
1999 eugene novikov&#137 ;

Answer: P

Question: as we see the terrible events that unfold before our eyes in the middle east at the moment , hollywood does n't loose the oppertunity to get involved , by telling stories and expressing opinions .
this film centers on a relationship forged throughout the adult lifetimes of two marine colonels , hays hodges ( tommy lee jones ) and terry childers ( samuel l . jackson ) .
they fought side by side in vietnam , where childers saved hodges ' life by shooting an unarmed pow .
that 's against the rules of war but understandable , in this story anyway , under the specific circumstances .
certainly hodges is not complaining .
years pass .
hodges , whose wounds make him unfit for action , gets a law degree and becomes a marine lawyer .
childers , is now a respected and much - decorated hero that has served his country with his life and sould .
because of his excellent record , childers is sent to yemen to rescue the american ambassador ( ben kingsley ) , cowering in the embassy under assault from violent demonstrators and snipers blasting from rooftops .
childers does what he has to do : evacuate the family and protect the men under his command .
after three marines die and the colonel thinks he sees ground fire , he orders his troops to shoot into the firing crowd .
more than 80 yemeni men , women , and children are mowed down .
childers is immediately accused of ordering his men to fire on a crowd and murder of unarmed civilians .
he persuades his old friend hodges to represent him in the courtroom drama that occupies the second half of the film .
did childers violate authorized u . s .
military rules of engagement ?
or are there simply no rules in war ?
the answers to these stereotypical questions are obvious , but the inconsistent plot immediately raises all sorts of other questions .
the murder of 83 " innocent civilians " has to result into something greater than a simple trial in the u . s .
where is the accusations from the arab leaders ?
where is the u . n . ?
the film ends without even telling the most interesting story : what happens on the international arena ?
this film ( in a way akin to films such as " a few good men " ) has already been accused of breaking the rules of morality and ethics and even of racism .
these accusations are pretty heavy , but also unfair .
what director william friedklin truly broke was the rules of decent filmmaking
. one of the earliest apparent problems with ' rules of engagement ' is its lack of credibility .
the entire operation in yemen may remind us about what happens in the middle east right now , but is overdone , contrived and unrealistic - as if a chain of events had to happen in a particular manner in order for the plot to proceed .
a lot of it is so cheesy that no one could possibly accept it as reality .
that is precisely why it 's not offensive .
it is completely unobjective .
many stories are started and never finished .
many questions are asked , but never answered .
a lot of parallels are referring to nothing .
it seems that neither the director , producers or the screenwriter can make up their minds about the contents of their film .
is it about arab mentality ?
america 's foreign policies ?
america 's role in the world ?
corruption in the higher circles ?
it goes on and on .
it consists of countless stories , but not a definable plot .
it tries to be everything for everyone and ends up being nothing for no one .
i think that it is ironic , because director william friedkin 's probably most acclaimed film was " the exorcist " which had a silly story , but became a rather effective film .
in this case you have a strong story with many possibilities and the result is a silly film .
though several scenes bare the mark of professionalism ( such as the impressive battle scenes ) , his latest film does simply not engage .
i believe that friedklin is a director that is absolutely depended on great scripts and talented producers in order to succeed .
it 's obvious that he has neither and the result is therefore a catastrophe .
the characters feel designed , unreal , merely shadows , with no life outside the conflict .
even the actors can not save this film from going under .
though both jackson and jones act admirably , with performances that are as good as you get with a script like this , it is not something that these great actors can boast of .
they have roles that they could play blindfolded with their hand on the back .
jackson is gray and jones uninteresting .
the rest of the cast , including ben kingsly , blair underwood and guy pearce are simply waiting for their paychecks .
the time has come for the verdict .
on the charges of complete lack of objectivity , i find this film guilty .
on the charges of breaking the rules of reasonable filmmaking , i find it guilty .
but on the charges of racism i find this film not guilty , because of it 's inconclusive and often silly plot
that lacks objectivity everywhere , not only when concerning the arab population .
i must admit that the film is dangerously near the line of being racially offensive and i do think that screenwriter stephen gaghan went a bit too far , portraying the yemeni people almost as stereotypical hollywood bad - guys .
this is very sad , since in a time like this it is crucial to not lose objectivity and proclaim the truth .
however , it is absolutely necessary to remember that the muslim terrorists are responsible for most of the terrorist activity in and outside the united states .
and that it 's not a coincidence that u . s .
residents in the middle east , including yemen are on constant maximum alert .

Answer: N

Question: it 's a shame
the execution of this concept falls very short of its premise .
the movie is lacking and most unsatisfying .
osmosis jones is crude , gross , disgusting , and was directed by the farrelly brothers - the twisted siblings behind there 's something about mary , me , myself and irene and a couple of other movies in which the humor is mostly targeted below the belt .
not that there 's anything wrong with scatology .
i bet even cavemen appreciated bathroom humor - such as it was .
it 's merely that with osmosis jones , the farrellys humor is too juvenile , too predictable .
you can almost foresee the puns just by viewing the part of the inner anatomy a sequence is drawn .
osmosis jones looks like one of those old health class movies gone psycho .
the trouble is , the animation may please the very young , but the jokes may be over their heads , while the teen - age audience may find it too tame for their tastes .
adults ?
well , let 's just say most will find it unappetizing
.
osmosis jones plays like a 100-minute infomercial for the eat healthy foods lobby .
the live action sequences revolve around frank ( bill murray ) , who seems to be the grungiest human being in the universe .
he continually looks as if he needs a shave and a shower .
frank , much to the consternation of his daughter , is a fast - food addict , eating anything - and everything - that can kill you .
he works at a zoo where the animals look cleaner - and presumably smell better - than he does .
frank 's body is invaded by thrax , a lethal virus , after frank eats a hard - boiled egg that had fallen to the ground .
it 's not gross enough that frank picks the egg up from the dirt and plops it into his mouth .
nope , the farrellys pile it on by first having frank wrestle a chimp for the egg , wresting it from the primate 's mouth .
like i said , the gross meter tips the scales on this one .
after ingesting the egg , the movie begins its animated sequences .
here , osmosis jones ( voiced by chris rock ) , a renegade white blood cell is teamed with drix ( voiced by frasier 's david hyde pierce ) , a 12-hour , painkiller cold capsule to battle thrax ( smoothly voiced by laurence fishburne ) .
basically , what we have is a cliched cop - buddy movie , rife with all the clich ?
s of that genre .
and this is why osmosis jones does n't click .
it merely falls back on tired , familiar conventions instead of creating new and exciting situations .
the jokes and puns are lame
: osmosis searches out a snitch , a former flu virus .
after pumping him for information , drix tells osmosis , " funny , he does n't look fluish .
"
and the jokes do n't rise above that level .
the live action scenes are no better .
frank is such a slob , so unappealing that it is difficult to fathom how he ever married or even sired a child .
he 's almost a bigger cartoon than the animated characters .
osmosis jones is a movie that may be too violent for young children as thrax burns and dissolves blood cells right and left .
the animation is rather two - dimensional and flat .
it lacks scope and depth .
it is an unappealing movie that will leave you scratching your head , and maybe leaning toward a shower after you walk out of the theater .

Answer:
N