In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
--------
Question: the new austin powers film continues a movie tradition begun in the eighties .
produce something , anything , that will get the high school and junior high kids in the theater because they buy more soda and popcorn than senior citizens .
the usual hallmarks of this filmmaking tradition are all here .
gross humor , sex jokes , silly sight gags , more sex jokes .
and the film is a strong contender in the current race to be cruder , grosser and more outrageous than that last film .
what the film is not , however , is funny .
the plot centers around the return of dr .
evil , who goes back in time to steal austin powers ' mojo ( a liquid with red stuff in it extracted from austin 's pelvis ) which gives austin his sexual prowess and the charisma to defeat his enemies .
austin must go after him , and returns to the swinging sixties where free love and sexy secret agents had their heyday .
i almost avoided this film because i did not like the original .
but the films premise sounded like an excellent comic vehicle and the film received many good reviews .
i wish i had stuck to my first impression .
myers is trying to be the jerry lewis of this generation .
and he has the talent to do it , at least as an actor .
but the material he is working with here , much of it his own , falls short of anything resembling comic genius .
this movie tries to carry the day with sight gags about drinking distilled feces , a five - hundred - pound fat man 's butt crack , and a barrage of sex jokes aimed at the level of the average 15 year old .
after some of these scenes , one has to wonder how gross the next generation of films will have to go to get an audiences attention .
the direction also helps the film achieve a new low point in cinematic humor .
for the most part , i felt as if i was watching a saturday morning chalderns live action tv show .
there is no sense of comic timing or subtlety .
the director just throws the material at us , giving us nothing except the hope that anyone with a camera could be a film director .
i am sure the film will have appeal to many of the under 22 crowd , at least the one 's who have yet to discover literacy .
certainly the movie is directed towards the generation that prefers everything described as ' in your face , kick you in the teeth , take no prisoners ,
( action - verb + blah blah blah ) .
' if you see the film and you find you 're not laughing , there is nothing wrong with you .
it just means you grew up since seventh grade .

Answer: N

Question: i love movies .
i really do .
every time i watch great movies like goodfellas ( 1990 ) or raiders of the lost ark ( 1981 ) , a tear comes to my eye due to the awesome talent , skill and entertainment that is on display .
even lower grade films such as the naked gun 33 1/3 ( 1994 ) or ghostbusters ii ( 1988 )
while not exactly brilliantly well made , are certainly not a waste of celluloid and present entertainment value .
then there 's my favourite martian , the exact opposite of what a movie should be : a hurried , poorly written and acted movie with one goal , to make money .
disney , ever since the lion king ( 1994 ) have lost their magic touch , but this dross just shows how far disney have sunk
.
christopher lloyd plays a martian who crash lands in front of t .
v reporter 's tim o'hara car ( daniels ) , and soon tim finds the martian in his home , trying to recover and fix his spaceship .
along with his ' zoot ' spacesuit , voiced by wayne knight , must fix his spaceship before it explodes , and also try to stop his identity being revealed to the public , firstly by o'hara , but later by rival t .
v presenter brace channing ( hurley ) , by calling himself tim 's ' uncle martin . '
' laughter ' is supposed to arise from the ' comical ' events , but never does .
many bad films have good intentions , but my favourite martian does n't appear to try to provide any entertainment .
filled to the brim with wham bang special effects , my favourite martian offers little more than some nice eye candy .
christopher lloyd mugs his way through the entire movie
, i 've never seen a man pull a face for 93 minutes until now .
jeff daniels plays ' staple nice guy ' and his role is useless .
his performance is incredibly lazy , although his paperthin character does n't deserve more than the performance he gives .
darryl hannah looks as pretty as ever , but her role is somewhat , erm , limited .
hurley mistakes ' acting ' for ' shouting and looking like a twit ' and wins the david wilcock award for ' most irritating , godawful performance in a moving picture . ' way to go liz !
for the supporting cast , disney manage to assemble every character actor out there , during the film i was going ' he was the guy in .
. .
ah .
. er . . . ' before finally giving up and switching off . another major setback is the staple ' comedy sidekick . '
unfortunately , the writers ( sherri stoner and deanna oliver , if anyone cares ) forget that a comedy sidekick needs to be ' funny . '
instead , they deliver zoot , the martians deeply unfunny sidekick .
although meant to be a manic character
no doubt , every line that comes out of his ' neck ' is a dud .
a real dud .
citizen kane delivers more laughs a minute than his hell spawn piece of polyester .
even the kids in the audience were insulted by this character : not one child even bothered to smirk .
it 's a nice special effect , though .
another problems with this comedy are the gags themselves .
or rather , the lack of them .
my favourite martian reaches a new level of toilet humour : it goes past the bowl , down the pipe and into the sewer .
now , toilet humour can be funny , as dumb and dumber ( 1994 ) humorously showed .
but here , characters farting , belching and almost getting crapped on ( literally ) is not ' amusing . '
it 's insulting .
there 's one good gag right before the credits , but it appears the guy who wrote that gag tragically died and his unfunny twin continued .
either that , or they were hoping that easy to please six year olds would n't mind the fact that his movie is beaten by men at work in the funny stakes .
yes , men at work .
yowza !
the fact that a lot of money was pumped into this film , and that they actually got people to agree to be in this film just depresses me even more .
there are thousands of brilliant films out there
that ca n't get distribution , yet
trash like this
gets released nation - wide with ease .
thankfully , as soon as it makes it 's money , it will never be seen again , and my favourite martian will end up where the two lead characters do near the end of the movie : down the toilet .

Answer: N

Question: mulholland drive did very well at the cannes film festival .
as you can see from the rating it did not do very well from me at the toronto international film festival .
it may not be clear to the viewer why i am so negative on this film for most of the running time
.
in fact it is an interesting mystery story told on the backdrop of the hollywood film industry .
toward the end of the film i think everything that has been built falls apart .
the film was to be a pilot for a tv series but writer and director david lynch did not sell his tv pilot
and i think he decided that he wanted to do something else with it .
something else is what he did .
the film opens with a woman ( played by laura harring ) about to be killed in a car when a car crash saves her life .
she crawls away from the accident with a concussion and finds herself a bungalow with an unlocked door to sleep .
meanwhile young vivacious betty ( naomi watts ) arrives in hollywood from canada .
she wants to build a career as an actress .
betty is a little surprised to find a woman sleeping in the borrowed bungalow .
she does not know who the woman is .
she is even more surprised when the woman awakes and does not herself know who she is .
they fix on a name rita for her , but are not sure if this right or not .
meanwhile local director adam kesher ( justin theroux ) has problems of his own .
he is trying to cast one actress for his new film and is getting pressure from the producers and from crime figures to cast someone else , cammie rhodes ( melissa george ) .
these two threads are joined by a third one in which there is a strange and comic murder that goes terribly wrong .
there is also a strange character called the cowboy ( monty montgomery ) adding to the confusion .
in what was probably intended for the television pilot the film opens with a great vibrancy showing dancing 60s style under the credits .
a lot of mulholland drive starts out fun .
lynch wants you to know he could make an enjoyable stylish film .
he just chooses not to .
as with any david lynch film there is strange material added for little reason .
there are no earthworms , but there are some decidedly strange david lynch touches .
the film is a little long for the subject matter .
toward the end it gets into some heavier violence and sex scenes , clearly not intended for the tv pilot .
unfortunately some of the most important comments to make about this film would be spoilers .
i will not mention them in the main body of the review but i give mulholland drive a 4 on the 0 to 10 scale and a low 0 on the -4 to +4 scale .
mulholland drive spoiler warning .
i have rated this film fairly low .
you should read this only after seeing the film or deciding that you will not see the film .
david lynch is in large part a dark satirist .
most of his work is done in familiar genres but in some way shows their underside .
in mulholland drive i think he is having a laugh at the expense of the crime film genre .
what he does with this film is
( are you sure you want to read this ? ) playing off the audience expectations that there will be a simple explanation for what is going on .
the first 80 % of the film he tells a simple multi - thread crime story with clues sprinkled throughout .
then suddenly at the end he turns the story on its ear with a large number of clues that appear that they should add up to something .
the audience expectation is that they will add up .
but he has given clues that are self - contradictory .
lynch wants the audience to argue about what they have seen afterward and come up with theories .
in fact , the pointers are noticeably contradictory and until i hear a better explanation , i think lynch is merely playing a joke .
there is a visual curiosity that was popular in the sixties .
mad magazine called it a poiuyt .
other sources called it a tri- pronged u - bar .
look at small portions of it and makes sense .
look at the whole figure and it does not .
this film is , in my estimation , the cinematic equivalent of a tri - pronged u - bar .

Answer:
N