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

[EX Q]: _ in brief : _ this film needs no introduction . if you have n't heard of it , then you must have been up in space on a sabbatical , and if you have n't seen it -- well , i suspect you 're in a small minority !
first thing 's first ?
is it all it 's hyped up to be ?
well , yes ?
and no .
it 's a good film , and there 's a lot to like about it , but it 's not without its problems .
when i saw the first trailer for " titanic " , it was when i went to see " bean " last summer , i think , my intial reaction was --
ai n't that downright sick to make a disaster movie out of such a dreadful , real - life tragedy ? !
i mean , what 's happened to hollywood 's script - writers , have they run entirely out of new ideas ?
gads ,
whatever next , i asked myself , how about an action film based on hiroshima starring jean claude van damme ?
i was not entirely filled with anticipation , but then i was n't alone in that respect .
it 's when it came out in the cinema , to rave reviews ( well , mostly ) and
anyone who 'd been to see it seemed disturbingly obsessed by it that i started to take notice !
i did n't see the film until several months after its release ( by which time my sister had seen it about four times ! ) , so i went with a slightly more open mind , but i still did n't think i 'd enjoy it much .
did i ?
yes
and no .
mainly yes , i 'm happy to say .
the first hour or so was beautifully done , not so much because of the scripting
( i 'll talk about that later ? ) but because the re - created ship and sets were stunning to look at , as was cameron 's directing , and the performances of the principal cast were so strong that the " human " aspect of the story , the romance between rose ( kate winslet ) and jack ( leonardo dicaprio ) , was enchanting
.
the film is told via flashback , with gloria stuart playing the elderly rose in the modern day ( you knew that , a ' course ! : - ) ) .
well , it 's an often effective device to use in storytelling -- though sometimes it can fall flat .
does it work here ?
in script form it does n't add all that much to the story .
what does add a lot to the story is gloria stuart , whose stunning performance is the strongest , most moving of the film .
her presence brings a much deeper level of passion , and depth to the story , and though her appearances are relatively brief , the film would have suffered without her . also impressive are dicaprio and winslet , who wholly succeed in rising above the often poor dialogue , and the bond they form is both heartfelt and moving
.
it 's an old story , you know -- forbidden love ala romeo and juliet -- but it works , and jack 's " rescuing " rose ( in both literal and figurative senses ) and teaching her to live life for what counts was pointed and touching .
in fact , i enjoyed the first half of the film a lot , largely because winslet and dicaprio bring such and charm , energy to the romance .
it 's engaging , touching and very enjoyable .
there 's more than a tinge of poignancy to it as well ,
simply because you know it 's not going to be a happy ending .
which leads us to the second half of the film .
we all knew it was coming .
i 'm sure director cameron was looking forward with eager anticipation to it , because as he 's stated in interviews , the real thrust of the story ( for him ) was the sinking , and the jack / rose romance was a merely a manipulative plot device to get you emotionally into the film .
i think that understates the importance of the romance , as i found it far more enjoyable than an hour of watching people die .
the iceberg arrives , and the captain announces that titanic will have sunk in about an hour .
and it is an hour .
my goodness , we do n't miss a second of that hour ?
gratuitous ?
well , perhaps not by today 's standards , i 'm sure there 's been far worse produced under the banner of " entertainment " in other films .
but i certainly was n't prepared for how shocking and graphic the last hour or so would be .
not that i 'd expect the word " understatement " to be part of cameron 's vocabulary ( he who brought us such , umm , vivid films as " terminator 2 " and " aliens " ) .
is it overdone ?
i thought so .
understatement can sometimes work wonders in conveying tragedy .
no , no one expected a happy ending , but i did n't quite expect the horrendously shocking and powerful scenes we were bombarded throughout the film 's second half .
still , whether it was overdone and heavy - handed or not , if it was the shock - factor cameron was after it worked , because i was shocked and moved , in fact i spent most of the last hour in tears !
you really could n't help but get emotionally involved ,
whether it was wishing someone would knock that dreadfully psychotic fiance of rose 's overboard or desperately hoping that rose would rescue jack , or that jack would rescue rose , or that they would both survive .
perhaps the most harrowing scene was when the ship has sunk , and those that sunk along with the ship freeze to death on the water surface .
the bit where rose lets go of jack 's hand , while promising she 'll never let go in her heart was particularly heart - wrenching , and the sight of rescue boats sailing amid the ocean of corpses was a pretty powerful image , to put no fine a point on it .
i loved the ending , however , which was both moving and slightly uplifting following the horror of the past hour and a half .
so , we 've established that the film is powerful and moving , if the last hour was rather excessive . have n't mentioned the script .
plot - wise
it 's ok , though the jack / rose relationship was beautifully developed
,
but i 've a feeling that 's to the actors
credit if anything .
as for the dialogue ?
well , titanic is set in 1912 .
it 's a period drama .
but i saw very little indication of period in so far as the dialogue is concerned .
did they really use phrases like " goddamn it !
" back in the turn of the century ?
i doubt it .
would someone talk like this : " do ya love the guy or what ? " .
i doubt it .
is such dialogue as " i saw the iceberg , and i see it in your eyes now
" not just a bit ? clumsy ?
yes it is .
a little more attention to dialogue would not have gone astray , and cameron himself is to blame ( he wrote the script ) .
stick with directing , dude .
but its more than redeemed by the acting , with dicaprio and winslet on fine form , ably supported by a strong cast .
star of the show was gloria stuart , though --
why did n't she win that oscar ? !
after all , they were throwing oscars at " titanic " left , right and centre , but gloria was perhaps the most deserving nominee . directing - wise cameron does a spectacular job .
like i said , his vision was a bit excessive , but at least he directed it well .
i have n't even mentioned james horner 's beautiful score .
utterly heavenly , though when your dad and sister play the soundtrack a lot you do start to get a bit bored with it !
; - ) i 've finished my rant , which lasted a lot longer than i thought it would !
just leaves a couple of questions ; was it worth all those oscars ?
hell , do n't talk to me about oscars .
bloomin ' farce .
it was deserving in a number of departments , though .
last question ; is it , as some suggest , one of the best films of all - time ?
nope , i do n't think so .
it 's certainly one of the most powerful and memorable films i 've ever seen ,
but i do n't think it quite ranks as one of my all - time favourites .
and as for the fact they 're reportedly making a " titanic 2 " ?
well i guess that 's typical hollywood for you !
[EX A]: P

[EX Q]: breakdown is an moderately entertaining , if underwhelming , thriller .
kurt russell and kathleen quinlan play couple jeff and amy taylor , taking the scenic route to california through redneck country .
however , while in the middle of nowhere , their jeep decides to break down , leaving them stranded .
a friendly truck driver , warren ( walsh ) , offers to give them a lift to town .
although jeff rejects the offer ( he wants to stay with his car ) , amy agrees , hops into warren 's lorry , and promptly disappears .
jeff wonders where the hell she is , and when he later catches up with warren and warren says he has never seen amy in his life , the plot thickens and jeff goes on a chase to find his wife .
although comparisons can be made with this film to deliverance ( 1972 ) and the vanishing ( 1993 ) plot wise , the latter two are far superior character and script wise .
kurt russell is o .
k as jeff , although he can seemingly only pull of one expression , which is angry .
throughout the whole film , he looks angry ( or just pissed off . )
quinlan is o .
k again , but again
she can only pull off one expression , which is looking dorky .
throughout the whole film , she looks dorky .
j .
t walsh ( who , sadly , recently passed away ) is fine as warren ( who we soon find out is a kidnapper )
although his actual character is pretty weak , and not really menacing enough .
the supporting cast do their best aswell , with rex linn as a doubting sheriff , and the other kidnappers .
the story , written by first - timer jonathan mostow ( who also directs ) is o .
k ,
if surprisingly familiar and sometimes extraordinarily stupid .
some of the things the characters do in this movie is beyond the bounds of idiocy .
there are some flaws with the plot also , as the characters do the complete opposite to logical ( presumably to keep the story ' exciting ' ) and also the fact that the story just is n't strong enough to sustain the audience 's attention .
the picture moves along very slowly also .
it almost threatens to drop dead .
the picture does pick up towards the end , but by then it 's too late .
mostow directs the action sequences well enough , however .
the film does n't really come to a satisfying conclusion , either .
the ending tries to be bleak , but just comes off annoying
.
breakdown could of been a far more enjoyable picture
had it had a stronger cast and director .
instead , it just turns out to be merely average .
a missed opportunity .
overall rating= review by david wilcock
[EX A]: N

[EX Q]: i had a chance to see a sneak preview of city slickers ii on campus last night .
i went in with the expectation of a film with the similar flavor which made the original such a success : personal growth and insightful humor about life .
i came away somewhat disappointed in this regard , getting some of the latter and not much of the former .
the basic plot revolves around billy crystal , who plays mitch robbins , turning forty .
he 's now become the station manager of the radio station in which he worked in the original .
he 's given a job at the radio station to his best friend , played by daniel stern , out of sympathy while stern 's character works through his divorce .
his loser younger brother ( john lovitz ) comes to mitch 's house to bum a money and place to live , all while mitch and his wife try to celebrate his birthday .
during the celebration , mitch discovers what appears to be a treasure map in curly 's ( the cattle drive leader in the original played by jack palance ) old hat .
after a business trip to las vegas , crystal , stern , and lovitz stay a few extra days to go off in search of the treasure .
on the way , they run into curly 's twin brother , duke , played by ( you know who ) jack palance .
first of all ,
the cinematography was beautifully done , especially the outdoor scenes in the desert .
the scenes are such that i would like to see some of those sights filmed myself .
there is some character development during the film .
the actors remain true to their characters and play them well , without overplaying the jokes .
the movie is a good basic adventure , with enough plot twists to provide for an ending that is difficult to predict .
the movie is paced well
, but with a couple slow spots in the middle and towards the end .
humor - wise , the film has a good number of jokes which maintained my interest throughout the film .
there are memorable moments
like when stern is bitten by a snake , but there are fewer jokes to laugh at in the sequel ( surprise , surprise for a sequel , right ? ) .
however , the slight bitter aftertaste i have with this film has to do mainly with the film 's manipulation of the audience .
the film tries to pull your heart - strings too much regarding how close the characters are to each other , like when mitch had decided to suck the snake marrow out of his best friend 's butt .
this is done again when the gang meets up with some members of the cattle drive group from the original .
there were also some parts which appeared unrealistic , like whether the stampede would start in the way it did or why they did n't worry more about water while tromping around the desert .
some strenuous stretches of the imagination are required here .
since the objective of the gang is to find gold and get rich ( unlike finding themselves in middle age like in the original ) , i also found it harder to empathize with the characters during their journey .
overall , i 'd say that the film is an entertaining and humorous adventure with some story - line deficiencies making it less worthy than the original .
it may be worth the full price of admission , but a matinee would be a better bargain .
[EX A]:
P