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

[EX Q]: as forgetful as some people may be it is doubtful that anyone could forget their wedding , especially three times .
but , alas professor brainard somehow manages to accomplish this feat twice before the momentous night that he actually creates flubber .
it 's amazing that he is able to remember any of the processes he uses to make anything .
the whole point here is how could a man be so blatantly forgetful .
this is not absent minded this is almost mindless and he is a professor .
well , this is the case for about the first half of the movie then things begin to settle into what might truly be considered absent minded .
along the way to becoming absent minded from absent of mind the professor stumbles onto flubber .
thankfully or there would be no movie or any amusement for the audience .
the flubber is supposed to be flying rubber , but it seems to have a life of its own .
this is there strictly for the kids .
the properties of the flubber provide some antics for the audience when flubber coated golfballs and bowling balls
assail
two would be thugs .
although amusing this is not original what so ever and brings back haunting memories of home alone .
the poor professor has to save the university where he teaches at , get his fiancee back , finally stop the plotting of an evil millionaire , and do all this in the funniest way possible .
admittedly there are funny moments but
the movie is rather shallow and does not compare very well to the original ( the absent minded professor ) .
the whole scene with the basketball game was just atrocious and totally unbelievable .
the basketball players , stereotypically unqualified for the sport , somehow manage to bounce , fly and dribble their way back to being close to winning ?
this just sounds too bad to be true , the least that could have been done was keep semi close to the original movie to give this film a chance .
as for innovations and new ideas there is but two good ones in this movie .
giving life to the flubber , which is so poorly executed that it 's best forgotten , and prof .
brainard 's flying robot weebo .
giving life to the flubber would have worked beautifully if it was n't for scenes of the sort where you have the flubber dancing around on tables and books for no real reason other than to put in a bit of music and extend the length of the movie .
the life of the flubber had brief and rather whimsical moments where it might have been used well , but it was n't and in the end might have done the movie more harm than good .
now , weebo is a totally different story .
it 's a robot that prof .
brainard created but forgot how and gave something of a life too .
this is a really original idea , well maybe not , but it is an idea that is well executed and in the end makes the poor robot the most developed and real character in the movie .
yes folks the little yellow robot has more emotion and character than the characters .
the film lacks the emotional punch to pull the audience in at all .
the acting by robin williams ( prof .
brainard ) seems to be half hearted for most of the movie and in many cases quite forced .
most of the acting in the movie was so convincing as to fool only the part of the audience that had not quite yet reached the age to 12 .
people when stood up at the altar , do n't usually give third chances .
or for that matter talk to the fiancee afterwards , but what can be expected this is a children 's movie .
flubber , as a movie
does little original and is nothing special in any respect .
with the best character in the movie being something of a prop
i doubt that many people will find it all that great .
it does have its amusing moments and it is a good story in the end , but it does not wash up to the original .
kids should find this movie amusing and fun
and they 'll probably enjoy the whole movie .
as a movie it 's just a kids movie and not the best of ones at that .
[EX A]: N

[EX Q]: ready to rumble is not a masterpiece in film ; i have a problem even regarding it as a film .
it 's more of a show , a big commercial for ted turner 's world championship wrestling ( wcw ) .
the movie is almost entirely about and fully showcases the wrestlers of the wcw like diamond dallas page , goldberg , and sting .
the story is very minimal and basic .
there are these two guys , gordy ( david arquette ) and sean ( scott caan ) .
they are two twenty - something wrestling fans from wyoming .
when they go to a live event for the big match up , there favorite wrestler jimmy king ( oliver platt ) is defeated and his career is announced to be over by the mean commissioner titus ( joe pantoliano ) .
gordy and sean decide to go on a quest to find jimmy and bring him back to the top and defeat the evil titus ' plans .
on the way , they meet some people , have some fun , and clean up some port - o - potties .
sounds great huh
, well it 's not .
the movie makes many attempts at humor , only a few of them work .
the jokes that make you laugh , however , do not outnumber the film 's many duds .
there is a funny repertoire between arquette and a convenience store cashier played by ahmet zappa .
the cashier is very mean to arquette so arquette dreams of ways to get him back .
i especially enjoyed one version in which they have a wrestling match and arquette 's tag team partner is ' macho man ' randy savage .
they wrestle between the aisles knocking over cans and getting body slammed on the floor .
the other good part of the film is the sexual confrontation between arquette and rose mcgowan .
mcgowan plays sasha the head nitro girl , the cheerleaders of the wcw .
she becomes attracted to gordy and they have some nice , funny scenes together especially one scene in which arquette calls mcgowan 's breasts foreign objects than punches her directly into the face .
now what did n't work in this movie ?
that would be the rest of it .
the flick was filled with stupid potty humor about farts and toilets .
the two lead characters work for a port - o - potty cleaning company and when they crash the truck , the excrements spill all over the road .
it 's not funny ; it 's pathetic and brainless .
the film is giving homage to how blindly faithful of their wrestlers but not all wrestling fans are that way .
i watch it for entertainment
and i would think some people would take offense to what is said throughout the movie .
the main characters in the film actually get to wrestle , like that would happen to any fan , especially to 2 that stalk a wrestler and sneak him back onto set .
also , i wondered how they got into the backstage so easily ; they just walked right in .
i like wrestling .
i watch it at home and laugh .
it 's continuously funny and has great characters
otherwise i would n't watch it .
this movie was n't even funny or fun to watch like the wrestling on tv .
the only fun i had in the movie was pointing out the wrestlers i knew .
the funny thing was that many of the wcw featured wrestlers like saturn and chris benoit have left wcw for more money but are still featured in the film prominently .
the movie was too dim - witted to be funny .
it is possibly the most useless and under - developed film ever .
a recent film in this genre of fans would be the kiss fan film , detroit rock city .
that movie was interesting , well done and continuously funny unlike this film .
the acting was good plus the jokes had humor and made you laugh .
now that the scream trilogy is over , arquette has nothing else to do so
he has to do crap like this and be a spokesman in those dumb 1 - 800-call - att ads .
at least he has a hot wife in courtney cox .
he 's in the funny parts of the film but there are n't enough to make him look good .
the music was bad
also feature such overplayed tunes as kid rock 's " bawitdaba " and " cowboy " .
martin landau has a great cameo as a classic , hard - nosed wrestling trainer named sal that whips the king back into shape to regain his throne .
script is important to a film but this piece of crap could have been made with a couple of scribblings on a napkin .
a fan of the wrestlers who are featured in the film probably wrote it .
at times the movie even tries to show wrestling as real .
the wrestlers form alliances , go to people 's houses and beat them up .
it 's utterly ridiculous .
the whole film was a wasteful , dumfounding experience .
the movie was made to pay homage to the fans , telling them things that made wrestling , not the wrestlers .
the wrestlers are making more money to make a movie to thank the fans for begin fans by paying 5 dollars to see a potty - humor movie .
the wcw sucks and this movie is just a pathetic two - hour commercial to watch it .
if you 're going to watch wrestling watch wwf , it 's actually entertaining .
the wrestling is betters , they 're funnier , more diverse , and have better entrance themes .
oh and the girls are hotter .
is this what movies have become , 2 hour - long commercials that you have to pay to see ?
do n't waste your money .
[EX A]: N

[EX Q]: i want to correct what i wrote last year in my retrospective of david lean 's war picture .
i still think that " the bridge on the river kwai " does n't deserve being the number 13 in the american film institute 's list of the 100 greatest american movies .
and i think that " 12 angry men " , " witness for the prosecution " and " paths of glory " would have been better choices for the oscar for the best picture of 1957 .
but i ca n't deny the importance of " the bridge on the river kwai " - cinematically and in its contents .
the film is set in burma in 1943 .
a batallion of british soldiers in japanese war captivity is forced by the japanese to build a strategically momentous railway bridge over the river kwai .
but the british commanding officer , colonel nicholson ( alec guinness ) , insists - corresponding to the geneva conventions - that his officers need n't work as simple workmen .
struggling toughly , col .
nicholson forces the japanese commandant , col .
saito ( sessue hayakawa ) , to give way in this respect .
afterwards col .
nicholson assiduously commits himself for the building of the bridge .
he considers it an opportunity to raise his men 's morale , and he wants to prove superior british capabilities to the japanese .
but the british high command sends a few soldiers who shall destroy the bridge , among them the american shears ( william holden ) - an escapee from the japanese prison camp - and the british major warden ( jack hawkins ) . . .
a flaw of the picture is the clich ?
d characterization of the japanese people .
they are presented as if they were intellectually inferior to the british - as if the japanese were incapable of building a bridge .
and the film does n't consistently question the military spirit as kubrick does in " paths of glory " .
lean seems rather fascinated by the military hierarchies .
this is also perceptible in the conversations between col . nicholson and col .
saito .
in this regard it is symptomatic that shears , who doubts the military logic , is presented as a somehow unpleasant person .
the audience is supposed to applaud
col .
nicholson 's perseverance concerning the question if his officers shall work on the bridge or not .
the spectators are supposed to neglect the risks col .
nicholson takes for his men .
( the plot by - passes these risks . )
that means , the picture is n't perfect .
but it has a lot of virtues as well .
"
the bridge on the river kwai " shows the " madness " of war and what it can produce in people 's minds .
it shows how colonel nicholson becomes possessed by the idea of being a hero and that others ( like shears ) get cynics .
and lean 's film is an interesting study of characters with clashing interests .
these points and the sometimes ironic dialogue make this film an anti - war film ( despite inconsistencies in the treatment of this theme ) .
david lean 's direction is really effective and atmospherically perfect .
his film is highly suspenseful , especially in its dramatic ( if not wholly plausible ) showdown .
the film is also well - photographed and has an apt score .
alec guinness does a magnificent job of bringing col . nicholson to life and making him such an interesting character .
the other actors deliver fine performances as well .
i like this extraordinary film despite its weaknesses .
( c ) karl rackwitz ( klein k ? ris , germany , 1999 )
[EX A]:
P