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

[EX Q]: let me start off by saying that leading up to the release of the latest bond film , i really was n't looking forward to it as much as i have with some of the previous films .
i 'm not sure if it was the fairly lackluster trailers or the ever - present dread that the next film will fall back into the miserable ways of the timothy dalton years .
i 'm happy to report that any doubts were erased after about the first 10 minutes of the film .
by that point , it was evident that mr .
bond was back with a vengeance .
all doubts would have probably been erased sooner except for the fact that the first ten minutes of the film were n't exactly a pleasant experience .
it seems that nobody told the geniuses working at the theater that the house lights are supposed to be turned off when the movie starts .
it took a reminder from an audience member to clue them in .
i guess they can be excused though , taking tickets and cleaning up popcorn between shows is extremely taxing on the brain .
anyway , after somebody remembered what the light switch was for , i settled in for bond .
i think the most noticeable aspect of this , the 19th film in the series , is that it really goes back to the almost tongue in cheek style of the roger moore films .
there were probably more one - liners in this movie than in the last several combined .
and bond 's last one - liner in the film is about the best of the series .
the world is not enough also contained perhaps the most action of any movie of the series .
everything from wild boat chases to the usual assortment of cool bond gadgets trotted out just when there seems to be no way out for 007 . for the most part , the action sequences worked very well .
although , there were a couple of times that i thought some things were a bit over the top , even for a bond film .
i think some of the blame can be laid at the feet of director michael apted .
while he did a good job for the most part , there were points in the movie , specifically during action sequences , that he seemed to loose site of the fact that he was making essentially an action film .
most noticeably sequences on a snow covered mountain and one involving bond getting through a closing door looked like apted thought he was filming some sort of high brow art movie .
he almost seemed like he did n't know what he was doing .
but they were brief scenes and really should n't take away from the otherwise solid job that apted did in directing
.
if you have ever seen a bond film , you wo n't be shocked to learn that plot has never been their strong suit .
the world is not enough is no exception .
this time we have yet another over villain that bond has to stop for the good of the world .
007 matches wits with the terrorist renard ( robert carlyle ) , a man who has a bullet lodged in his brain that makes him impervious to pain .
why this point is included is beyond me .
they took great pains to explain his condition , but it only came up later in the movie as a scene that can only be described as looking like an afterthought .
anyway , renard , like the typical terrorist that he is , is bent on some harebrained scheme involving a mid - east oil pipeline .
i guess world domination just is n't as attractive to terrorists as a money making venture anymore .
bond is brought in to protect the pipeline 's owner , elektra king ( sophie marceau ) , who is the daughter of one of renard 's recent victims .
along the way , bond has to enlist the help of a nuclear scientist , dr .
christmas jones ( denise richards ) , and his old rival valentin zukovsky ( robert carlyle ) .
like all bond films , you basically just have to suspend disbelief over the plot , since it is ridiculous beyond words .
my biggest complaint would be that it was about the most disjointed of any of the bond films .
there was at least one point that i had to stop and try to remember why bond was where he was and why he was doing what he was doing .
the buddy that i saw the movie with was completely confused over an earlier kidnapping of marceau 's character .
it was alluded to earlier in the movie briefly -- although not included in the film .
later , it became a big part of the story and left him with the distinct feeling that he had missed something .
but because it is a bond film , the beautiful women and nifty gadgets seem to make you forget about script problems quite quickly .
after all , it is n't shakespeare .
how about the cast ?
brosnan seems to get better with each of his appearances as 007 .
i grew up with the roger moore version of bond , so i really enjoyed the lighter style that brosnan brings to the character .
judi dench , as m , had a bigger role in this film than in her two previous appearances in the role .
she brought the talent with her that one would expect from an oscar winner .
robbie coltrane was easily one of the best parts in goldeneye , so it was nice to see his russian mobster character revived in this movie .
coltrane gets more screen time , which simply leads to him stealing even more scenes .
then there are the bond girls .
sophie marceau might be one of the most beautiful actresses working today .
there is just something about her breathtaking eyes that makes her a natural to play the innocent victim .
those that saw her in braveheart know she is more than just a pretty face .
marceau may be the most talented actress to ever play a bond love interest .
then we have denise richards .
there was no doubt in my mind that she was cast exclusively for her looks .
and after you see the outfits she wears , you wo n't have any trouble guessing what part of her anatomy caught the producer 's eyes .
i was pleasantly surprised to find that she really did a good job playing a nuclear scientist .
admittedly , there was one point that the audience snickered a bit at one of her technical lines of dialogue , but other than that
she stacks up ( no pun intended ) to her bond girl predecessors nicely .
i must say that the biggest disappointment was robert carlyle 's character .
while carlyle did a fine job with the material that he had , his character just never worked for me .
the producers tried very hard to add more complexity to his character , but it just never quite got off the ground .
i guess i was hoping for a bit more regarding the whole impervious to pain aspect of his character , but the writers decided to play up the emotional side of his character .
this might have worked well in another movie , but i do n't go to see bond movies for their deep characterizations .
last , but not least , we have desmond llewelyn as q .
this is the 17th appearance for llewelyn as bond 's gadget guy , and he is as good as ever .
although his screen time has grown far more limited in the past few films , he is still a treat to watch .
rumors abound that this may be his last appearance in the role .
he says future appearances are up to a higher power .
the producers have introduced his protege and future replacement , a bumbling and somewhat pompous character played by comedy master john cleese .
while we do n't see much of him in this film , i think it is fair to say that desmond llewelyn 's legacy , whenever it is passed on , will be in very capable hands .
so how does it stack up ?
despite some problems , the world is not enough is a very entertaining movie .
and , all things considered , what problems it does have are small compared to some that have plagued earlier bond movies .
this is easily the best of the brosnan films .
it may even be the best of the entire series , certainly in the top 3 .
one thing is for sure , even after 19 movies , there is still plenty of life left in the james bond series .
here 's looking forward to bond number 20 .
[EX A]: P

[EX Q]: wyatt earp has a lot to tell and little to say .
this story of the legendary lawman runs three hours and nine minutes and that 's too long for this epic - wannabe that plays more like a tv mini - series than a movie .
the story opens on the earp family farm , with young wyatt ready to run away from home .
he wants to fight in the civil war , but his dad ( hackman ) has different ideas and wants his son to study law .
time passes and wyatt heads west , returns home to marry , and , after a spell , begins his career in law enforcement .
by the time he ( costner ) and his brothers ( madsen , david andrews , and linden ashby ) arrive in tombstone , wyatt has tried his hand at everything from hunting buffalo to dealing cards .
wyatt earp is very appealing in places-- such as cast , costumes , and cinematography-- but an overstated story and overpowered score deaden most of the emotional impact .
who can be moved by scene after scene after scene of swelling strings and suffocating speeches ?
somber is
fine-- just ask clint eastwood-- but
this film that boasts not one , not two , but three , count 'em three , hammy death scenes !
still , a little bit of earp goes a long way and the life and times of the legendary lawman are from uninteresting stuff .
his , uh , unusual relations with women , for example , are an intriguing contrast to his character 's credo of
" nothing counts as much as blood .
" equally amusing is a buffalo - hunting ( and skinning ! )
sequence that is decidedly non - pc .
director lawrence kasdan takes a refreshingly realistic approach to the gunplay .
the infamous gunfight at the ok corral is both brutal and brief , devoid of almost any theatrics .
do n't look for much glorified violence here .
despite some large exclamation points in the story , the characters * do * come to life .
the diverse cast includes everyone from betty buckley ( ! ) to mackenzie astin ( ! ! ) .
kevin costner is very good in the title role .
dances with whitney nevers get as steely as the role requires , though , but his transformation from lighthearted law student to stoic sheriff is fun to watch .
he was tougher in a perfect world .
his foil is dennis quaid , who pulled a deniro by losing 40 + pounds to play the tubercular terror doc holliday .
gaunt * and * gamely ,
he 's a scene stealer who 's seen too little .
other familiar faces include tom sizemore ( looking like bruce mcgill ) , bill pullman ( looking like jeff daniels ) , and lea thompson ( looking like someone other than lea thompson ) .
both gene hackman and isabella rosselini appear and disappear like magic , while late entries catherine o'hara and jobeth williams are surprisingly solid .
though the story and score should 've tried " less is more , " all other credits are technical tops .
production designer ida random , art director gary wissner , and costume designer colleen atwood are some of the vips who helped spend what must 've been an enormous budget .
clearly no expense was spared .
[EX A]: P

[EX Q]: woof ! too bad that leap of faith was the title of a 1992 comedy starring steve martin and debra winger , because that 's what 's required to watch this incredulous howler starring bruce willis as -- of all things -- a psychologist .
not since the reagan administration has there been an acting stretch of such magnitude !
alas , mickey rourke , we hardly knew ye .
story opens with a campy kick -- willis is treating a patient who abruptly steps out of the window to take the best flying leap since charles durning dove in the hudsucker proxy .
she goes splat
, he goes ugh , and his character spends the rest of the film colorblind .
really .
the good doctor then moves to sunny l. a. , where he rooms with an old college chum ( scott bakula ) , a therapist who 's getting death threats from someone in his monday evening group .
buddy bites it in the second reel
( no surprise there ) and willis agrees to take over both the group and the death threats .
for his troubles as therapy man , willis gets to share some cut - from - nc17 love scenes with the lover 's jane march while dodging nails , cars , and rattlesnakes .
why 'd it have to be snakes ?
color of night is the worst movie of the year .
period .
forget north , clifford , or ,
heaven help us , even on deadly ground .
here is a movie misfire so audaciously awful that you ca n't help but wonder how the actors all kept straight faces while filming . for starters , the " group " is a collection of mixed nuts better suited to bob newhart than bruce willis .
these are realistic portrayals of the mentally unhealthy ? playing a prissy obsessive / compulsive , cuckoos nest alumni brad dourif , alone , may set the psychology profession back ten years .
the plot 's a wreck with laughable dialogue , pointless pov shifts , and the one big secret solvable in the first fifteen minutes .
director richard rush , who once helmed freebie and the bean , does n't seem to mind .
unfazed by the nincompoop plot and cuckoo characterizations , he overfills the film with enough canny camera shots and zany set - pieces to make the effort almost worth watching .
his token freeway chase is ok , but the director has more fun with a vertiginous ending ala ( most recently ) fatal analysis .
acting credits are across - the - board awful .
willis can be forgiven because he 's filming die hard 3 as we speak .
but what about ruben blades insulting presence as the cop ? or lesley ann warren 's stereotypical sex addict ? or worst offender jane march as a mystery - girl - who's - no - real - mystery ?
shudder .
bottom line
: how they all kept straight faces , i 'll never know .
[EX A]:
N