In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
--------
Question: ' bats ' is an insulting slap across the face for any dedicated horror movie fan .
to pull something like this off , you need to have a sense of wit and style , with a heavy dosage of humor to back up the process if the fright factor ever declines .
something like the underground worm thriller ' tremors '
had just the perfect mixture of these elements , and in return , the film was tremendous fun .
with the notable exception of a wisecracking supporting player , ' bats ' mainly plays it 's premise for straight - arrow horror .
judging
by the ridiculous premise
, this was not exactly a wise move .
the movie attempts to capture the essence of alfred hitchcock 's ' the birds ' , but fails miserably .
done right , it could have been adequately amusing halloween cinema .
unfortunately , ' bats ' is a prime example of a formula movie done terribly , terribly wrong .
the only thing amusing about this festering pile of guano is in how intelligible the filmmakers anticipate their core audience to be .
i will recite the following paragraph in a manner that will reach the audience of individuals to whom ' bats ' is aimed toward .
those guys in hollywood have made a movie about bats .
these bats are not very nice , because they eat a lot of people .
boy , are these bats ugly .
they are infected with this bogus virus that makes them super - duper smart .
they 've got big claws and red eyes and they are not very friendly at all .
a whole bunch of people in texas get killed , so a sheriff guy and a scientist lady are brought in to kill the bats .
they have big guns and other cool things to fight them with , but the bats are pretty smart , so it 's sorta hard to do .
the bats swoop down and they shoot at them to make they go away for good .
but no , ' bats ' is probably too violent for pre - schoolers .
the film , directed by louis morneau , should have ventured straight into video stores .
on the small screen , perhaps more fun could have been derived with lower expectations . but sitting through this crapper on the big screen is almost awkward ; although at a few moments it becomes a guilty pleasure , the film is poorly written , poorly acted and executed with glaring ineptitude .
even the bats themselves are cheesy , and the attack sequences too rushed and jittery
to be properly enjoyed .
the sheriff in the story is emmett kimsey ( lou diamond phillips ) , who embodies every pathetic stereotype a small - town authority figure
usually portrays ( he chomps on a cigar , struts contentedly in his boots , etc . .. ) .
the scientist is dr .
sheila casper ( dina meyer ) , who specializes in flying mammals and is classified as ' the best in her field ' .
meyer uses a lot of technical terms designed to make the movie seem more intellectually capable , but everything about dr .
casper is recycled beyond recognition .
her memories of how she became hooked on the topic of bats sounds suspiciously like oceanographic student matt hooper 's tale of how he became infatuated with sharks in ' jaws ' .
everything revolving around ' bats ' is tired drivel , which desperately requires some directorial style or acting capabilities to spruce it up .
the supporting cast could have been constructed out of straw , with voices dubbed in later .
in fact , that may have worked out better in the end .
take one glance at casper 's bat - loathing sidekick jimmy ( leon ) , and you 'll have immediate deja vu
- he 's the exact same humorous buddy caricature from every other movie , constructed specifically for timed comic relief .
unfortunately , none of his comic interludes are funny .
in the role of deranged mad scientist dr .
mccabe , the reliable bob gunton gets cornered with the most hideously idiotic character in the bunch .
mccabe ' accidentally ' released two experimental test subjects , and the virus spread to other bats .
the entire town of gallup , texas is under attack from an enormous swarm of the creatures , but gunton appears to be inconspicuously contemplating something else .
something like : ' when is the damn movie going to be over
? ?
i just want my money . '
the bats are ugly , i must say .
there 's the occasional moment where they look moderately convincing , but mainly , the swarm is represented in cheesy digital imagery .
only bits of the bloody action even hint at the campy fun the film could have been , but by the absurdly stupid climax , it 's way too late in the game for a decent recovery .
characters experiment in slaughtering the bats with gunfire .
let 's explore the logic there : is this really a very efficient way to decrease the bat population ? ?
you could empty an entire clip at the flying winged serpents and not even wound one , and after that there are only 18 , 000 more of them .
this kind of behavior represents the regular level of intelligence behind ' bats ' .

Answer: N

Question: best remembered for his understated performance as dr .
hannibal lecter in michael mann 's forensics thriller , manhunter , scottish character actor brian cox brings something special to every movie he works on .
usually playing a bit role in some studio schlock ( he dies halfway through the long kiss goodnight ) , he 's only occasionally given something meaty and substantial to do .
if you want to see some brilliant acting , check out his work as a dogged police inspector opposite frances mcdormand in ken loach 's hidden agenda .
cox plays the role of big john harrigan in the disturbing new indie flick l .
i .
e . , which lot 47 picked up at sundance when other distributors were scared to budge .
big john feels the love that dares not speak its name , but he expresses it through seeking out adolescents and bringing them back to his pad .
what bothered some audience members was the presentation of big john in an oddly empathetic light .
he 's an even - tempered , funny , robust old man who actually listens to the kids ' problems ( as opposed to their parents and friends , both caught up in the high - wire act of their own confused lives . )
he 'll have sex - for - pay with them only after an elaborate courtship , charming them with temptations from the grown - up world .
l .
i .
e . stands for long island expressway , which slices through the strip malls and middle - class homes of suburbia .
filmmaker michael cuesta uses it as a ( pretty transparent ) metaphor of dangerous escape for his 15-year old protagonist , howie ( paul franklin dano ) .
in his opening voice - over , howie reveals a morbid preoccupation with death on the road , citing the l .
i .
e .
highway deaths of filmmaker alan
j .
pakula , songwriter harry chapin , and his own mother on exit 52 .
he 's both fascinated and disturbed by the l .
i .
e . , and those feelings are projected onto big john ( who follows howie around in his bright red car , but never makes a move to force the boy to do something he does n't want to do .
this makes him much more complex than the usual child molesters seen in movies -- he 's a beast , but ashamed of it . )
l .
i .
e . would have worked best as a half - hour short film about howie 's ill - advised foray into big john 's haven .
there is unnecessary padding with howie 's miserable dad ( bruce altman ) in the hot seat for a white - collar crime , degenerate youngsters who get their kicks from robbing middle - class houses , and some homoerotic shenanigans with wise - ass gary terrio ( billy kay ) , a handsome artful dodger . rather than add to the themes of suburban ennui ( not that we needed another movie on that subject ) , these awkward subplots pad out the running time to adequate feature length .
concurrently , the relationship between howie and big john is evenly paced and exceptionally well acted .
cox , sporting a baseball cap and a faded marine tattoo , is all bluff and bluster .
dano is quiet and at first glance seems so withdrawn as to be transparent .
we 're so used to child actors whose dramatic choices are broad and obvious ( calling haley joel ! ) , it 's surprising to see one who actually listens throughout any given scene .
the restraint is admirable .
but l . i .
e . 's
screenplay does n't always give them the best material .
when howie reads big john a walt whitman poem , the moment feels a bit too precious .
director michael cuesta lingers on an ecstatic reaction shot of big john , who may as well be hearing glenn gould performing bach 's goldberg variations .
it 's too much .
there are also some obvious dramatic contrivances involving big john 's other boy toy ( walter masterson ) , jealous over the newbie .
this plot thread predictably leads to violence .
not content to be a haunting , observational portrait of teen alienation in a royally screwed up world ( like terry zwigoff 's superb ghost world ) , cuesta lacks the confidence in his own work to end on an ambivalent note .
it 's typical of unimaginative cinema to wrap things up with a bullet , sparing the writers from actually having to come up with a complex , philosophical note .
in this regard
, l . i .
e .
( and countless other indie films ) share something in common with blockbuster action films : problems are solved when the obstacle is removed .
how often does real life work this way ? to extend the question : if a movie is striving for realism , do dramatic contrivances destroy the illusion ?

Answer: N

Question: being that it is a foreign language film with no known names with a select number theaters showing it , " shall we dance " wo n't be seen by that many people .
and that 's a shame
- this is a funny , enchanting , and goofy movie full of laughs , surprises , and wonderful dance sequences .
the surprising thing about " shall we dance " is the universal appeal of the story .
a us version is in the works , and it 's no wonder -
it 's not really all that culture specific .
although there is a narrated set - up that adds some extra resonance to the proceedings ( about the view the japanese culture has about ballroom dancing ) , the movie is so rich in character and appeal that this added layer is n't at all necessary to understand or enjoy the film .
the only important unexplained japanese - specific reference that may leave some a bit puzzled is that 1000 yen is roughly $ 10 ( when you see the film - and you should see this film - you 'll know why ) . a middle aged company man realizes that achieving all the goals he set for himself in life ( a house , a child , and good marriage ) still does n't translate into a fulfilled life .
after glimpsing a melancholy beauty looking out from a dance studio window while on the train home from work , sugiyana ( koji yakusho ) decides after some trepidation to take up ballroom dance lessons in order to meet the woman who has stirred something in himself .
after finding the weekly fees for private lessons from the elegant and beautiful mai ( tamiyo kusakari ) too rich for his blood , sugiyama opts for groups lessons simply to be near her .
we then meet the players in this gem of a movie , who all have their own reasons for joining the class .
later on , we meet aoki at the dance studio ( naoto takenaka ) , a co - worker and all out weirdo and one of the laugh riot highlights of the film .
the story , laughs , and touching scenes evolve as the movie goes along .
it 's a pleasure to watch such a wonderful film that is propelled almost solely by the characters and performances .
it 's difficult to explain the charms of the film without revealing too much - the movie abounds with little revelations that subtly shape the characters , and in the end , each one is that much fuller and more understood by the time you leave the theater .
it 's one of those movies that only the french seem to make anymore - no big plot , no special effects , no gunplay , no tragic consequences , no forced examinations of the nature of love , and no insights into the nature of evil .
just a warm , funny , endearing film that will charm the pants off of you .
when was the last time you left a theater feeling all warm and fuzzy inside ?
" shall we dance " will do that to you without any treacly aftertaste .

Answer:
P