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

[Q]: except for a few bright moments of good verbal comedy , that old feeling is embarrassing to sit through .
bette midler and dennis farina play lilly and dan , actress and author , once married
, now violently divorced , and back together one last time for their daughter molly 's ( paula marshall ) wedding .
lilly and dan hate each other passionately -- so passionately that they have sex at the wedding and fall in love again .
each ditches his or her current spouse of 14 years and runs off with the other .
molly , married now only 24 hours , runs off in search of her irresponsible parents while her husband keith ( jamie denton ) tries to console the abandoned spouses .
in molly 's search for her parents , she somehow falls in love with lilly 's paparazzo joey ( danny nucci ) .
meanwhile , the newlywed keith ends up consoling dan 's wife rowena ( gail o'grady ) in bed .
the audience i saw this with apparently thought that all the adultery was hilarious .
i 'm no dan quayle , but i thought it was a bit creepy
.
the message seemed to be " ignore your responsibilities unrepentantly and have fun fucking who you wish .
" " family values " aside , there 's something cruel about all this .
perhaps this movie would have played well as a black comedy , but the movie is a romantic comedy .
we are supposed to be rooting for these creeps .
reiner and screenwriter leslie dixon tried to make it easier on us by making the victims unlikeable .
lilly 's husband is a new - age flake who rambles about " emotional valet parking , " so we can write him off as irrelevant
.
dan 's wife is vain , manipulative , and jealous so
we can write her off as a bitch .
molly 's husband is a career - conscious , self - centered republican politician who thinks she 's too fat ( and just for good measure , he also fucked dan 's wife ) , so we can write him off as a prick
.
everyone else falls in love .
but still , that somehow does n't justify the actions of the movie 's main characters .
"
he 's a prick " or " she 's a bitch " is no defense .
the movie is somewhat redeemed by some funny dialog -- often during heated arguments -- and by above - average performances by midler and farina ( breaking out of his character - actor mold ) .
other than that , it 's a standard romantic comedy with a very substandard gimmick .
[A]: N

[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 .
[A]: N

[Q]: being the self - proclaimed professional film critic that i am , i am somewhat embarrassed to admit that i had not seen lawrence of arabia ( coming soon to dvd ) until only recently .
after all , it 's considered by just about everyone to be
the masterpiece epic of
director david lean , who also directed films such as bridge on the river kwai , and doctor zhivago .
so one day , a friend of mine loaned me a copy of the video and i sat down and watched it .
i was initially skeptical that something made almost 40 years ago would be able to keep my attention for the butt - numbing 3 1/2 hours of its duration .
but now i fully understand why this has become the film that other epic films are judged against --
the winner of seven academy awards in 1963 for best picture , director , editing , cinematography , art direction , music , and sound .
after watching the film again , i am convinced that it is simply one of the finest works of cinematic genius to ever illuminate the big screen .
based on the autobiographical writing of british officer t .
e . lawrence during world war
i , lawrence of arabia depicts lawrence ( played by then - unknown actor peter o'toole ) as a lieutenant lacking any sort of military discipline whatsoever .
bored with his assignment of coloring maps for the british army in a dimly lit headquarters building , lawrence jumps at the opportunity to be re - assigned as an observer for an arabian prince fighting against the turkish army .
lawrence quickly sees just how caring and great these desert dwelling people can be and ends up rallying the various tribes together to fight the turks and help the british turn the tide of world war
i . shot in panavision 's famed super 70 mm format , the film beautifully
illustrates the definition of the word epic .
it is absolutely breathtaking . using stunning cinematography , costuming , and direction , shot in the most uninhabitable location on the face of the earth , i can only imagine what it must have been like to sit in a theater in 1962 and watch this story unfold before my eyes .
every shot is choreographed as a portrait -- a living tribute to a great land .
david lean put his reputation on the line to get this film completed , and the fact that it was even greenlit in the first place says something about the ideology of the motion picture industry at the time , a far cry from its pathetic , uncreative existence today .
after watching the film , the first thing that came to my mind was , " i 've got to do a remake of this film !
"
but then i thought about trying to pitch the idea to a modern - day movie executive : " okay , it 's going to be almost four hours long and shot over three months on location in the sahara desert .
we are going to need to blow up a full - size train because computer - generated effects probably wo nt do it justice .
and we are not going to use any big stars , and wo n't have any female actors since there 's no love story .
"
yes , my friends , the velvet curtain fell on the golden - era of hollywood a long time ago .
but at least we still have the proof to show all would - be producers and directors out there just how good a film can be .
[A]:
P