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

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
N

robin hood :
men in tights is another mel - brooks - produced film in the classic tradition of movies like blazing saddles and young frankenstein .
mel brooks is well known for his comic look at regular life , his fast paced dialogue and sharp wit .
unfortunately , robin hood :
men in tights has none of the easy going humor of blazing saddles , none of the fun acting of young frankenstein , is devoid of the charm of spaceballs , and is even lacking the good , solid dialogue of history of the world .
it is , in short , one of the worst movies i have seen mel brooks , or anybody else , produce .
the plot borrows heavily from the well - received kevin costner movie of last year , robin hood : prince of thieves .
this is not surprising in and of itself , and could have been used to great comic effect , mainly by parodying scenes from the orginal movie .
mel brooks does not take advantage of this , however , and uses the film to launch several ideas into the air , none of which connect and none of which are explained later on .
the movie 's scenes could be shuffled around in any order and one would be hard pressed to notice .
cary elwes , of princess bride fame , plays robin of loxley , a man who was captured in the crusades , fighting with king richard .
he escapes and , joining with a man named achoo
( i am sure you can see the obvious joke ) , fights in england to reclaim his name and the throne for richard , which has been captured by evil prince john , played by funny comic richard lewis .
he also tries for the love of maid marian and attempts to overthrow the evil " sheriff of rottingham " .
a good adventure plot that is sadly unused .
elwes and lewis are both excellent comics , but the dialogue in the movie is simply excruciating .
neither actor has any good words to work with , and the lines simply are n't funny , nor believable .
perhaps the worst example of this is when the group of merry men encounter a man playing a macaulay culkin clone from the hit movie home alone .
this particular scene is so out of place and so badly acted , and followed by so many other scenes of equal miserable ideas , that i really felt like leaving the theatre .
much of the audience continued to look at their watches throughout , and some left the theatre .
chuckles were few and far between , and they mostly dealt with visual jokes ( such as an old , beaten up horse from " rent - a - wreck " ) then from any dialogue whatsoever .
scenes that could have been classics , such as the archery contest , are ruined by poor acting .
perhaps the largest problem with the movie is that it is simply offensive .
the basic plot , that robin has received a key that will unlock the chastity belt of maid marian , is not witty nor funny .
mel brooks as a circumcision - giving rabbi is also offensive to me and others in the audience ( not all jewish , either ) .
the movie simply tries to hard trying to be funny and by and large fails .
the addition of a blind man who stumbles around , falling off cliffs , walking into ledges and being a general buffoon could have had some humorous potential , but is also made terribly offensive .
the only reason to see this movie is the surprise actor at the end who plays king richard .
he is well worth waiting for , if you can stand an hour and half of unfunny dialogue , excruciating visual humor , old puns , ancient jokes and bad acting .
if you ca n't , do n't even bother watching this miserable film .
N

frequency n . ,
the number of times a specified phenomenon occurs within a specified interval as the number of repetitions of a complete sequence of values of a periodic function per unit variation of an independent variable ?
etc do n't worry .
when watching the thriller frequency , you wo n't have to know what the heck frequency means .
the premise , although it may sound complex , is very basic on the big screen .
a new york cop , john , ( jim caviezel ) finds a radio in his house , which allows him to communicate with his new york firefighter father , frank , ( dennis quaid ) who died thirty years ago .
immediately john warns his father that he will die trying to stop a fire in an abandoned warehouse .
when frank takes his advice and survives the accident he was n't supposed to , the two eventually realize that by changing that one moment in the past , they have created a whole new future in which a serial killer murders john 's mother and nine other women .
it is now up to john and frank to use their special connection and save thirty years ago to make present time a better place .
( i told you that was n't confusing ? ) .
overall , i was very pleased with frequency .
it 's occasional sappy moments perfectly synchronized with its suspenseful serial killer scenes .
i usually do n't buy those cheesy
" i love you dad " segments in movies , but this one surprisingly satisfied me .
maybe because the plot is so creative and universal that i believed that this is how most people would act when talking to a dead relative .
frequency 's creepy premise left me thinking once the film ended ,
what if ?
what would i do ?
would i help my own family or save a historical figure from being assasinated ? or stop some kids from shooting other kids ? or buy stock from yahoo ! ?
( a character in the film does the latter with humorous consequences ) .
frequency also reminded me of the fantastic back to the future .
both share that " change the past slightly , and you 'll change the future heavily " warning .
the changes between the present and the past , such as different newspaper headlines or people disappearing and reappearing in photographs , are very similar .
both are also wonderful feel - good family films that can attract to a number of generations .
the only difference worth noting is that frequency 's final scene does n't set up a possibility for a lucrative sequel already in the making .
there are some problems with the film though .
first , there is a major flaw in the story towards the end that is somewhat distracting ( email me if you have seen the movie and want to know what i think it is ) .
the plot must have confused even the filmmakers who frequently ( no pun intended ) switch from 1969 to 1999 while telling the story .
another problem is that the supporting cast , including noah emmerich and andre braugher , are underused .
while in the film , which is not enough , the aforementioned actors steal every scene they are in .
frequency was a pleasant surprise for me and the audience i saw it with who cheered at the end .
even if you know what is going to happen or if you think the preview ruined the movie for you , like it almost did for me , check this movie out .
you may be surprised as well .

P