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

[EX Q]: is evil dead ii a bad movie ?
it 's full of terrible acting , pointless violence , and plot holes
yet it remains a cult classic nearly fifteen years after its release .
explaining why this movie stands out from others with similar plots ( including the original evil dead ) is extremely difficult .
` well what 's it about ? '
` five people stranded in a log cabin in the middle of nowhere struggling to survive vicious attacks from a variety of ugly , hairy , wart covered monsters . '
` come on i saw a movie just like that on monster vision last week .
why should i see it again ? '
` no evil dead ii is different , it 's funny . '
` it 's funny to see people die ?
are you sick or something ? '
maybe i am and maybe director sam raimi is as well to create such an enigma of a movie .
his unique execution is as sarcastic as subtle , as disturbing as it is hilarious .
an example of raimi 's odd approach : a monster ( formerly protagonist ash 's girlfriend of all people ) is cut in half by a chainsaw and a tidal wave of blood comes from the open wound .
sure it 's over - the - top , but it is so over - the - top that it is laugh out loud funny ; just try watching ash with a straight face as he unexpectedly is showered with ten gallons of blood , staining his face and knocking him back a few feet .
the whole movie is like this , watch ash get beat up , watch ash defeat the monster , watch ash get beat up again by another even zanier monster .
the more repetitive and unrealistic the movie gets , the more amusing it becomes .
no matter how sick it may sound , it is funny to watch
bruce ampbell 's ash get his butt kicked every five minutes .
and raimi takes advantage , he has ash tormented by the head of his girlfriend , by the body of an old lady , even by his own right hand .
like the less superior idle hands , we watch ash uncontrollably hit himself over and over again until he is forced to cut off his own body part .
but it does n't end , ash now has to fight his severed hand which now moves with the same celerity as thing from the addams family .
all of these events , thrown at you from minute one with roller coaster- like camera movements , at first become shocking , then inexplicably funny .
raimi expects the audience to laugh and as the film progresses , he seems to be enjoying himself even more by borrowing the classic mirror scene from the marx brothers ' duck soup , then bringing more characters into the picture to comically kill them off .
with a running time of less than an hour and a half , raimi gets away with the impossible , making a horror film with more gore than plot and intentionally more laughs than scares . ending evil dead ii with an opening for the third film in the series , raimi obviously had a lot of fun making this movie and could n't wait to make it 's sequel .
[EX A]: P

[EX Q]: ironically , one of the themes of 200 cigarettes is that you should try to make the best of every moment in life .
unfortunately i will no longer be able to say that i lived every moment of my life to the fullest , because i spent 95 otherwise perfectly good minutes , watching this sad excuse for a movie .
actually smoking 200 cigarettes in the same 95 minutes could n't be any worse for you than it is to watch the movie .
not only is it a pathetically bad film overall , but 200 cigarettes actually has no redeeming qualities whatsoever .
the plot is scattered , thin and predictable ; the acting is monumentally bad ; and the style of film making resembles a home video .
it is december 31 , 1981 and the big party is at monica 's ( martha plimpton ) house .
but no one has arrived yet .
her 8 invited guests and several people that they have picked throughout the evening are wandering the streets of new york city in various groups .
some of them know each other through their common bond of having slept with monica , and some are total strangers .
but they all are to face their own personal neuroses before night 's end .
those who are invited are the ones that have the issues .
it is up to those who are n't to help them come to terms .
first there is eric ( brian mccardie ) who is a former boyfriend of monica 's and is just getting over the heartbreak of their relationship terminating prematurely because of his sexual performance , or lack thereof .
he is one of the most bland characters , in a film full of dullness , because he is so utterly predictable and stereotypical , a common trait of this poor production .
bridget ( nicole parker ) and caitlyn ( angela featherstone ) who are both extremely sensuous young women looking for someone to handle their desires on new year 's eve and tag along to the party with them .
they stumble across a nameless bartender ( ben affleck ) who is the one truly perfect character in a film of imperfections .
he is nether sexually deprived , nor uncertain about his future , as he is in law school .
his lack of flaws is both boring , unrealistic and painful to watch .
as bridget and caitlyn make passes at him you are neither entertained nor humored by the sub - standard comedy .
moving on , there is val ( christina ricci ) and stephie , ( gabby hoffman ) 2 teenage girls with fake identification and very different thoughts .
val is monica 's cousin and a true fan of the new york scene .
on the other hand , stephie is convinced that she is vulnerable to crime when the two venture out of their usual locations in search of the party that they just ca n't find .
paradoxically , it is 2 punks that they meet at a bar ( actually they attempt to flee from their presence , but are n't successful ) who guide them through their fears and force a level of relaxation upon their warped minds .
of all the insanely dull and uninteresting couples
, only one approaches a level of decency in both acting and plot .
wisely , the movie 's creators have put heavy emphasis on lucy ( courtney love ) and kevin ( paul rudd ) who are best friends and share the common bond of being dateless .
paul has just broken up with long time steady ellie ( janeane garofalo ) and is starting to come to terms with his loss when lucy informs him that ellie had been sleeping around during their relationship .
however , the only complexity to these two characters is that they seem to want to be more than friends , and that is reiterated when they attempt sexual intercourse in a bathroom stall on more than one occasion during this strange evening .
finally , there are the two worst performances and worst sub - plot of the film .
jack ( jay mohr ) and cindy ( kate hudson ) have been going out for a short period of time and jack
just learned that he took cindy 's virginity the night before .
while she attempts to play this down and be her usual self , he is a predictably self loathing male as he attempts to deal with a string of one night stands that includes the recently deflowered cindy .
very often , when a film is as putrid as this production , there will at least be a decent quality of film making to reveal an occasional moment of glory . however ,
this film has neither the quality of cinematography nor the moments of glory to be highlighted .
instead , what you get is a collection of rough and inconsistent cuts , bad continuity and inaccuracies .
first , and most noticeable is that as the film goes from one subplot to another , there is no apparent order that it follows , and it is also weekened by unnecessarily edgy edits from scene to scene and shot to shot .
at other times , objects seem to get up and move and hairstyles and costumes change from shot to shot .
there are also at least 4 scenes in a taxi cab that go from start to finish .
not in a single one of them does anybody pay the driver .
and yet , no matter how miserable this film may be , and no matter how poor the acting is all around , there was a ray of a hope for these many bad plots .
perhaps , if the makers had just decided to concentrate on one or two or , perhaps , even three , there might have been the time and opportunity for some character development , or quality acting , or even a decent plot payoff at the end .
but it did n't happen that way .
the cast of quality name actors was forced into roles that not even one of them could convert into a mediocre performance , and every story line crashed and burned quicker than it takes for the ball to drop at midnight .
[EX A]: N

[EX Q]: once upon a time jean - claude van damme was a decent action hero .
the muscles from brussels bursted into the hollywood market with mindless adventure films , boasting his spectacular martial - arts ability .
some of these excursions were fun .
but now it seems like watching a van damme movie has become a painful chore , with no rewards but the virtually guaranteed helping of mind - numbing action .
and when the action goes sour , what is there left to enjoy ?
i 'll explain .
knock off is about a pair of counterfeit jeans salesmen working out of an office in hong kong .
marcus ray ( van damme ) , a babe - magnet and stylish dresser , heads up the company with an annoying weasel of a partner ( rob schneider ) .
they become part of a plot involving microbombs implanted in counterfeit jeans , seemingly by a mole in the business .
i 'm going to reveal about everything in the next paragraph , so if you want a review devoid of spoilers , skip onto the next one .
i 'm not quite sure who gives a crap , but i 'll issue a warning anyhow .
tommy is really working with the cia .
his boss ( a very hammy and flat paul sorvino ) is the mole , and he wants to cause carnage with these tiny but immensely powerful super weapons .
he even stoops so low to put them into children 's toys .
if you thought this plot outline sounded intriguing , then you probably will enjoy knock off .
if you think that this ridiculous set - up could n't even fill five minutes of screen time without causing you to roll over laughing , this might not be your cup of tea .
knock off sucks .
it stoops to ridiculous levels that most individuals could only conjure up in horrific nightmares .
it amazes me how far these producers will go to sell something , simply because van damme is the star .
the plot is pathetic garbage strung together by inane action sequences that will baffle your mind , the performances are so wooden you could use them to row a canoe , and the action itself is an absolute catastrophe .
director tsui hark ( who teamed with van damme in the superior , but still lame - brained double team ) is at the helm , and he would rather attempt to dazzle us with fantastic camera angles than engage us with the plot .
i suppose i enjoyed some of the camera work , but the incessant desperation of it all made me rather nauseous
.
the picture freezes in the middle of an action sequence , speeds are altered consistently , and the camera tricks mostly apply to traveling up gun barrels as the weapons are fired .
it all sounds very cool .
trust me , it is n't . as much as it scars me to say this ( har , har ) , van damme is terrible .
sure , he does lots of fancy kickboxing moves and dodges
giant crates with the greatest of ease .
he looks like he 's doing a bad impersonation of jackie chan , and his performance is stiff and tired .
i hate to say it , but perhaps it 's time for mr .
van damme to give up his day job .
it 's really a test of endurance watching knock off .
i suppose there 's some enjoyment derived from schneider 's character , who is extremely annoying , but provides the film 's better moments .
and what is the beautiful lela rochon doing in this movie ?
hopefully she grabbed her paycheck and then fled the premises like an olympic sprinter .
knock off does n't even stand strong as a mindless but entertaining action film , like a handful of van damme 's others .
no ,
this movie is an embarrassment to the entire action genre of modern filmmaking .
and considering how low hollywood has stooped as of late in that department , that is certainly not saying much .
note to self : avoid universal soldier 2 :
the return upon release in august ?
99 .
[EX A]:
N