In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
--------
Question: dr . alan grant ( sam neill , " jurassic park " ) is becoming disillusioned .
paleontology is no longer the sexy science it once was since the ingen corporation cloned his subject matter .
his lectures bring people interested in his adventures on isla nubla rather than his research and funding dollars are drying up .
when the kirbys ( william
h. macy , " fargo " ; tea leoni , " the family man " ) ask him to be their guide for an anniversary flyover of isla sorna ( the notorious site b of " the lost world " )
he 's disdainful , but once they wave their checkbook , he reconsiders .
however the kirbys have n't given dr .
grant their real agenda in " jurassic park iii .
"
of course , we , the audience , have been tipped off , given that the film begins by showing us eric ( trevor morgan , " the patriot " ) , a young boy , and ben ( mark harelik , " election " ) going for a paragliding adventure off that same island that goes awry ( and looks like cheesy rear projection ) .
grant 's established back home with a new right hand man , billy brennan ( alessandro nivola ,
" love 's labour 's lost " ) on site at a dig in montana sorely lacking funds .
he also pays a visit to old flame dr .
ellie sattler ( laura dern , " jurassic park " ) , now married to another with a young son who calls grant ' the dinosaur man ' apparently for the sole purpose of dredging her up again for the film 's poorly imagined finale .
grant takes billy along on the kirbys trip , which is really an illegal gambit to save their son , that young paraglider .
the couple are n't millionaires , making grant 's check bogus , and they 're separated as well
( eric was with amanda 's new boyfriend , not that that makes much sense ) , meaning we 're in for some gooey family dynamics while waiting for the dino dining .
the kirbys hired hands ( and obvious bait ) are a threesome led by mr .
udesky ( michael jeter , " the gift " ) .
( did n't anyone consider that casting michael jeter and william h. macy together and not having them be related was a little odd ? )
as directed by joe johnston ( " october sky , " " jumanji " ) ( spielberg only produced this one ) from a risible script by peter buchman and the " election " team of alexander payne & jim taylor , " jurassic park iii " is nothing more than a quickie monster flick with a couple of new dinos ( a spinosauraus , which goes head to head with the t - rex , and pteranodons ) .
the plot , as it were , is a series of coincidences combined with extreme leaps of faith and a trifecta of stupid cell phone tricks .
the effects are no longer new , and , as shot by television cinematographer shelly johnson , rather murky looking at times .
film editing by robert dalva ( " october sky " ) was presumably done by machete , to keep this down to a 90 minute run time .
i know of no other reason to explain the ridiculous ending which features the survivors confronting a pack of raptors , then being saved by the most ludicrous of logic jumps within a few minutes . '
original ' music by don davis just repeats john williams ' original themes .
while neill and young morgan attempt to inject some humor and humanity into the proceedings , the rest of the cast are plodding unexceptional .
" jurassic park iii " will probably provide some quick entertainment for those who go into it knowing what to expect , the same crowd who maybe liked " the lost world : jurassic park .
"

Answer: N


Question: here i sit at my computer about to write my review of the recent action comedy " bait " starring jamie foxx and david morse .
this is a review i do n't even want to write because i 'd just be laying the same criticisms on it that i would with any other so - generic - and - predictable - it's - beyond - ridiculous piece of hollywood fluff
.
if they 're not going to give us , the audience , just a little credit and put something together with half a brain , why should i waste my time and mental energy criticising it ?
last summer i took this same approach with my review of " the mummy , " in that review i just quoted phrases my reviews of other sub - par movies .
i think i shall do the same thing here but with a few less quotes ( not all are applicable ) .
i hope this goes to show you what i think of " bait " and why you can find out all you need to know about it without having to take a wild guess .
it 's genuinely unfunny
( i , and the other audience members only laughed once during the entire two hours ) , unoriginal and unthrilling .
it 's not so bad to the point where it 's fun to watch because of its badness
and it 's no so bad you absolute
loathe it and are pained by watching it
, it 's just such a cliche in and of itself , that , uhh . . .
lost my train of thought .
anyways , here 's those quotes , enjoy !
" getting an audience 's attention right from the beginning plays a major role in how today 's films work .
we want to have something exciting to watch , not a slow build - up of a story ( god forbid ! ) , and this film plays right into the mainstream 's hands . . .
" - review of " armageddon .
"
" it 's clear the film does n't want to waste time on reality and thus the attempt to establish plausability ( the most minimal amount necessary ) comes across as a half - assed effort
.
supporting characters and shady sup - plots are introduced , but as is the case with films made up of a large cast of characters , only a handful have any real significance . . .
there 's a fine line separating homage from plagiarism . . . , " - review of " godzilla " ( 1998 )
" unfortunately , as is the case with most modern thrillers , once the film showed potential for authenticity and intelligence , the cliches and action sequences take over , " - review of " the jackal .
" chad'z movie page is back after heavy renovation .
reviews of nearly all mainstream movies playing today !
get my reviews of everything playing at your local cineplex so you can better make an informed decision on what to see .
do n't forget to vote on my poll and sign the guestbook !

Answer: N


Question: ever since wargames , the first real computer hacking movie , hollywood has attempted to produce more and more films about hacking .
these films usually show the audience a look into computers that really is not impossible and is usually ridiculous .
if it 's not this , the exaggeration about what is real is usually greater than you would expect .
hackers is guilty of all of these crimes .
to anyone familiar with computers and/or the internet , most of the movie is so incredibly stupid that you ca n't take it anymore .
those of you who frequent one of the greatest sites on the world wide web , the internet movie database , are probably aware of the section for movies entitled " goofs " .
this is the section for mistakes in the movies .
well , imdb sums up hackers extremely well with the first goof listed :
" generally ill - informed and ridiculous to the extreme
regarding the capabilities of computers and technology " .
and truthfully , this is one - hundred percent correct .
the plot , obviously , centers around computer hacking .
more specifically , it follows the exploits of dade murphy , a young computer hacker played by jonny lee miller .
miller should be extremely thankful for the film trainspotting , because if it were not for that , who knows where his career would be now after hackers .
the film opens with a young dade murphy being arrested for hacking computer systems .
he was forbidden to use a computer until he turned eighteen years old .
the film then picks up at that point , an eighteen year old dade murphy hacking away at the computer .
dade later meets up with fellow hackers acid burn ( angelina jolie ) , cereal killer ( matthew lillard ) , lord nikon ( laurence mason ) , and the phantom phreak ( renoly santiago ) , who are basically trying to do what is next to impossible : hack the gibson computer and not get caught by the fbi .
oh ,
and as a little sub - plot , dade also tries to woo acid burn , the only female hacker in the film .
really , i ca n't think of much more to say about the film 's plot aside from what i 've said .
it 's just a bunch of computer geeks ( no , obsessive compulsive computer geeks a little too advanced for reality ) running around hacking computers and staying away from the fbi .
thanks to this movie , the public unfamiliar with computers now has a distorted viewpoint of computers and what they can do .
this movie makes computers look a little bit too advanced for their time , and
the frivolous suggestions it makes are too many to list .
to sum it up , hackers is a terrible computer film .
if you 're looking for a film about computers closer to what goes on in the real world , i suggest sneakers .
although at times it too may seem a little far fetched , it should be much more believable than hackers to regular computer users .
hopefully , this film did n't influence too many young computer users out to think they can do what is portrayed in this 105 minute waste of time .

Answer:
N