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

[EX Q]: synopsis : al simmons , top - notch assasin with a guilty conscience , dies in a fiery explosion and goes to hell .
making a pact with malebolgia , a chief demon there , simmons returns to earth 5 years later reborn as spawn , a general in hell 's army donning a necroplasmic costume replete with knives , chains , and a morphing cape .
sullen , wise cogliostro and flatulating , wisecracking violator vy for spawn 's attention .
comments : when todd mcfarlane left marvel comics ( where he had made a name for himself as a first - rate comic book penciller on the " spider - man " titles ) to join the newly - formed , creator - owned image comics , a new comic book legend was born : spawn .
mcfarlane 's " spawn " immediately became a commercial and critical success and a defining comic book series of the 1990s .
mcfarlane created a hero who was not only original but visually intricate , allowing mcfarlane to utilize his knack for artistic detail to the max .
the early " spawn " issues brilliantly capture mcfarlane 's genius at illustration and show his early attempts at writing .
with the popularity of " spawn " and the success of the current warner bros . 's batman film franchise , a movie version of some sort seemed inevitable for spawn .
in the summer of 1997 , hence , new line cinema released spawn , a live - action film based on the groundbreaking series .
this topheavy exercise in violence and special effects
unfortunately topples quickly and leaves fans of the comic book , like me , numbed by how much spawn misses the mark .
what happened ?
why is spawn so bad ?
todd mcfarlane himself
executive produced this disappointing misfire and even appears in a cameo .
i do n't think , however , that his presence necessarily hurt ( or helped )
the film .
i place the blame , in part , on the recent hollywood trend , fueled by public demand apparently , for special effects blow - out movies utilizing the latest computer technology .
these films focus upon the effects at the expense of everything else : character , plot , dialogue , etc .
spawn , reflecting this trend , shows the audience one gratuitous scene after another populated with morphing characters and filled with unnecessary pyrotechnics .
hardly a minute goes by in this film without fires , explosions , knives and chains appearing out of nowhere , glowing eyes , or constantly transforming demons .
a lot of it is visually interesting and technically solid , do n't get me wrong , but , because the script and cast are n't engaging , spawn ultimately comes across like overwrought wallpaper ( the surface may capture the eye , but nothing exists underneath ) .
spawn 's translation of the comic book suffers the most at the storyline level .
mcfarlane 's spawn was a tortured hero .
a mercenary by trade , al simmons was nonetheless a warm man in love with the beautiful wanda .
having died and journeyed to hell , he made a pact to return to earth to be with wanda .
simmons , however , discovers that his memories are fragmented , his body a creepy mess , and his wife married .
despite his sometimes violent nature , readers could n't help but feel sympathetic toward his plight as the spawn of the underworld .
spawn attempts to show all of this but does not spend nearly the time it should to do so .
when the characters are developed , they seem absurd rather than touching .
the cartoonish dialogue and implausible subplot
( a general possesses the antidote to a supervirus called heat-16 which he wishes to unleash to enslave the world ) do not help matters .
spawn , in an apparent attempt to duplicate the success of batman , also unwisely spends too much time on a villain , the violator ( batman favored the joker over batman ) .
john leguizamo , like jack nicholson in batman , receives top billing in the cast as the violator ; michael jai white ( al simmons / spawn ) is second .
i ordinarily find leguizamo an intensely annoying presence in films which seems to make him a perfect candidate for the violator .
the film , however , spends so much time on the violator 's offensive antics that they grate on the nerves .
apparently meant to be the comic relief in the film ( as nicholson was in batman ) , especially when contrasted with the sullen spawn , the violator 's lines are oftentimes grotesque and unfunny , leaving the audience wishing he would leave .
leguizamo does a satisfactory job in the role , but he is seen far too often in the film .
michael jai white , a relative newcomer to theatrical releases , seems to be an appealing actor , and he handles his role adequately , but we see little of him without various masks on .
more time needed to be spent on white 's character before he became spawn for the movie to pull at the heartstrings .
a special note should be made about martin sheen as the over - the - top , obnoxious , evil general wynn .
easily the hammiest performance in the movie , it 's hard to imagine how sheen mucked up his role so much ; after all , he played a vietnam assasin brilliantly in the great apocalypse now .
sheen 's excessive demeanor do not help the audience accept him as a mastermind villain and comes as a surprise considering his extensive career in film .
many other elements conspire with the disappointing script and abundant special effects to drag spawn down
.
mtv - style , jerky , in - your - face editing is one of them .
flames , for example , roll across the screen sometimes to announce a shift in setting .
cogliostro , unlikely wannabe guide for spawn , serves as a poor narrator for the film .
he goofily tells the audience , at one point , that " how much of [ spawn 's ] humanity is left remains to be seen , " as if the audience really cares as one violent sequence leads to another .
the music , finally , assaults the audience as much as the manic violence and offensive dialogue .
loud and obnoxious hard rock fused with drum loops dominate some scenes .
to be fair , however , marilyn manson 's " long hard road out of hell
" effectively compliments spawn 's return to earth , while filter and the crystal method 's
" ( ca n't you ) trip like i do " proves a surprisingly fitting theme song .
for as good a comic book as it is , " spawn " did not spawn a good movie .
spawn , instead , suffers from too much pomp and circumstance , and too little plot and character development
.
it receives two stars for its technically well - done special effects .
many other films , though , have equal , if not superior , special effects and are much better .
rated pg-13 , spawn seems more violent than many r - rated movies and probably would n't be appropriate for the very young .
[EX A]: N

[EX Q]: from a major league baseball radio broadcast , featuring play - by- play man harry canary and color man whitey hashbrown , with special guest commentator james berardinelli .
hc : as we go to the top of the 8th , we 're joined in the booth by film critic james berardinelli , who 's here fresh from seeing the new baseball movie , major league : back to the minors , the third in the popular saga taking a lighter look at the majors .
nice to see you ,
jim . as a big baseball fan and a movie reviewer
, can you give us the scoop on the new flick ?
jb :
my opinion : the producers should have stopped while they were ahead , and that was nine years ago .
one entry was definitely enough , and i 'm surprised there was a third after the anemic showing and low quality of major league 2 . this latest installment has all the earmarks of something that should have been released direct - to - video .
it 's worse than a mediocre made - for - tv feature .
i should also mention that this movie likely wo n't play all that well in cleveland .
now that the real indians are perennial contenders , they have been replaced by the minnesota twins as the cinematic sadsacks .
actually , most of the action involves the twins ' aaa minor league club , the buzz , rather than the actual major league franchise .
hc : sorry to interrupt , jim , but we still have to do play - by - play for the game on the field .
leading off this inning is john warren .
he steps into the batter 's box and takes kent 's pitch low for ball one .
wh :
so , the story 's strictly minor league , right ?
what 's it about ?
jb :
scott bakula , the guy from quantum leap , plays career minor league pitcher gus cantrell .
when twins owner roger dorn , once again portrayed by corbin bernsen , needs a new manager for his aaa team , he offers the job to gus , who is now faced with two daunting tasks : turn the team around and groom hot prospect
downtown anderson ( played by walt goggins ) for a promotion to " the show .
" with the help of former major leaguers pedro cerrano ( dennis haysbert ) , rube baker ( eric bruskotter ) , and isuro tanaka ( takaaki ishibashi ) , gus gets the buzz on the right track .
in fact , he is so successful that he earns the enmity of the jealous manager of the big - league club , leonard huff ( played with over - the - top relish by ted mcginley ) .
soon , dorn has arranged an exhibition game that pits gus ' overachieving group against huff 's overpaid , last - place bunch .
wh : can we guess who wins ?
jb : the results have all the suspense of watching the videotape of a game when you 've already seen the box score .
on top of that , none of the mock - ups are presented with much flair .
they 're not just boring ; they 're lackluster .
but the major league movies have never been about drama or tension
; they 've been about using baseball situations to generate laughs .
hc : warren fouls off a fastball .
1 and 1 .
wh : are there lots of yuks in this one ?
jb : not one , from start to finish .
i enjoyed the first major league because it was reasonably fresh and funny .
okay , a lot of the jokes were sophomoric , but they made me laugh .
the two sequels have n't just been stale , but their humor quotient has been abysmally low .
even bob uecker 's once - sharp one - liners have turned lame , and they 're the closest the film comes to being even vaguely amusing .
hc : here 's the 1 - 1 pitch .
looooooong drive ? fair or foul ?
foul ball !
the count goes to 1 and 2 .
wh : does the film at least get the baseball details correct ?
jb :
yes .
there are n't any glaring errors
like there were in one of the best - ever baseball movies , the natural .
but i 'd gladly trade a technically accurate film for one with a good story , believable characters , or even a little genuine humor .
heck , the naked gun is a better baseball comedy than major league : back to the minors .
wh : it 's nice to see old friends one more time , is n't it ?
like cerrano , tanaka , and dorn .
jb : depends on whether you really care that anyone is back .
there are n't any real characters here ?
just an assortment of cliched oddballs .
yeah ,
the voodoo hitter , the catcher who ca n't throw back to the pitcher , the japanese player , and the conceited player - turned - owner have all returned , but who really cares ?
they have no depth .
notable absences include tom berenger 's veteran and charlie sheen 's " wild thing .
"
we do n't really miss them , though .
hc : breaking ball , low and outside .
2 and 2 .
wh
: so you 're saying that we should give this one a miss ?
jb
: that 's right .
to use baseball terminology , it 's a three - pitch strikeout .
if you 're looking for a good movie that involves baseball , try popping the natural , field of dreams , bull durham , or even the first major league into the vcr .
actually , this is an oddly - timed release , since baseball fans are likely to be spending more time in parks than in theaters .
even the minor league seasons are already underway .
do n't bother with major league : back to the minors .
it 's a wretched time- waster .
wh :
thanks for the advice .
jb
: you 're welcome .
hc : and here 's the 2 - 2 pitch .
fouled back , right into this booth .
hey , jim , heads up !
oops .
somebody better get him some ice for that .
he may be good at deflecting bad baseball movies , but he needs to learn not to duck into foul balls .
odd how warren seemed to aim that ball right at him , almost as if he has a grudge to settle .
anyway , back to the action on the field ?
[EX A]: N

[EX Q]: pre - review note : seeing as the only concern of body shots is " sex " , i will be forced to refer to that particular act innumerable times throughout the duration of this review .
because of this , i will try to vary word descriptions of " sex " ( meaning if you are offended by pejorative terms , and \ or your name is jerry falwell , you are kindly invited to hit the x up on the left corner of your screen ) , so if there happens to be a word you come across and can not comprehend , fret not , it 's most likely just another way of referring to " sex " .
i think we 'd all agree that any word used incessantly becomes a bit monotonous
so i hope you appreciate my attempt to liven up what could potentially be a very boring review .
though not as boring as the movie which makes steve forbes flat tax plan seem as lively as watching a naked mathew mconaughy play the bongos while high on god knows what .
body shots is a film so frightened of coitus that scenes of copulation are filmed ominously , in the way you 'd normally expect to see a violent attack .
it 's about people who think about screwing , seek it out , and talk about it .
these are things we all do , sometimes .
the characters in this film spend every waking moment pondering the simplicities of sexual acts .
their lives center around the next sexual encounter , but they seemed depressed .
it 's as if fucking is all they have to look forward to after a busy workweek .
at its core body shots is a message movie , the kind of thing i could picture really progressive church groups showing to middle schoolers in order to turn them off coition .
michael cristoffer ( who directed gia , another film that treated bumping uglies as if it where evil ) is a moralist with nothing new to say .
his characters do n't communicate anything of interest to each other , so cristoffer gives them an opportunity to let out their inner thoughts by speaking directly into the camera .
they voice simplistic platitudes like " i like to come " or " sex without love equals violence " .
huh ?
and yes that is as complex as this movie 's observations get .
the characters are stupid and shallow , with not one registering as anything more .
the plot concerns vapid over sexed twentysomethings on an all night hunt for carnal pleasure , then the after math ( the morning after ) of such events .
we meet the characters as they speak directly to us , confiding in us with their idiotic ruminations on intimacy .
i would normally go into the characters and the actors who play them , giving you the pros and cons , but for this film i can not .
i 'm not trying to be clever or witty , but i honestly hardly remember anything that would set them apart from the others .
with the exception of trent ( played by ron livingston as a bargain basement patrick bateman ) , the rest fade into each other-- a patchwork of fake breasts , defined abs , pearly white teeth , and creamy , flawless skin .
i vaguely recall brad rowe as the sensitive one , only because his character gets the worst lines ( " sex without love equals violence " ) .
in between all the confessionals , cristoffer films everything like a headache commercial , with blurry slo mos and dramatic head turning .
the fact that this director at one point won a pulitzer prize completely baffles me .
this film is made without one iota of intelligence or insight into the generation that its tag line claims to be defining .
if body shots is meant to say that all twentysometyhings are idiotic and f * * k - obsessed , fine , i do n't have any problem with a film that tries to persuade me to think a certain way , but cristoffer only gives us one side .
additionally that one side is n't even entertaining ; the characters indulge in buggery without an ounce of sexiness . or realism .
one sexual encounter takes place outside a club on a chain link fence between the two most sensitive characters .
they suddenly have vigorous intercourse with each other for no apparent reason ( other than that they both happen to be standing next to each other ? ? ?
alas , if it could only be that easy ? ? ?
kidding of course ) , then , not only is n't it erotic , it is n't real .
it does n't feel like an authentic sexual encounter .
every f
*
* k scene in this film ( and there are many ) is treated in the same unsexy manner .
body shots makes fornication dirtier than the most scummy porno film .
it shows us none of the pleasure that should go along with it , and most of all , it fails to show us why its characters love making it so much if they seem to hate the act of actually doing it .
the resulting search for nookie ( and you can take that cookie ? ? ? )
over one night leaves us with several tedious plot lines to follow .
the main concern is much ado over a rape that may or may not have occurred .
the film shows us two separate versions of the possible rape ( one where it is consensual the other where it is not ) and in both versions the young actress playing the possible victim gets her shirt torn off .
this is a topic that could be interestingly explored if done intelligently , and if memory serves me i ca n't think of one film that has done so , and yes i saw the accused which may be one of the most overrated movies of the 80 's next to wall street .
unfortunately nobody gives us reason to care , not the writer , the director or the actors nearly all of whom seem to have wandered off the set of a noxious 90210 spin off .
paul thomas anderson approached boogie nights in a manner similar to what cristoffer does here , though boogie nights succeeded .
it was similarly moralistic , but it gave us two different viewpoints ; it showed us how the lifestyle of porn enticed its characters , and it showed us the possible fall - out of such a decision .
the characters in boogie nights were as idiotic as the characters are here , but anderson seemed to care about them .
he gave them heart .
cristoffer gives them nothing but raging hormones .
he preaches to us , by using his characters to preach to us .
this is not the way to get any message across .
why not just direct a public service announcement on the perils of hittin ' skins ?
cristofer kind of does that , though
without an ounce of insight , and with a helping of leering exploitation .
[EX A]:
N