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

[Q]: so much for sweet returns .
after smart horror films were starting to be made again after the exploitative 80 's slasher movies , starting with 1996 's " scream , " and followed by " scream 2 , " " urban legend , " and the original , " i know what you did last summer , " a film like , " i still know what you did last summer , " was bound to be made sooner or late .
it is a perfect example of the exact reason why horror films temporarily burned out , and that is because they reached for the lowest - common - denominator in filmmaking , favoring non - stop deaths and gore for suspense , and trading in fleshed out , likable characters for one - dimensional nitwits .
it has been exactly one year since julie james ( jennifer love hewitt ) suffered through the ordeal of being terrorized by ben willis , a psychopathic fisherman whom her friends and she accidentally hit in the middle of the road , and then , thinking he was dead , dumped him into the ocean .
since then , julie has relocated to boston university , and although often paranoid and haunted by bad dreams , she has been able to put her life back together .
when julie 's friend , karla ( brandy ) , is called up by a radio station and answers correctly what the capital of brazil is , she wins a vacation to the bahamas for four people , which also includes karla 's horny boyfriend , tyrell ( mekhi phifer ) , and will ( matthew settle ) , who karla sets julie up with after her own boyfriend , ray ( freddie prinze jr . , also returning from the original ) , does n't show up .
when they reach the secluded island , they discover it is the last day of the open season , and will be stranded there for the 4th of july weekend with a few employees to fend off a violent storm headed for them .
of course , julie , her friends , and the workers are n't the only ones there , as the murderous ben willis , dressed in fisherman garb , returns to seek revenge on julie once and for all .
it is a sad state of affairs when a movie like , " i still know what you did last summer , " is made .
i am a very big fan of horror movies , and so it is especially disheartening to find out that this sequel to " ikwydls , " which i am a fan of , is almost an exact replica of a " friday the 13th " movie .
while the original focused more on the story and characters , as well as genuinely suspenseful moments , thanks to the screenplay by kevin williamson ( who did n't return to write the sequel , and it shows ) , " i still know . . .
" has no story to speak of , and is so vacuous of ideas , that the filmmakers , were forced to have a murder occur every five minutes just to keep the audience interested . also gone are any signs of character development , and since every single character died before i got to know them , all i was left with was to stare at the screen , indifferent to what was going on .
while i cared about the fates of the characters in the original , it made no difference to me in this sequel who lived and died .
they were all paper - thin and pointless , except to become victims to the lethal hook of the fisherman .
another element that made the original so memorable were some superbly crafted set - pieces , like the store sequence with sarah michelle gellar , but there are none to speak of in this sequel ( although they do come close at one moment with brandy ) .
since so many people were killed every couple minutes , the suspense and scares evaporated faster than salt in water .
also of note is the mystery of the second killer , and accomplice to ben , but it is obvious from the first frame who it is , and so i could n't even have fun at that , like i did in the " scream " movies and , " urban legend .
"
it figures that just as slasher films were starting to get some recognition again , a film would come along and ruin it for everyone else .
maybe the people who made , " i still know what you did last summer , " should have realized that in order to make a good movie , you must have a screenplay --- or at least one that is n't such a black hole for thoughts and ideas .
the ending of the film inevitably leaves the door wide open for a third part , but judging from this amazingly lackluster first sequel , everyone involved should have quit while they were still ahead .
[A]: N


[Q]: "
what 's your favorite new york moment ? "
" this one 's climbing the charts .
" starring john cusack , kate beckinsale , eugene levy , molly shannon .
directed by peter chelsom .
rated pg-13 .
there 's no doubt that 95 % of romantic comedies follow a distinct pattern
: guy sees girl , guy wants girl , guy goes through unreasonable obstacles to get girl , guy gets girl .
in rare cases , the genders are flipped .
predictability is a given .
rarely , though , is a romantic comedy as cheap , as obvious , or as pointless as serendipity , a film that uses its " theme " as an excuse for its plot contrivances .
" lightweight " does n't begin to describe it .
this is like anti - gravity .
it begins in a new york city bloomingdale 's , a product placement that rivals cast away 's fedex for sheer blatancy .
jonathan trager ( john cusack ) and sara thomas ( kate beckinsale ) both go for the same pair of gloves .
after going through the perfunctory motions , jonathan gets to keep the gloves and the two of them go out for ice cream , followed by ice skating .
jonathan falls hard , and sara is charmed . when she writes her name and number down on a piece of paper , a truck rumbles by and blows it out of her hand .
she takes this as a sign from fate that they should n't be together ; jonathan is flabbergasted . to pacify him , she comes up with an idea : jonathan will write his number on a 5 dollar bill , which she will promptly spend .
when she gets home , she will write her name and number inside a book ( " love in the time of cholera " ) and sell it to a used bookstore .
if the bill gets back to her or the book to him , it will mean that they are meant to be together .
three years later .
both sara and jonathan are now engaged to other love interests .
both realize they are n't content .
both go looking for the other .
what happens now is so absurd that i 'm almost tempted to recommend the film for the sake of seeing it .
the two of them run circles around each other in a set of incredible " coincidences " that i would describe as contrivances if it were n't for the film
oh - so - cleverly dismissing that criticism by building its plot around " serendipity .
"
of course , since the movie is about fate , the screenwriter can do anything he damn well pleases .
i 'm not buying it .
there 's no suspense in any of this because we know exactly what 's going to happen , but serendipity insists on drilling its purportedly " adorable " non - story into our heads .
instead of " will they meet ?
"
the question we 're asking is " when will they meet already ? " to make matters worse , every " coincidence " is telegraphed from a mile away ; by the last reel
i was bored enough to actively look for signs that something else " incredible " was going to happen .
cusack is fine and beckinsale , at least , is n't saddled with another lumbering , clunky screenplay ( she 's had bad luck , what with brokedown palace and pearl harbor on her resume ) , just an inanely pointless one .
serendipity also relieves the tedium with the amazing eugene levy , who plays a snarky bloomingdale 's salesman .
what 's the interest in watching a movie that spirals around and around a predestined
( no pun intended ) conclusion ?
serendipity wants to tug at the heartstrings , but it only tests our patience .
[A]: N


[Q]: alexander dumas ' the three musketeers is one of the most often - adapted literary works , and for good reason : the swashbuckler is a legend rather than just a story .
perhaps the musketeer , a new film that " reimagines " the novel in the spirit and style of the matrix , is one adaptation too many .
it 's just awful : spiritless , silly and unforgivably boring , transforming the timeless classic into a mish - mash of old - as - time clich ?
s and incoherent , repetitive action sequences .
this time , d'artagnan is played by calvin klein model justin chambers , who ca n't even pronounce his character 's name .
as a boy , he watched his father get killed by febre ( tim roth ) , a lackey of power - hungry cardinal richelieu .
he vowed to have vengeance .
after undergoing intense training under an expert swordsman , he goes looking for his enemy .
on his quest , he embroils himself in a struggle for control at the highest levels of the french government .
the royal musketeers have lost their gusto , what with their jobs being taken over by the cardinal 's own guards .
only a few loyal swashbuckers remain , among them athos and portos ( who are only figureheads in this movie ) . together with d'artagnan , they fight to extricate the queen ( catherine deneuve ) from the traps that febre and richelieu are trying to plant .
oh , and as an afterthought , d'artagnan falls in love with the poor maid at the local inn ( mena suvari ) .
just thought i 'd mention that .
now , look : i do n't know whose idea this was , but whoever is responsible deserves a severe tongue - lashing .
i have nothing against " modernizing " classic works of literature -
at the very least , they can inspire viewers to actually read the book - but films as dull as this have no positive side effects .
director peter hyams , known for such masterpieces of modern cinema as timecop and end of days , has jettisoned everything that was great about dumas ' masterwork : the sense of excitement , cause , and camaraderie .
instead , we get impressively choreographed but somehow vacuous , uninvolving action sequences that emerge from emptiness and lead to nothing .
when the musketeers finally get to holler " all for one , and one for all , " i could have sworn that was dumas rolling in his grave
that i felt .
maybe the reason for the utter lack of suspense here is the hyams 's tone , which is unreasonably dark and brooding when you consider the reader 's digest condensed version of the story that he gives us .
it 's as though anything that may have been construed as " fun " was purposely expunged from the production .
the joylessness of the proceedings , from the oppressively shady lighting to the mechanical fight scenes , can be felt in every frame .
chambers ca n't act
; suvari , roth and deneuve can , but are n't given the chance .
and when push comes to shove , the use of stunt doubles is distractingly obvious , though at least roth gets to play a villain without having to wear an ape suit .
some movies seem sloppy and careless , clearly made for a quick buck .
with the musketeer we get the sense that it was meticulously crafted to be awful .
the film is intricate , stylish and precise , hitting the wrong note every single time .
[A]:
N