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

Q: as we see the terrible events that unfold before our eyes in the middle east at the moment , hollywood does n't loose the oppertunity to get involved , by telling stories and expressing opinions .
this film centers on a relationship forged throughout the adult lifetimes of two marine colonels , hays hodges ( tommy lee jones ) and terry childers ( samuel l . jackson ) .
they fought side by side in vietnam , where childers saved hodges ' life by shooting an unarmed pow .
that 's against the rules of war but understandable , in this story anyway , under the specific circumstances .
certainly hodges is not complaining .
years pass .
hodges , whose wounds make him unfit for action , gets a law degree and becomes a marine lawyer .
childers , is now a respected and much - decorated hero that has served his country with his life and sould .
because of his excellent record , childers is sent to yemen to rescue the american ambassador ( ben kingsley ) , cowering in the embassy under assault from violent demonstrators and snipers blasting from rooftops .
childers does what he has to do : evacuate the family and protect the men under his command .
after three marines die and the colonel thinks he sees ground fire , he orders his troops to shoot into the firing crowd .
more than 80 yemeni men , women , and children are mowed down .
childers is immediately accused of ordering his men to fire on a crowd and murder of unarmed civilians .
he persuades his old friend hodges to represent him in the courtroom drama that occupies the second half of the film .
did childers violate authorized u . s .
military rules of engagement ?
or are there simply no rules in war ?
the answers to these stereotypical questions are obvious , but the inconsistent plot immediately raises all sorts of other questions .
the murder of 83 " innocent civilians " has to result into something greater than a simple trial in the u . s .
where is the accusations from the arab leaders ?
where is the u . n . ?
the film ends without even telling the most interesting story : what happens on the international arena ?
this film ( in a way akin to films such as " a few good men " ) has already been accused of breaking the rules of morality and ethics and even of racism .
these accusations are pretty heavy , but also unfair .
what director william friedklin truly broke was the rules of decent filmmaking
. one of the earliest apparent problems with ' rules of engagement ' is its lack of credibility .
the entire operation in yemen may remind us about what happens in the middle east right now , but is overdone , contrived and unrealistic - as if a chain of events had to happen in a particular manner in order for the plot to proceed .
a lot of it is so cheesy that no one could possibly accept it as reality .
that is precisely why it 's not offensive .
it is completely unobjective .
many stories are started and never finished .
many questions are asked , but never answered .
a lot of parallels are referring to nothing .
it seems that neither the director , producers or the screenwriter can make up their minds about the contents of their film .
is it about arab mentality ?
america 's foreign policies ?
america 's role in the world ?
corruption in the higher circles ?
it goes on and on .
it consists of countless stories , but not a definable plot .
it tries to be everything for everyone and ends up being nothing for no one .
i think that it is ironic , because director william friedkin 's probably most acclaimed film was " the exorcist " which had a silly story , but became a rather effective film .
in this case you have a strong story with many possibilities and the result is a silly film .
though several scenes bare the mark of professionalism ( such as the impressive battle scenes ) , his latest film does simply not engage .
i believe that friedklin is a director that is absolutely depended on great scripts and talented producers in order to succeed .
it 's obvious that he has neither and the result is therefore a catastrophe .
the characters feel designed , unreal , merely shadows , with no life outside the conflict .
even the actors can not save this film from going under .
though both jackson and jones act admirably , with performances that are as good as you get with a script like this , it is not something that these great actors can boast of .
they have roles that they could play blindfolded with their hand on the back .
jackson is gray and jones uninteresting .
the rest of the cast , including ben kingsly , blair underwood and guy pearce are simply waiting for their paychecks .
the time has come for the verdict .
on the charges of complete lack of objectivity , i find this film guilty .
on the charges of breaking the rules of reasonable filmmaking , i find it guilty .
but on the charges of racism i find this film not guilty , because of it 's inconclusive and often silly plot
that lacks objectivity everywhere , not only when concerning the arab population .
i must admit that the film is dangerously near the line of being racially offensive and i do think that screenwriter stephen gaghan went a bit too far , portraying the yemeni people almost as stereotypical hollywood bad - guys .
this is very sad , since in a time like this it is crucial to not lose objectivity and proclaim the truth .
however , it is absolutely necessary to remember that the muslim terrorists are responsible for most of the terrorist activity in and outside the united states .
and that it 's not a coincidence that u . s .
residents in the middle east , including yemen are on constant maximum alert .

A: N
****
Q: you 'd think that after awhile hollywood would stop trying to make movies out of video games .
it has n't worked so far .
" street fighter ? "
" super mario brothers ?
" " wing commander ?
" " mortal kombat ? " not a watchable film in the bunch .
still i held out some hope for " tomb raider .
"
after all , the game 's premise is heavily influenced by the indiana jones trilogy and all the mummy movies , so there are cinematic elements imbedded in the concept .
however , despite the potential of the project , " tomb raider " proves to be yet another bomb .
the plot is a convoluted accumulation of nonsense probably borrowed from a dozen bad movies .
there 's a once - ever-5000-years alignment of planets coming up , and the illuminati have to find both halves of an ancient triangle that controls time in order to take over the world .
of course , the ancient folks who divided the triangle buried the halves in tombs on opposite sides of the world .
our heroine , lady lara croft ( angelina jolie ) , finds the key that opens the tombs in relics that her dead father ( jon voight ) dug up .
she figures that if she gets the triangle , she can bring her dad back from the dead .
of course , no one was expecting much of a plot from this movie anyway .
in both video games and action movies , the plot is just an excuse for the action sequences .
however , the action in " tomb raider " shows little style or originality .
there 's lots of shooting and some kung fu fightin ' , but none of it progresses beyond the level of a cheap direct - to - cable flick .
the other goofy archeologist flick of the summer
, " the mummy returns , " was much better ; it had its flaws , but its action was creative and large - scale .
since winning her academy award for " girl , interrupted , " jolie has n't taken any projects that would display her acting talents .
"
tomb raider " seems to be more interested in displaying her breasts ; so much attention is drawn to them that it 's a shame
there 's no oscar for best performance by a wonderbra .
while we do n't see much of her acting ability
( with the exception of a wonderful upper - crust british accent ) , we do get a hint of jolie 's less savory side .
considering the rumors of incest that hang over jolie and her supposed obsession with death , having lara be obsessed with resurrecting her dead father ( and uninterested in any of the living males around her ) seems a poor choice .
having jolie 's real life father jon voight play the dead dad makes it even creepier
.
i have n't decided what to make of director simon west yet .
his first feature was the star - studded disaster " con air , " but my opinion of him improved with " the general 's daughter , " which was thick with sultry atmosphere .
now this train wreck .
i hope he improves again because his next project is the big screen version of the cult tv series " the prisoner .
"
hollywood has already screwed up " the avengers , " and " the prisoner " represents a chance for redemption .
( by the way , speaking of british tv , " red dwarf " fans should look for chris " rimmer " barrie in his first major film role ) .

A: N
****
Q: boy , what a great movie ! !
keanu reeves and morgan freeman acting together , the director of the fugitive ( andrew davis ) back again to give us another thriller , and the beautiful rachel stealing beauty weisz thrown in to boot .
how could this not be a blockbuster ?
all die - hard keanu reeves
fans , read on .
ol " much ado about nothing
" plays eddie kasalivich , a machinist studying at the university of chicago .
to help pay for the rent , he takes on this job making the machinery for a hydrogen project being conducted by the university .
by happy coincidence , he also happens to stumble on the solution to the final problem and thus is the only one who knows the key to performing this feat of miracle physics .
this project holds great promise : taking hydrogen from water and giving out more energy than is put in .
a potential solution to the earth 's energy problems without the pollution cost .
surely nobody could have any problems with that ?
morgan freeman is paul shannon , the project 's sponsor .
he works for a very powerful organization that disagrees with the paternal project leader as to how quickly technology should be released to the public .
he figures the world will disintegrate into anarchy if the results of the project are released too quickly .
so he murders the project leader , blows up the project ( great but short scene here , sort of like a mini id4 city - devastation thing ) and tries to simulate the experiment at some other hi - tech hush - hush location .
unfortunately , our intrepid machinist and an english physicist ( weisz ) manage to get away and now follows a fugitive - like chase using a not too dissimilar rehash of that movie script .
this movie is just dying for a comparison with " the fugitive " .
both movies use chicago as the main city and since the place does n't change much , i guess we ca n't really blame the setting for the paucity of atmosphere .
the trouble here is that where the fugitive had harrison ford and tommy lee jones , chain reaction only has keanu reeves and fred ward .
credit to them , but we are n't really given much of a chance to empathise with the characters .
where ford was able to work within the confines of the movie to evoke sympathy , eddie kasalivich
just doesn9
t seem very believeable and reeves ' character is never given the time to develop .
it might have been a better investment in film to give the characters more depth and spend less time on the chase sequences , which frankly , get quite boring after a while .
harrison ford was " the man against the world .
"
he was alone in a world where he did n't know who to trust and it came across real well .
in chain reaction , keanu reeves is n't alone .
now that would be fine if the fleeing couple had some chemistry and could really portray some paranoia , vulnerability and confusion .
we do n't get this .
we get him thinking he 's still in speed , only
now our sandra bullock has an english accent , probably does n't drive a bus , and hardly contributes anything to the movie .
the producers here probably thought , " hey , what if keanu and rachel do n't hit it off too well ?
let 's rope in that morgan to help us out .
"
well , keanu and rachel did n't hit it off well on the screen , and most unfortunately , morgan freeman does n't help much either .
the only thing we come to really know of paul shannon is that he always has a full load of cigars in his cigar holder .
it 's not really his fault .
once again , andrew davis just does n't take the time to build his characters .
someone must have convinced him that this time round , cinema dollars are best earned by making the movie run like a headless chicken .
the flying inkpot rating system :
* wait for the tv2 broadcast .
*
* a little creaky , but still better than staying at home with gotcha !
*
* * pretty good , bring a friend .
*
*
* * amazing , potent stuff .
*
*
*
* * perfection . see it twice .

A:
N
****