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

Q: plot : lara croft is british , rich and kicks a lot of ass .
she also likes to raid tombs but when the illuminata discover that all nine planets are about to stand in alignment for the first time in 5000 years , and that lara holds the key to time , well , needless to say , they want to nab it from her .
oh yeah , lara also likes to sport a lot of tight shirts .
. .
hummana - hummana - hummana .
. .
critique : angelina jolie was great in this movie .
there were also about three " action scenes " that were pretty cool to look at in this film .
uhhhhhm , unfortunately the rest of the movie sucked
! bad dialogue , generic sidekicks and bad guys ,
a lame mystery , yoda - esque moments with mumbo - jumbo being sprouted about and even
some crappy cgi near the end .
all in all , this movie was n't the horror show that some of the early reviews had warned us about , especially since every other scene does feature jolie 's torpedoes begging to burst out of her lucky shirts , but it was quite the letdown nonetheless , especially when you consider the major opportunity that the filmmakers had here to create a cool , hip woman hero , based on a popular video game .
i do n't know , i guess you have to put most of the blame on director simon west , who did n't really tie the whole movie together all that well .
the film lacked energy , a consistent pace and well . . .
a fun time !
i felt kinda depressed while watching this movie .
all that " father " crap was horrible and the dialogue given to poor john voight to recite was just plain embarrassing
( and i 'm not even gon na mention his moustache . . .
hehehe ) .
why have this shite in the movie at all ? ! ?
i especially hated the scenes in which some ghost - like figure , friend or child would ramble on about lara croft 's father while all the time ,
i 'm not giving one ounce of crap as to what they 're talking about .
i guess that 's called lack of " character development " , right ?
that 's when a movie builds enough background into the characters on the screen , so that we could actually " get into " it and care about them .
i did n't care about anyone in this movie , and was bored during most of its " let 's explain why we 're doing all this gobbledygook " moments . and even though i thought that jolie kicked some mighty ass (
damn , did she look sexy blasting those guns or what ? ! ? ) ,
everybody else around her was so goddamn boring
!
her butler was a throwaway with no personality , her side - kick was supposed to be funny but
just annoyed me
every time he said the word " bugger " ( and he says it a lot , trust me ! )
and all of the so - called bad guys just spewed one - dimension !
they had no spark , no energy amongst them , and even though a few of the action scenes in the movie were cool ( see the trailer
and you 'll know which ones i 'm talking about ) ,
the overall picture was lame and the dialogue and mystical bull - crap just buried it even further .
also , for a movie that 's supposed to be about all of these exotic locations , i was n't necessarily impressed by any of its exterior shots , and even less so with its interiors , which all looked like they were shot in the same room .
mind you
, i wo n't go as far as to say that it 's the " worst movie of the year " ( remember that i actually have to go see freddie prinze jr .
movies also ! ) , but
it 's definitely the worst film that i 've seen during this summer movie season ( of course , it 's still early
and i 'm sure there are a few more garbage heaps coming down the pike ) .
skip this one altogether and rent any of the indiana jones movies instead . . .
trust me , you 'll miss the boobs but end your night with some rock - solid porn
and it 's all good !
where 's joblo coming from ?
raiders of the lost ark ( 10/10 ) - the mummy ( 8/10 ) - lost in space ( 7/10 ) - the mummy returns ( 6/10 ) - the general 's daughter ( 3/10 ) - romancing the stone ( 7/10 ) - wild wild west ( 3/10 ) - mission impossible 2 ( 7/10 )

A: N
****
Q: i can hear the question already .
what on earth do these two movies have in common ?
to most people , not a lot , except that both are by renowned directors .
as i saw them , however , both movies have flawed romantic scripts wrapped in distinctive packaging of lavish visuals musical numbers .
but oh , how differently the packages affect their films .
while " everyone 's " production numbers make an otherwise ordinary woody tale something special , jane campion 's imaginative visuals only serve to emphasize how pompous and uninvolving laura jones ' script is .
i left " everyone says i love you " not remembering a lot about who loved whom , but its infectious happiness put a grin on my face .
i left " the portrait of a lady " not remembering a lot about who loved whom , and i could have cared less .
" everyone " features nothing allen has n't done before storywise .
woody is again desperately in love with a beautiful woman ( roberts ) , and against the odds they manage to click for awhile before allen is left wondering what went wrong -- again .
similar situations happen to his family and friends .
some of the more outlandish comedy scenes even hark back to his " early , funny " films .
the scenes between tim roth and drew barrymore could have come out of " take the money and run , " his directorial debut .
however , nothing allen has ever done prepared me for this one - of - a - kind display of sheer good spirits .
in fact , in this movie , the feeling itself is what 's most important .
yes , the movie would have been better -- among his very best , i think -- if it had a meatier story .
but what it lacks in substance it makes up for in feeling .
and what better way to express feeling than through music ?
love is often best expressed in a song , and the numbers the cast break into here cut straight to the heart .
some are a tad too goofy , such as the number where a lot of ghosts prance around in a funeral parlor ,
but i admired allen for even putting them in there .
it also helps that as usual , allen has a top - flight cast working with him .
their singing voices range from quite good ( goldie hawn ) to not quite good ( allen ) to literally unlistenable ( barrymore , whose real voice was dubbed by a professional ) .
but while their vocal abilities differ , all the actors do a great job of putting joy up there on the screen , and making it rub off on the audience .
granted , some people will simply never accept characters singing in movies , but for those attuned to it , this film should work wonders .
jane campion , too , has a top - flight cast working for her in " portrait of a lady , " too , but even their considerable skills can do nothing to keep the film from being a stilted , virtually lifeless mess ,
albeit a visually interesting one . campion and her cinematographer stuart dryburgh come up with a great variety of eye - filling images that linger in the mind .
unfortunately , what did n't linger in the mind for me
was the story the visuals were supposed to be reflecting .
i remember very well shots of a train with its light beaming and shots of men vanishing around nicole kidman , but i can remember very little of what happened between all these people .
even worse , i do n't find myself feeling bad that i 've forgotten .
the problem , i think , lies not with the cast , which seemed to be trying very hard for the material .
it was the script that could n't convince me to care about anyone .
the characters were putting out all kinds of emotion , but i found no reason to connect with any of them .
i understood that the story was about cold , emotionally vacant characters , but for me to care about them , i have to identify with them somehow and want them to inject feeling into their lives .
jones ' script never simply gave me that opportunity .
in the end , it almost seemed as if campion was trying to inject some life of her own into the proceedings with her visual flourishes . unfortunately , as she kept painting these dazzling pictures , they only served to push me further away from the material and remind me that there was no connection between me and the film .
in the end , the movie 's one strength ended up hurting it .
so here we have two films with pretty uninteresting plots , and
yet i was able to truly enjoy one of them .
why ?
with both films , my head cared about neither story , but
only " everyone says i love you " was able to make my heart sing .

A: P
****
Q: in a typical cinematic high school , the football jocks have sex with the girls and then dump them , but
not before the boys ' scores are dutifully recorded in their little black books .
as the sexual acts take place , the other guys hang out nearby , guzzling beer and grunting like pigs .
in the rage : carrie 2 , robert mandel 's terminally bland sequel to carrie , there is n't a single original moment .
only amy irving returns from carrie , and the talent of the rest of the sequel 's cast is impossible to determine given the stupefying mediocrity of rafael moreu 's script .
as rachel , the horror story 's lead , emily bergl gives one of the least scary performances in recent memory , but it is n't exactly her fault .
the director asks for little from his actors , which is precisely what he gets .
sporadically in this lame and lifeless movie , rachel will cause school lockers and windows to fly open , but generally she just mopes around looking like a victim .
her fellow students delight in tormenting her . of course
, she will get her revenge in the obligatory ending bloodbath in which she will decapitate and castrate the boys and crush the girls with burning timbers .
as the movie marks time until its big finale , it throws in some repugnant scenes , hoping to turn audience 's stomachs .
rachel 's girlfriend commits a horrible and realistic suicide after the boy who made " love " to her the night before spurns her .
( he gets major points in his black book for this , but his buddies say he would have gotten more if he had had sex with her after her death . )
even a helpless puppy is run over , and we see his poor , little body flipping over and over under a truck .
the teenagers in the movie are completely blas ?
about it all .
" does n't it offend you that some girl offed herself yesterday , " asks one of the few kids with a conscience .
" why ? " responds his nonplussed girlfriend .
"
she was n't anybody . " remarkably devoid of any energy , especially for a horror flick
, the movie makes one yearn for a fast forward button on the theater 's armrest .
with material this bad , the film 's only hope is to go for parody , but it is n't smart enough to realize it .
even the mandatory epilogue is as pointless and predictable as the rest of the movie .
the rage : carrie 2 runs 1 : 45 .
it is rated r for graphic violence , teen alcohol abuse , sex , nudity and profanity and would be acceptable only for older teenagers .

A:
N
****