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

[EX Q]: note : some may consider portions of the following text to be spoilers . be forewarned .
on december 20 , 1996 , amidst all the year - end oscar bait releases from the major studios , miramax 's genre label dimension films quietly released a sly little ensemble slasher flick titled scream .
although the teen horror market had been given up for all - but - dead in recent years , the film shocked industry observers by scoring consistently high box office returns , eventually topping $ 100 million domestic and becoming one of the most successful films of its type in history , while delighting audiences by finally presenting a set of knowing slasher flick protagonists who were aware of the all the standard cliches associated with the genre .
the sleeper success of scream sent shockwaves through the industry -- suddenly , everybody was looking for hip , inexpensive fright films that might be able to reap similar fortunes .
the strategy of casting young tv stars to draw the youth demographic was given a boost .
scream director wes craven , previously best known as the creator of new line 's a nightmare on elm street film series , was thrust back into the limelight .
and scream 's rookie scribe , kevin williamson , burst onto the film scene in stunning fashion .
it 's hard to understate this last point .
mr .
williamson has , based upon his produced screenplays as of this writing ( scream , i know what you did last summer from october 1997 , and now scream 2 ) , enjoyed a meteoric rise to fame , quickly become the most well - known screenwriter amongst the entertainment weekly - reading , box office figure - watching youth culture since -- well , since that quentin tarantino guy ( whom , it is said , has also achieved some renown as a director ) .
indeed , in a singularly freakish oddity , it is the screenwriter , mr . williamson , and not the director that has been receiving the lion 's share of acclaim for the success of scream , and the print advertisements for scream 2 's theatrical release are similarly indicative of his increasing prominence : while the traditional " a film by wes craven " drapes the film 's title in the ads , right below it ( in equal sized font , yet ) reads " written by kevin williamson " , an affirmation of the screenwriter 's contribution to the project which may be unprecedented .
( i can envision the board of wga , licking their chops at this coup and counting the days until their goal of " a film by " is attained . )
and , much like mr .
tarantino 's screenwriting , mr .
williamson 's work is vaguely unconventional , incorporating both contemporary pop culture references and allusions to other films into the dialogue of his characters .
in scream , they satirically discussed other horror films ; here in the sequel , the characters discuss the relative merits of film sequels .
scream was written in 1995 during the infamous bob dole rampage against hollywood , and mr .
williamson 's rejection of this tirade clearly influenced the writing in both that film and this sequel .
while the sequel was planned from the outset -- a treatment of scream 2 was included when mr .
williamson sold the screenplay for scream -- the basic premise for the film and the reunion of the surviving characters
nevertheless seems extremely artificially contrived , and it 's only at about the film 's midway point when it becomes engaging .
like its predecessor , scream 2 opens with a splashy , eye - grabbing prologue which only vaguely ties into the film 's principal narrative ; this time around , we 're following the exploits of a young couple ( jada pinkett and omar epps ) attending a riotously gleeful sneak preview screening of stab ( a running film - within - a - film gag where the " true life " events behind the first film has been turned into a movie ) .
however , although it tries hard and has some good ideas -- the nightmarishly enthusiastic audience in the film vaguely reminded me of the one i was sharing the theatre with , and i was certainly thinking about gutting the overly - noisy person a few seats away myself after about fifteen minutes -- the prologue is a pale imitation of the bravura opening sequence in the original with drew barrymore ( where her performance not only convinced me that she * could * act , but was so good that it would rank among the best performances in a horror film that i 've ever seen ) .
there are too many knowing , hip pop - culture references crammed into the scream 2 sequence , and the setup is n't nearly as cleverly frightening as scream 's ; while the first film 's preface dizzyingly built up to a final shot that was exhilaratingly terrifying , the payoff here is almost campily theatrical .
flash to the campus of a smalltown ohio college ,
where returning characters sidney ( neve campbell ) and randy ( jamie kennedy ) have relocated for their studies and to escape the notoriety from the events in the first film .
the murders which open this film result in reuniting the survivors -- single - minded tabloid tv reporter gale weathers ( courteney cox ) roars into town to cover the breaking story , while ever - awkward former deputy dewey riley ( david arquette ) flies in to protectively guard over sidney .
they 're joined by cotton weary ( liev schreiber ) , who was falsely accused of homicide in a cameo appearance during the first film ; his role here is significantly expanded .
the film incidentally provides surprisingly little backstory , although i suppose a good case can be made that it really is n't necessary -- not because so many people have seen the first installment , but because this is , after all , a sequel to a slasher film : what do you * think * happened to these characters in the prior movie ?
there 's a lot of new faces on the scene too : sidney 's new boyfriend , derek ( jerry o'connell ) and her new roommate hallie ( elise neal ) , randy 's fellow film student mickey ( timothy olyphant ) , gale 's newly - assigned nervous cameraman joel ( duane martin ) , omnipresent local journalist debbie salt ( laurie metcalf ) , co - ed cici cooper ( ms .
buffy herself , sarah michelle gellar ) , and a pair of simpering sorority sisters ( rebecca gayheart and sirens ' portia di rossi ) .
any of these characters could be the killer -- or for that matter , could be the next victim .
as is seemingly becoming a regular staple of a kevin williamson screenplay , the narrative is once again framed around the increasingly - flimsy premise of a whodunit .
one problem that scream did n't have was keeping you interested in the identity of the killer . here ( and to some extent in i know what you did last summer ) , mr .
williamson 's screenplay seems slightly hampered by trying to turn the identity of the killer into a mystery .
the film occasionally becomes so bogged down with misdirection that you can sense it straining at the seams to try and drop red herrings left and right at the expense of its thriller elements .
( it does n't help matters any that the killer 's alter - ego is fairly obvious from the get - go . )
indeed , the finale plays as full - out camp when the villain is finally unmasked , frothing at the mouth with glazed eyes .
this is one of those cases where the villain goes on such an endless diatribe about their machinations , scheming , and motivation , that you actually get bored listening and just want them all to get on with it .
while the basic setup and premise for the film is fairly contrived , the aspect where it 's head - and - shoulders above its predecessor is in its suspense sequences .
they 're staged much more imaginatively here
( save for the first post - prologue murder , which is handled in such a mediocre , conventional fashion that it seems to be culled directly from the predictable 1980s slasher flicks that the first film satirized ) , and are much more fun to watch .
it 's hard to hold back a smile during a giddy scene where sidney and her companion have to climb over the incapacitated killer in order to escape from a car wreck , and a cat - and - mouse chase involving gale and dewey in a campus sound lab is very nicely staged , although its ultimate resolution is hilariously overblown .
in terms of its characters ,
the strong part of the film is the interesting relationship between gale and dewey ( who ambles onto the screen accompanied by his very own theme music ) .
their verbal sparring at the outset provides much humour -- an exchange where dewey defensively rebukes charges of a perceived aura of incompetency is well - written -- and there 's a curiously endearing aspect about their relationship amidst all the mayhem and bloodshed .
on the other hand , sidney is pretty dull here .
she does n't have any compelling presence , and there 's nothing particularly interesting about her this time around to make us care about her other than that she 's the returning heroine .
given this , and the fact that there 's no strong second banana character for sidney ( elise neal 's role is n't nearly substantive enough to adequately fill rose mcgowan 's shoes ) , it 's no wonder why the roles for gale and dewey have been significantly augmented for this installment of the film .
what surprises me the most about scream 2 is its zealousness in decimating its cast .
the film 's mounting body count bears out the fact that * no * character is safe ( well , * almost * )
; while in principal i applaud this bold policy , at some point you 've got to be wondering about just how many characters will make it to the next sequel .
( i was particularly surprised with the untimely demise of one in particular , whose casting for the next installment of the series would 've seemed obvious . )
but hey , as rose mcgowan 's character said in the first film : " no , please do n't kill me , mr .
ghostface
-- i want to be in the sequel !
" look what that got her .
[EX A]: P

[EX Q]: dear god , this is a fantastically bad film !
regardless of what i say about knock off , you ca n't grasp its awfulness from my words .
you have to see it and experience it for yourself .
here 's the kicker , though -- i suggest that you do so .
yes , this is a bad film -- easily one of the most incompetent films of the year --
but it has a certain misguided charm that makes it a unique kind of disaster to endure
.
in fact , i enjoyed myself for most of its brief running time , despite the dreadful acting and a completely incomprehensible story
.
do n't get me wrong : i 'm not excusing knock off .
it reaches an unacceptable level of badness ; it 's so incoherent that i wonder if it was hacked up worse than the avengers was .
it also features some truly terrible performances from lela rochon , michael wong , paul sorvino , and -- of course -- jean - claude van damme .
it does , however , have the entertaining presence of rob schneider , and the excessively inventive and pretentious direction of tsui hark .
as i watched it , i occasionally wondered if it was aware of its own awfulness .
now , in retrospect , it seems clear that it was n't , but it 's still a fascinating kind of mess .
i do n't like writing plot descriptions ( it is , by far , the most boring part of writing a review ) , but , in this case , i 'm off the hook : there is no way i could write an accurate synopsis for knock off .
for the sake of comparison , i had no trouble understanding the usual suspects during my first viewing .
i paid closer attention to knock off , and the only thing i am able to say about it is that van damme plays a dude named ray , and is accused by the cia ( i think ) of selling
knock off products ( knock off products are , of course , products that look like name - brand materials but are generic and cheap ) .
i do n't know what any of this has to do with martial arts , but there are lots of martial arts in the film .
ray is good at martial arts , so when he has to beat up bad guys , there 's no problem .
rob schneider plays his sidekick , although i had no idea who he really was by the end of the film .
lela rochon is just some woman who accuses them of stuff , while paul sorvino is both the good guy and the bad guy at once !
in fact , every character goes through so many shifts from good to bad that the end provides absolutely no insight into what any of them really do .
in that order , knock off is completely incoherent and makes absolutely no sense .
but what a strange mess
it is .
it was written by stephen e .
de souza , who also wrote die hard and 48 hours .
can this be the same man ?
i do n't see how , unless , of course , huge chunks of the film have been removed for the sake of running time .
knock off seems to have an interesting premise ( as far as action films go ) , but there 's no semblance here .
for instance , van damme is introduced , and then seconds later he 's running a chariot race through the streets of hong kong .
why ?
who knows .
what are the implications of this ?
i have no idea .
most action films abandon depth in favor of action , and this is normally a problem .
knock off , however , is the first film that i would have preferred to see with all of the talky sequences cut .
the acting is embarrassingly bad :
rochon , in particular , delivers each of her lines with stiff and talentless insincerity .
sorvino , in addition , deserves better than this .
van damme is bad , but he 's charming in that bad way , and so i ca n't say that he 's hard to watch ( although i rarely understood what he was saying ) .
the only exception is rob schneider , who is actually quite funny a lot of the time .
tsui utilizes so many tricks that he makes john woo look tame by comparison .
they 're all pointless gimmicks
though , such as shots of the inner - workings of a knock off running shoe .
but his action scenes are never boring :
one particular piece inside of a fruit factory ( a fruit factory ? ) is well - choreographed .
lots of the scenes are pitched well to comedy , such as our heroes ' first encounter with the rochon character .
but did tsui know that his film is beyond ludicrous
?
i hope he did , for the alternative is a frightening thought .
knock off has the feel of a truly terrible exercise in camp mania .
if it were boring , i 'd give it zero stars .
but it 's not boring :
it 's loud and excessive and completely incoherent .
it 's also funny , even when it is n't meaning to be funny .
a bad film that succeeds as entertainment does n't deserve to be fully lambasted .
i recognize knock off for its irrefutable badness , but i ca n't deny it 's zany , useless charm .
oh , i know , they 're just action scenes looking desperately for a real story , but they 're fun action scenes amongst a crowd of laughably inane concepts .
it 's fun to admire
the awfulness of a film like this , but that does n't excuse the fact that it is , indeed , awful .
[EX A]: N

[EX Q]: in 1989 , director edward zwick began his career with the powerful civil war drama , " glory , " but since then , he has made continuous disappointments , to me at least , with 1994 's " legends of the fall , " and 1996 's " courage under fire .
"
those two films were n't bad , just not very good , but with zwick 's latest film , " the siege , " he has finally made one .
"
the siege , " is a modern - day action - thriller that focuses on terrorism that is sweeping through new york city .
investigating the matter is fbi agents anthony hubbard ( denzel washington ) and frank haddad ( tony shalhoub ) , who are first hit by the ordeal when a city bus explodes with several innocent people on it .
later , a bomb goes off in a broadway theater , killing even more .
they soon meet cia operative elise kraft ( annette bening ) , who may very well hold the key to the identity of the arab terrorist .
there are some movies that simply do n't need to be made , and , " the siege " may very well be one of them .
oh , sure , zwick thinks he is making a " meaningful " action film , since he has added lots of exposition scenes in which the audience is basically lectured on the horrors of terrorism , but what he really has made is actually no more substantial than , say , " die hard , " which also starred bruce willis .
this time , willis is horribly wasted as a general of the u . s . army , who puts a state of martial law over nyc during the climax .
whatever points , " the siege , " earnestly tried to make , were obviously lost in the translation from page to screen , or maybe , zwick never really had anything serious to say in the first place .
the role of the arab community is offensively stereotypical , just as women were in the recent , " john caprenter 's vampires , " by placing them all in the category of " bad guys .
"
" the siege , " contains three fine actors --- washington , bening , and shalhoub --- but washington is stuck with a character that contains not an ounce of even remote development .
bening has slightly more to do , and has an intriguing character to work with , while shalhoub pretty much steals the show , even though , again ,
he has no real character .
by the climax of , " the siege , " with washington giving a sermon to willis on the so - called " message " of the story , i felt like i had wandered into a sequel to , " on deadly ground , " in which steven seagal gave a 10-minute speech at the end about preserving the environment .
"
the siege " is constantly heavy - handed , not entertaining or insightful , and just goes to prove that not even the best actors can save a film that lacks a satisfactory screenplay .
[EX A]:
N