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

[Q]: rated : r for strong violence , language , drug use , nudity , and some sexuality .
starring : wesley snipes , anne archer , michael chaykin , donald sutherland , marie matiko .
running time : 117 minutes directed by : christian duguay
i 've never fully understood wesley snipes 's career .
he has his ups and downs , but mostly the downs .
his best movie was one of the best of 1998 and that movie was entitled " blade " .
he has had his typical action movies , " boiling point " , " passenger 57 " , but his new movie " the art of war " should just be called " rising sun 2 : the art of war " cause basically it 's a semi - remake of the same plot , with a different cast , and forced to be a ridiculously unbelievable thriller , that is high on style and low on substance .
wesley snipes plays a james bondish type secret agent working for the u . n . after a chinese ambassador is killed , he is on the track of the killer , trying to find out who it is , how it happened , where the killer was , and what to do .
anne archer plays his " boss " type person of the u . n .
and she has hired snipes to track down the killer .
well snipes is mistakenly framed as the killer , and is now an outlaw , kidnapping a chinese woman with him , and having her help him along the way .
all this leads to a finale that is so dumb , and so stupid that is it unbelievably dumb , and the stunts , dialogue and acting
all ruin this movie .
wesley snipes is n't one of my favorite actors because of the fact that the character he plays in every movie is the same character he plays in the movie before .
the only good role snipes has really had was in 1998 's " blade " .
i walked into " the art of war " expecting a good , high octane thriller , and all i got was a pile of mush .
the only real ' good ' thing the movie has is action , and plenty of it , but i noticed it is badly filmed , the camera is so shaky you can not even tell what is going on .
the ending finale is so worthless and pitiful , that it even tries to mock " the matrix " , laughably funny , it is undeniably stupid .
christian duguay 's direction is also not that great .
his camera angles and sense of style are all in place , but sadly his lighting and editing are all badly done .
even the whole " matrix " ending was n't even good .
the stunts and action are badly filmed , and badly choreographed .
his placing of the characters , and the assination of the chinese ambassador , and the plotting of the movie are so predictable and laughable , that it just takes all the fun out of the entire movie .
anne archer who is usually good in her roles
, turns in a horrible job here .
she is sour , downbeat , and dreadfully dull with her forced dialogue , and dumb moves .
even donald sutherland as a co - star ca n't save this movie from being a bust .
so for an overall opinion : " the art of war " is a total waste of time .
it 's not entertaining , nor exciting , or even action packed .
it is a pointless movie , and makes absolutely no sense at all .
if you really want to see a good version of " the art of war " , rent the wesley snipes and sean connery action vehicle of the same kind " rising sun " , it is n't a great film either , but at least it 's better than this .
[A]: N


[Q]: sometimes , when i decide to write a short story or a poem , i think of a title first , and then think of a subject to go with it .
it seems that the makers of disturbing behavior had a similar train of thought when it came to the title sequence .
i would n't be surprised if a couple of guys got together and created the opening credits , and then someone saw it and made up a story to go along with it .
the title sequence is so good , so ominous and original , that it had me engrossed before the picture even began .
of course , my attention dwindled shortly into the film .
disturbing behavior , like so many thrillers , starts off interesting and ends up
laughably ridiculous .
it 's a teen horror film with no interesting violence or sex .
it 's a suspense film with no suspense .
it 's an evil small town story with no story to speak of .
it 's a disaster , a listless and uninspired disaster , that just barely misses one - stardom because of a few good sequences , a mercifully short running time , and one terrific set of opening credits .
our main man is a fellow named steve clark , blandly played by jimmy marsden .
he moves to a small town with his family after , tragically , his brother shoots himself .
steve is very upset about the untimely death of his brother ; we learn this through strange home - video like nightmares that he has occasionally .
the big trial for steve is , of course , to fit in at school and make new friends .
marsden looks like your stereotypical jock down to the last detail , so he seems a poor casting choice for a social reject .
as a social reject , he falls in with some pretentious dope - smoking philosophers , gavin ( nick stahl ) and rachel ( katie holmes ) .
gavin informs steve that the local group of jocks , known as the blue ribboners , are actually a bunch of zombies , assimilating new members into their group , while sporadically killing innocent people .
so , it 's up to our group of mismatched protagonists to 1 ) solve the mystery , and
2 ) do something about it .
by the end of it all , something has happened and things have been explained , but the film still does n't make any sense .
disturbing behavior was written by scott rosenberg .
i 've seen his name around recently ( he was one of the toucher - uppers on the armageddon script ) , and i imagine that , for the most part , he knows what he 's doing when it comes to screenwriting .
he did , however , have a complete lapse in judgement when he got the idea for this film , and then decided to actually take the time to write it out .
evil small town films are pretty common ( the last one , phantoms , is also a dismal failure ) , but it takes a lot of skill to make the formula work .
rosenberg 's script is a complete mess , lacking in even the most basic attempts at characterization .
and it makes no sense , nor is their any purpose when things are finally " explained .
"
there is supposed to be an element of surprise when we see what is happening to the jocks , but the film never explains exactly what * is * happening .
they get strapped to chairs , a microchip is inserted into their eyes , and -- poof -- they become sex - crazed , superviolent , machine - like creatures .
the doctor responsible for all this , dr .
caldicott ( bruce greenwood ) , must be pretty nuts for thinking that this kind of behavior is a step up from the way high school jocks actually behave ( or , perhaps , this is the only realistic element in the film ) .
much of the writing is simply bad , and rosenberg has no intuition when it comes to the way high school kids act . in one terrible scene , gavin explains to steve all of the high school cliques , while pointing them out in the cafeteria .
up front , i should say that , in four years of high school , i did not eat in the cafeteria even once .
that aside , the various social groups he points out are general , uninteresting , and poorly - shown .
for instance , he points to the " nerds , " who are all wearing glasses and playing with their laptops .
it 's such an obvious cliche that i ca n't believe rosenberg even bothered .
most of the dialogue is forced ( no one says , " bite me !
" anymore ) , and none of the scenes have any degree of wit .
this picture is not inspired , and most scenes flop from one to the other , with no sense of momentum or energy .
the blame for this can be placed on director david nutter , who apparently likes his films dry .
horror films should at least exploit violence , but this one is shockingly timid .
there are a few good scenes , though , such as an interesting trip through an insane asylum ( this is , however , the most forced scene in the film , for how our heroes get there or why they bother are things we never learn ) .
i also liked the school janitor character , played by william sadler .
he has a few lines that are surprisingly thought - provoking .
the acting is largely a waste of talent .
marsden is , as i said , bland ( thought not particularly bad ) .
bruce greenwood is shamelessly wasted .
stahl and holmes both show they have talent , but the direction is n't good enough to hone in on their skills
( stahl 's performance seems more like a parody of high school potheads ) .
none of these characters expand beyond their one dimension , and , frankly , watching cardboard cut - outs of human beings run down hallways while screaming just is n't all that cool .
disturbing behavior is a wreck of a film , and it started out a wreck before shooting even began .
i 'm surprised there were producers who read this script and thought that it would make a good film , or that it would make a lot of money at the box office .
it 's not boring , or even blatantly awful , but
it 's an uninspired lump of a film .
it sure starts off nicely , but the regression into total absurdity is so consistent that the very last scene is outright laughable
.
so , if you go to see this film , take my advice : appreciate the credit sequence , and pray it never ends .
[A]: N


[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 ?
[A]:
N