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

[Q]: what makes reindeer games even more disappointing than just a predictable , lifeless action flick is the cast and crew who signed onto the project .
most of the people involved in reindeer games just came off terrible slumps with excellent comeback performances in their most recent films .
john frankenheimer , who made the unforgettable cold war drama the manchurian candidate way back in the early 60 's , recently showed critics and fans alike that he still had some magic left in his directorial skills when he created the brilliant car chase scenes in ronin .
screenwriter ehren kruger gave a remarkable first impression when he wrote the script for the underrated arlington rd .
ben affleck displayed his comedic talents in dogma and boiler room , and even on saturday night live directly after the horrible forces of nature and 200 cigarettes .
even charlize theron , who i was convinced could n't act , did a decent job in cider house rules .
when all of these bright stars come together , one would assume that the movie will have great potential to be entertaining .
after coming out of the theater showing reindeer games , disbelief was my first reaction ?
then frustration .
the movie could have premiered on cinemax at two in the morning starring an all - rookie cast and still would have been equally lacking in entertaining .
the acting is so pitiful and the script so dull
, i may have to rethink some of my opinions on how talented these actors actually are .
it seemed like everyone was restricted to just the script and not given a fair amount of improvisational rights .
we have all seen ben affleck have some fun on the set , it is so apparent in a number of scenes in good will hunting when he exchanges jokes with his friends at a bar .
the actors in that movie were having fun and , from that , the audience had fun .
reindeer games is the complete opposite ; the actors do n't seem to want to be their characters ( even danny trejo , who will do practically anything , does n't look like he is enjoying himself ) , causing the audience to quickly lose interest .
evidence of public disapproval was noted when a woman behind me yelled " boy this movie is horrible ! " and when there were scattered giggles during the most dramatic moments .
the story follows a man , rudy ( ben affleck ) , who is leaving prison in a few days along with his best friend and cellmate nick ( james frain ) .
nick has been exchanging love letters with a beautiful woman , ashley ( charlize theron ) , and can not wait to leave prison and meet her in person .
when nick is killed in a prison riot , rudy decides to pretend to be nick and take ashley out on a date for the christmas holidays .
unfortunately ashley 's brother , gabriel ( gary sinise ) interferes with their relationship .
thinking rudy is nick , he kidnaps rudy and threatens to kill him unless he helps rob a casino , which nick use to work at as a security guard .
now rudy must pretend to be nick so he can protect ashley from her brother gabriel .
confused ?
the movie only gets more complex as it goes on , until it gets way , way too complex at its climax .
but reindeer games makes its first serious mistake during the first half an hour .
the hero commits a greedy , selfish act when he decides to pretend he is his dead cellmate in order to date ashley .
some hero .
the point of a hero is to do the morally correct thing , a person for the audience to relate to or admire .
when rudy lies and cheats his way into trouble , instead of gathering support from me for him to ultimately succeed in getting the bad guys , i felt more like he was getting what he deserved and even wanted to see him fail at times .
the most irritating part of the film
( besides the fact that this is a christmas movie released in february ) is the number of chances the bad guys get to kill rudy but fail or delay for some idiotic reason .
the routine in which the bad guy must explain his genius plan to the hero before attempting to kill him with some elaborate machine is getting so tired
nowadays , especially when i eagerly want to see the hero dead .
the only saving grace keeping this movie from receiving zero stars is an amusing but pointless cameo from isaac hayes as a prisoner upset with his food .
why he was in this movie for such a pointless role
beats me .
why any of these people had anything at all to do with this movie
beats me .
[A]: N


[Q]: i guess that if a very wild bachelor party had gone really bad , there would be broken furniture , traces of smack and cocaine on the floor , and a dead prostitute in the bathroom .
i guess that if a movie had also gone really bad , there might be the same elements present .
coincidence ?
poor kyle ( a meek looking jon favreau ) . . .
he is about to marry his radiant fiancee , laura ( cameron diaz ) .
but before he exchanges his vows , he embarks to las vegas with his friends for one last blowout .
but this bachelor party has gone about as bad as it could possibly get .
the prostitute has met a horrible , though accidental death , and drugs are everywhere .
the five friends agree that there is enough bad evidence here that will send them to jail for a very long time .
a surprisingly calm robert boyd ( christian slater ) , who looks like he was groomed to make nefarious decisions , ponders their dilemma for a few minutes before deciding that the best thing to do is to bury the body in the desert where she 'll never be found .
although they stomach the gruesome deed of getting rid of the body ( which also disturbingly involves dismantling the body using power saws in order to stuff it into suitcases ) , when they return from their trip , guilt and paranoia begins to set in which slowly consumes some of the five friends .
one is adam ( daniel stern ) he grows increasingly agitated .
whenever people look at his van or whenever a cop glances his way , his blood pressure increases .
or that just may be because of his dysfunctional family .
another is michael , who was actually responsible for her death .
he tries to bury his feelings , but the burden of guilt begins to affect his judgment as well .
boyd is the ?
doer ' of the group .
seemingly suffering from a long psychosis , when he feels as if his secret is about to be exposed , he is apt to take extreme measures to cover up his tracks .
kyle just hopes that his wedding will live up to laura 's demanding expectations .
then , there 's moore ( leland orser ) who speaks 5 lines and walks around with a puzzled look on his face .
the problem with this reprehensible movie is that it wants to be a cruel comedy , but it presents things in a manner that just are n't funny .
drugs , mutilation , and killing your own friends is n't something to be laughed at .
as a straight psychological drama , i could see how it might have worked , as each one tried to maneuver and overcome the weight of their own guilt in their own sometimes - sick ways .
but this movie insults us by assuming that we could simply discard our values for 2 hours .
if you do like this movie , i do n't think that i want to know you .
i did find slater a convincing leader who sways his friends to choose not the right thing
but the ? smart play . '
and diaz adds some brightness to this film as a wedding - needing fiancee .
but
her talents are essentially wasted here .
it 's obvious that the film maker is trying to strike a certain tone .
but the way that he chooses to do it is tasteless .
do not make a very bad decision by seeing this film .
[A]: N


[Q]: martial arts master steven seagal ( not to mention director ! ) has built a career out of playing an allegedly fictitious martial arts superman who never gets hurt in fights , talks in a hushed tone , and squints at any sign of danger .
he 's also the most consistent individual in hollywood today , since all his movies suck .
they basically represent his egotisitical tendencies about his art ( that is , martial art ) .
i 'm sure the guy 's good , and he seems like a nice guy on talk shows , although a tad haughty , but these movies he makes are all the same : a guy who is basically indestructable , is maybe wounded supposedly mortally , then comes back with a vengeance and goes buddha on all the baddies asses ( although i kinda liked " under siege " ) .
of course , this one , as a change , has a " message " that is drilled into our mind .
..
of course , after he blows up a lot of stuff and kills a bunch of people .
so why do i watch his crap ?
i usually do n't .
i will never , and you can hold me to this
, i will never pay to see this man 's movies , unless , and only unless , he 's in a supporting role ( i. e. " executive decision " )
and i 'd definitely pay if he dies
( i. e. " executive decision " ) .
but this one has a special place in my heart .
this does n't mean it 's good or that i even liked it .
this was the last movie i watched with my deceased uncle , and we had one hell of a time ripping it apart a la " mystery science theatre 3000 , " and this was a couple years before i had heard of " mystery science theatre 3000 .
" in this one , seagal plays a worker for a mining factory set in alaska and run by the greased - up typical shallow villain , this time played by an oscar - winner to give the movie some more clout - michael caine .
it seems that caine wants to do something with his oil factory that includes him dumping oil all over inuit land .
around the 20 - 30 minute point , seagal speaks up to him in what seems to be the typical speech to all the vain entrepeneurs ( what with his new " fire down below , " another " message film " ) , and caine has him bumped off .
..
or does he ?
seagal is rescued by some inuits , and falls in love with one of them , played by joan chen , who can act , hypothetically , but , for some reason , not here .
one of caine 's cliched henchmen ( played here with a lot of overacting by john c. mcginley ) shoots the cheif of the inuit clan , and chen and seagal go on a voyage to take down the oil factory .
..
literally , of course .
at one point , seagal gives a wonderfully hysterical speech about how he does n't have any options but blow stuff up .
he even goes as far as to say , " i do n't want to kill someone , " and in the same breath , he asks some guy where the arsenal is .
i have no problem with violence .
i 'm a huge john woo fan , but he paints his films with suspense , skill , style , depth , characterization , and just plain cool violence .
in the films of seagal , the suspense mainly consists of the baddie attacking him stupidly , and him either wounding or killing them .
at some points , they use the cliche of the talking villain , where the villain has the advantage , can shoot seagal , but begins talking by either telling him his big secret plan , or saying a corny line , to which seagal says something hokey back , and has had enough time to devise of a way to do away with them , and does .
this would be okay if there were any suspense or if it did n't take itself seriously at all , like in the case of this summer 's " con air .
"
but seagal is serious about his skill , and of course , his message .
i would n't mind if this was a message film in the way that they present it to you with evidence .
but seagal has no idea how to present a film where the message is subtle , not pounded into the viewer 's mind .
the villain is totally shallow and cartoonish
, thus we ca n't take him and his motives seriously , and while seagal talks about being kind to the environment , he also goes ahead and blows up a square mile of rig , and kills some workers who were just doing his job .
then at the end , he spends a good 10 minutes giving a speech , just in case you did n't get the message from the trailers .
what seagal does n't realize is that no one takes his films seriously
( although maybe a couple do ) and any message he has is no only redundant , but does n't comfortably fit in his film , which is filled to the brim with hokey violence , crap suspense , stupid melodrama , and characters who have about as much emotional depth as a petri dish . as far as seagal and his acting , he 's rather boring .
he squints , he kills . period .
nothing else .
oh ,
yeah
, there 's corny one - liners
( " i 'm gon na reach out and touch someone ! " ) .
of course , he 's the star , and we 're supposed to root for him and all ,
so he makes all the villains unbelievably stupid and a bunch of jerks .
michael caine , who 's a great actor , is just supposed to yell and look cold .
he does it well , i guess , but this is no " alfie .
" of coure , no one was expecting that caliber of performance from him .
his big henchman , john c. mcginley is kinda boring as well , but is not horrible .
and we even get a small performance from that god of drill sergeants on celluloid ,
r.
lee ermey ( from " full metal jacket " ) as a hired assasin squad leader who gets to say the obligatory speech about how dangerous seagal is , just for the movie trailers and for seagal 's ego .
and also , look for billy bob thornton as one of ermey 's assasins .
anyway , to conclude this all , to judge one of seagal 's movies is to judge all of them ( except for " under siege " and " executive decision , " though the latter is not really a " seagal movie " ) .
they all have this same formula , they all have the same action , same villain , same plot , but this one has that message , which makes it more excrucitating to watch .
i mean , if you do rent it ,
and i do n't reccomend you do
, make sure you just skip the last 10 minutes .
but i have to put it to seagal for creating a film so bad , that the last film i viewed with my uncle was a pleasurable one .
my ( extra star for the fun
it is to watch and mock )
[A]:
N