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

[EX Q]: when i ponder childhood memories past , one of the things that always springs immediately to mind is watching the " inspector gadget " tv show with my older brother .
truth be told , we were rabid fanatics ; our version of cowboys and indians was chasing each other around our coffee table to the theme tune , alternating who would get to be gadget and who would be stuck playing the part of dr .
claw , the inspector 's arch nemesis .
i was never a biggie on nostalgia , but you just ca n't help but have fond memories of something like that .
sometimes i even find myself up at 4 am watching re - runs of my favorite episodes , trying to recapture some of that sense of wonder i felt as a kid .
at the very least , i was expecting the new film version of the classic television series to have at least some kind of similar effect on me .
despite how horrid a film may be , the simple task of rekindling even a slight feeling of nostalgia is pretty tough to screw up .
so back i sat , with minimum expectations of what the movie would deliver ( let 's face it ; exactly how good can a live - action disney film really be ? ) .
i was wise enough to steer clear from the likes of mr .
magoo and george of the jungle ( two previous disney adaptations ) ,
and i wish to god that i had been sharp enough to skip gadget as well
.
rarely has a movie left me with such an utter feeling of emptiness .
as everyone else was getting up to exit the screening room after the movie had completed its assault on mankind , i was left sitting there , absolutely speechless and totally dumbfounded at what i had just seen
.
can something this awful
truly exist in such an evolved world ?
right from the beginning , i knew i was in trouble .
in the opening scenes , each character is introduced as if their sole purpose is to just be , to simply serve as real - life duplicates of their cartoon clones .
when referring to them , people almost yell in fear that the audience will not catch on as to who a certain character is supposed to be ( " oh , hi penny !
is brain with you ? " ) . creating one - dimensional replicas is one thing ; having mere names take the place of them is quite another .
the " plot " , shall we call it , stays fairly in tune with the original series .
matthew broderick stars as john brown ( how creative is that ? ) , a security guard who is horribly injured by a pack of ruthless businessmen headed by scolex ( why , rupert everett ,
for the love of god
why ? ? ? ! ! !
) , who himself is transformed into claw by an unfortunate chain of events .
brown is then rescued and used as a prototype for a new law - enforcement technology wherein he 's joined with various machine parts and some nifty gadgets to form ( drumroll , please ) . . .
inspector gadget !
> from here on out
, the movie becomes a hodgepodge of stupid dialog and confusing situations
( although , to be fair , my confusion could have been caused by the virtual concussion the film was inflicting upon my fragile mind ) .
there 's something about an evil gadget taking over the city ( his first crime must have been swiping matt dillon 's dentures from there 's something about mary ) and it all ends with ( what else ? )
a bunch of post - credit nonsense and a cameo by don adams himself .
to be honest , i was n't much paying attention to these " treats " .
i was just glad that it was over .
[EX A]: N

[EX Q]: the swooping shots across darkened rooftops suggest a very tim burton movie , but , alas , no caped crusader descends to save * this * film
.
instead , it 's a skeletal housemaid ( julia roberts ) who must bear witness to this unfortunate retelling of " dr .
jekyll and mr .
hyde .
" for a few , fleeting , maddening moments , director stephen frears ( dangerous liaisons ) gets everything
just right-- the tone , the colors , the characters ; all the ingredients to make a most - powerful potion out of valerie martin 's best - selling novel .
yet it fizzles too quickly ; the volatile mixture losing potency from the very first scene .
casting is a large part of the problem .
the story all but collap- ses around ms .
roberts--
she does n't have the range for this kind of drama .
her accent also comes and goes , though it 's nowhere near as glaring as the total lack of chemistry between her and co - star john malkovich .
( he looks the same in both of his roles-- an incredible fact that 's missed by everyone in the story ! )
the very british supporting cast-- including michael gambon and george cole-- gives credibility to the smaller parts .
glenn close also appears as a madam that the good doctor calls upon .
her performance is as close to intentional camp as the movie ever gets and-- as a bonus-- offers a likely peek at her upcoming cruella de ville in the live - action 101 dalmantions .
the biggest botch in mary reilly is suspense : there is none .
no terror , no tension ; nothing .
without any weight , wit , or wonder to propel the story , the viewer is left with little more to do than pay attention to the period detail , a few buckets of blood , and stuart craig 's fabulously dreary production design .
all of which gets old after about an hour , at which point i recommend leaving .
( the pacing in the second - half is especially abominable .
if you * do * stick it through , your sole reward is a half - hokey special effect depicting the infamous transformation . )
mr .
frears reportedly recut his film several times , missing several release dates in the process .
( obviously , no one advised him to throw up his hands and just turn the whole damned thing over to mel brooks .
blucher ! )
mary reilly is the second robert louis stevenson story of the month , after muppet treasure island .
perhaps mr .
frears should consult with brian henson on future projects .
i daresay that
even ms .
piggy is a better choice for a certain roles than julia roberts .
and she does have a great chop !
[EX A]: N

[EX Q]: midway through " anaconda " , documentary filmmaker terri flores ( jennifer lopez ) turns to a co - worker and says " i thought this movie would be my first big break .
instead , it 's turned into a disaster .
" truer words have never been spoken .
" anaconda " is a monster movie with a lousy monster .
it 's a suspense film that is utterly predictable .
it 's a mess the film does manage to drum up some scares , but only in the most elementary way , like a jack - in - the - box .
as you turn the crank , you 're totally aware that the damn clown is going to pop up , but somehow it 's still mildly startling when it happens .
the main difference between the giant snake in " anaconda " and the clown in a jack - in - the - box is that the clown is more realistic .
" anaconda " boasts some of the worst special effects to appear onscreen in years .
animatronic shots of the snake look as phony as any of those cringe- inducing robots
you 've endured at disney world .
but it 's the computer animated scenes that truly expand the meaning of the word lame .
in one shot , a character tries to flee from the monster by diving from a tree near a waterfall , but the giant snake springs out and loops around its hapless victim in mid air .
the scene , if done well , would have been a jaw- dropper . here , the horribly bad digital effects look less convincing than a saturday morning cartoon .
what 's really amazing is that the filmmaker 's were so proud of this dreadful shot that they actually included it in the promotional trailers for the movie .
but enough about the phony snakes .
now it 's time to talk about the lousy story
.
heroic and very pale anthropologist eric stoltz leads a documentary film crew down a brazilian river in search of the shirishama indians , a legendary tribe that supposedly lives in the boondocks of the rain forest .
stoltz tells his crew " pray that you did n't forget your bug spray .
"
apparently the female crew members bathed in the stuff , because they spend most of the film wearing skimpy tops and short shorts with no ill effect .
along the way , the group rescues a whacked - out lapsed priest ( jon voight ) who claims to know how to find the shirishama .
within minutes , they throw away all their plans and follow voight down a tributary into the land of creepiness .
from that point on , the film is a hodgepodge of scenes and shots ripped off from " jaws " and " dead calm .
"
one of the oddest structural points of the film is the handling of eric stoltz .
early in the story , his character gets knocked into a coma by a river insect and spends virtually the rest of the movie unconscious .
so why did they hire an actor of the caliber of stoltz for what amounts to a cameo appearance ?
also , why did stoltz , who generally selects his roles with great care , agree to appear in this crap ?
ah , the mysteries of hollywood .
the remaining crew members are basically just snake food waiting to happen .
jonathan hyde is mildly diverting as a pompous englishman hired to narrate the documentary , but lopez and ice cube manage to rise above their cardboard characters .
lopez , who starred in " selena , " is an enormously appealing performer , possessing a vibrancy that makes even the most trite lines seem credible .
ice cube has a special charisma ; an ability to look like a macho adult and a frightened boy simultaneously .
there 's also a special twinkle in his eyes , as if he 's gently mocking his own tough - guy posturing .
but the movie really centers around the outrageously hammy performance of jon voight .
obsessed with capturing one of the giant anacondas , voight plays the villain in thick accent , with a series of leers and hisses , spouting the kind of dialogue usually heard only in episodes of " jonny quest .
"
at one point , he looms over the crew and says " the anaconda is the perfect killing machine .
it strikes , wraps around you , holds you tighter than your true love .
and you get the privilege of hearing your bones break before the power of its embrace causes your veins to explode .
"
that moment is so high - camp that it almost made the film tolerable .
almost . fans of the horror genre may be tempted to check out " anaconda .
" do n't .
there are a lots of horror films scheduled for release this summer , including another " alien " sequel .
wait for them , rent " jaws " in the meantime , and do n't throw away your money and time on drivel like this .
[EX A]:
N