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]: toward the bottom of the ' 80s action movie barrel lies action jackson , the only movie in hollywood history to show sharon stone and vanity topless within a span of ten minutes .
this carl " apollo creed
" weathers vehicle features the traditional cop vs .
evil establishment crook , and relies on all the ' 80s trappings , from the token heroin addict who needs a fix to the shouting superior officer .
somewhere in between come the explosions and boobs , although there is a curious lack of exploding boobs .
weathers is action jackson , a detroit cop known for all sorts of crazy vigilante techniques .
speaking of one past criminal apprehension , jackson 's superior yells , " you tore his arm off !
" jackson replies , " he had a spare .
"
jackson has been busted down to a desk job because of past problems with auto manufacturer dellaplane ( craig t . nelson ) and now has to act as department liaison to a dinner honoring nelson .
after hearing what jackson thinks of him , stone says , " i take it
you 're not one of dellaplane 's friends . "
" not unless they changed the definition , " jackson glowers .
and of course it turns out stone is mrs .
dellaplane .
faux pas , jackson . .
.
not everything is happy in motown ; people are being killed and dellaplane has evil plans for the awa .
it 's all up to jackson to stop it , and his only lead lies in vanity ( not his own ) .
wherever she left off with prince in terms of exchanging sexual favors for career advancement she picks up in action jackson .
she plays the heroin addict and chanteuse in dellaplane 's nightclub .
after singing one particularly sultry number for him , she saunters over and complains , " i expected a standing ovation .
"
he responds , " you 're getting one , " and it 's damn clever because he 's sitting down at the time .
prince would n't even let out an innuendo that lame
and he 's the king of the horndogs .
. .
or at least the prince .
it 's a testament to the ' 80s that sharon stone is killed off within the first 30 minutes but vanity survives the whole movie .
action jackson is another variation on the " unlikely partners " buddy action flick , with jackson lugging junkie vanity around .
this leads to some of the worst paired acting of the me decade , and with the dialogue they 're given , there 's not much room for improvement .
my favorite is when vanity , feeling the effects of drug withdrawal , says , " i feel like my teeth are hollow , my gums are made of dry rubber and someone 's trying to start a bonfire in the back of my bloody head .
"
jackson 's response is , " i think i felt that way once .
they called it love .
"
you 'll understand when i say watch this at your own risk . serving the world for nearly 1/25th of a century !
[EX A]: N

[EX Q]: certainly no one would rent ed wood 's glen or glenda ?
expecting to see a good movie , but this screwy discourse about transvestitism betrays a level of incompetence that i did n't know was possible .
in fact , wood 's infamous plan 9 from outer space actually seems pretty tame by comparison .
watching glen or glenda ?
i found myself occasionally wondering if wood had originally made two or three separate movies and accidentally edited them together ; as a result , it is actually quite entertaining in that
it is unintentionally hilarious .
the movie starts out as what mostly seems like a bad documentary , with endless , repetitive narration about transvestites , how difficult it is for a transvestite to look at his girlfriend 's clothes without being able to wear them , how transvestites are not necessarily homosexuals , and how the main character , glen / glenda is ( as it reminds us probably half a dozen times ) " not half man and half woman , but man and woman at the same time .
" the camera work is terrible - occasionally the camera lingers on , say , a closed door while the characters talk off - screen , or inexplicably zooms in on someone 's ear or nose .
wood also makes copious use of mostly irrelevant stock footage , which leads to voiced - over non - sequiturs like , " yes , our world is a busy and frightening place , with so many people driving their automobiles .
"
finally , there is occasional commentary from bela lugosi as a sort of omniscient being who seems to inhabit a frankenstein - style laboratory , delivering pointless lines such as , " people . . .
all with their own thoughts . . .
their own ideas . . . .
"
while lightning crackles quasi - ominously overhead .
had wood continued in this vein , glen or glenda ?
probably would have been remembered as nothing more than
a poorly done documentary with the occasional inappropriate horror - movie touch .
unfortunately , he then wanders so far off into left field that you have to wonder if he had been eating some funny mushrooms when he wrote the script .
" pull the string !
pull the string !
" announces an alarmed lugosi as stock footage of buffalo appears .
there is another crash of lightning before lugosi returns , this time warning us , " beware . . .
beware the big green dragon that lurks outside your door ! . . .
it eats little boys . . . and puppy dogs ' tails . . . and big fat snails ! " a bizarre nightmare sequence , which is probably meant to be symbolic but instead is just incredibly stupid , ensues , during which glen / glenda finds his fiance trapped under a fallen tree - in the living room .
someone who is apparently intended to be the sinister " green dragon " ( but looks more like a klingon from the original star trek series ) appears to be orchestrating all this , though the film is far from clear on this point
( to put it kindly )
.
near the end of this scene - and here i must confess that wood lost me completely - is a violent sexual encounter on a couch that features two characters who do not even appear in the rest of the movie and is scored by goofily upbeat folk music .
after this scene ends ( not a moment too soon ) , glen or glenda ?
returns to its documentary style , but at that point any lingering sense that wood had the slightest idea
what he was doing is pretty much gone .
the film wanders to a dumb happy ending that also seems to abandon much of what it was trying to say about transvestitism , but at that point it did n't matter much what happened . as soon as the aforementioned sex scene was over , glen or glenda ?
had pretty much cemented its place in my mind as the most incoherent film i had ever seen .
i honestly think that if i picked up my camcorder and deliberately tried to make the worst movie i possibly could , it still might not match glen or glenda ? for sheer cinematic disaster .
i am giving this movie an f , but i 'm not sure that quite does it justice .
[EX A]:
N