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

[EX Q]: paul verhoeven , the dutch auteur who dragged his violent , sexually aggressive aesthetic into american film , has never been what i 'd consider a thoughtful director ( though some of his films , notably starship troopers , have been lauded as artistic achievements ) , but he is the kind of hollywood film maker who 's managed to , no matter what the budget , make his films distinctive and even sometimes smuggle stimulating themes into the lavish high concepts on which he toils .
starship troopers was essentially a b - monster movie remake of his enthralling dutch war film soldier of orange ( a great film that 's nearly impossible to find on video , yet showgirls is everywhere ) , in which he cast a troop of stunningly attractive mannequins ; the square jawed casper van dien and denise richards ( who may actually be 45 % silicone ) , in what feels like an american propaganda picture set to monotonous scenes of graphic carnage .
it 's not a completely successful film , but
as a failure
it 's certainly an interesting ( and mostly entertaining ) one .
my favorite verhoeven films were the ones he made before he hit our shores ; spetters , a dark near pornographic coming of age film set within the sub - culture of drag racing and the aforementioned soldier of orange ( have n't yet gotten around to seeing the 4th man or turkish delight ) .
i believe his best hollywood film to be robocop , a bleak super - hero satire with a robotic hero that 's as touching as schwarzenegger 's in t2 .
that movie was violent but not in the overdone cartoonish manner of more recent verhoeven pics .
its violence seemed to be there for a purpose , namely to create an atmosphere of unpredictable dread , not to simply titillate an attention deprived audience .
there 's a jaw - dropping scene within the first ten minutes of robocop wherein the lead villain toys with a cop before snuffing him .
he tortures the officer by taking glee in his victim 's every fearful tic .
it 's a startling moment of barbaric , maddening violence that effectively sets the tone for the film that could be designated as splatter punk - noir .
in hollow man kevin bacon brutally slays a dog because it just wo n't shut up , he impales a co - worker , drowns another and so on .
but why ?
his character is introduced as a smug genius , the kind who 's always impeccably dressed and races a sports car while generic rock tunes blare from his stereo for the world to hear , sort of like a scheming uber villain from dallas or melrose place , though once the character becomes invisible , this film has him pull a 180 shift into a psychotic movie monster .
the kind who just wo n't die .
hollow man 's protagonists are the completely bland but beautiful scientist linda ( elizabeth shue , acting as if she were rebecca of sunnybrook farm ) and her lover , a hunk of beef scientist played by josh brolin who 's saddled with the film 's worst lines
( " i 've lost cohesion again ! " ) .
they 're a typical aaron spelling couple , good - looking but as vacant as george
w .
bush 's republican national convention speech ( i .
e .
bush referring to clinton ; " ? ?
?
so much promise ? ? ?
but to what end ?
to what end ?
"
-- this actually got applause !
suddenly warren beatty does n't look so absurd ) .
the rest of the film 's characters are all well past thirty , though act like annoying high school party animals insulting one and other with a series of strained one - liners
; is it just me or have
labored insults become big budget hollywood 's new character developing technique ?
ahh , what a cynical time we live in ? ? ?
as the picture opens we meet cain ( kevin bacon ) , an egocentric scientist working with the crew of aforementioned irritating scientists on a top secret ( so top secret the government has only provided them with a dilapidated warehouse in which to perform their extensive experimentation 's ) project with the goal to make invisibility a possibility ( for what purpose is never hinted at ) .
they 've performed several experiments on animals and have nearly solved the quandary causing caine , in a twist worthy of the film 's 1950 's late show origins , to impulsively experiment on himself .
caine neglects to let the pentagon in on his plans and somehow gets two of his co - workers to lie for him
so the rest of the crew will think the pentagon gave the go ahead .
our mad scientist is turned invisible ( after several fx - heavy complications ) , then he inexplicably
( it 's hinted that the process of invisibility has made the animals into more savage creatures , but this is never explored , and if that was the case why the hell would anyone be stupid enough to test this out on a human ? ) begins raping , assaulting and murdering anyone he pleases , always with a lame wisecrack ready a la freddy krueger .
it grows abundantly clear with each new release that it 's verhoeven 's films that have become hollow .
like the rest , this one is cold , heartless , and full of contempt for humanity , but in addition to all that it lacks any trace of wit , insight and makes no statement other than " audiences will pay for anything these days " .
it 's an affront to anyone looking for something stimulating on an intellectual level , or even those hoping to spend a saturday night with a fun , thrill - a - minute ride .
verhoeven has instead served up an utterly routine mad slasher flick with nobody to root for and no reason to care .
the previews make hollow man look like an irresistible flick .
how can one not have a good time at a film that utilizes state of the art fx to illustrate an invisible man getting down and dirty with his bad self ?
a couple weeks ago , after seeing the trailer , a bunch of friends and i got into a long discussion of how invisible man flicks never go so far as to have the invisible individual indulging in their newfound ability .
hollow man looked like the first film to do so and whoa , in a serious manner to boot .
but oh yeah , it is directed by paul verhoven not atom egoyan or peter greenway .
verhoeven delivers the sleazy " goods " , but not in a watchable or thrillingly disturbing manner , here
it just feels icky and uncomfortable .
the director keeps his camera trained at his nubile actresses , caressing their breasts with his lens all while faux - psycho music strains in the background .
it 's plainly obvious that verhoeven is n't exploring voyeurism ( like in the classic peeping tom ) but exploiting it and not even doing that very well .
it 's funny that with all the technology $ 90 million can get you verhoven is stuck at trying to figure out how to show a woman 's naked breast manipulated by an invisible hand .
most vexing is that the invisibility aspect is used simply as gimmick in yet another slasher movie wherein characters do stupid things just so the villain can pop up for more attacks .
in fact it 's largely irrelevant that bacon is invisible since , by the end , most of his potential victims don infer - red glasses that track his body heat .
as in every mad slasher film we get the killers pov ( a scene where he spies on his neighbor while she undresses triggered unpleasant memories of slumber party massacre ) , and lots of scenes where people are unknowingly stalked .
the film only provides one moment that i found genuinely creepy .
it happens when a lab assistant ( kim dickens , who looks like she stepped out of playboy ) in the middle of a chit chat with an invisible bacon , suddenly pauses .
"
are you looking at me ? " , she queries , obviously haunted .
it 's a little moment in a big film with nothing to offer but
ground breaking special effects set to a plot that should have run its course by 1982 ( the apex of the mad slasher craze ) .
those special effects are so stunning they alone keep this from being as bad as urban legend or i still know what you did last summer .
and they 're the only reason to check out hollow man , preferably as a mid - week bargain rental .
you 've been warned .
but you probably wo n't listen , will you ?
tis ' a pity ? ? ?
[EX A]: N

[EX Q]: i do n't expect much from eddie murphy these days .
for the past four years , the gods of cinema -- or the expansive payrolls of studio conglomerates -- have allowed him to make one bad movie after another .
such films as metro , doctor dolittle , holy man , life , and bowfinger have reduced a once great comedic persona to a living and breathing washed - up hack performing as a studio puppet for 20th century fox and universal pictures .
the biggest shame to fall on his shoulders is his newest film , nutty professor ii : the klumps .
the klumps once again revisits the life of sherman klump , an overweight university science professor looking for love in all the wrong places .
sherman has just invented a new " youth drink " that enables man or beast to become younger for a short period of time .
janet jackson is the love interest who chooses the lovable sherman for a soul mate rather than excel at her career as a university professor ( and for the most ridiculous reasons ) .
with love on his mind , sherman is determined to rid himself of his alter ego , buddy love from the first professor , who still resides with vigor inside his psyche and causes sherman to act like a bad imitation of vince vaughn from swingers .
with some convoluted mumbo - jumbo about dna extraction , sherman extracts the " buddy love " link in his dna and smartly deposits buddy into a handy - dandy lab beaker .
but one night , the beaker is knocked over and buddy love is regenerated . . .
because every movie like this needs an unnecessary villain to thwart the good guy .
then the klump family , all played by eddie murphy , step in for some comedic relief involving old people having sex , flabby breasts , a slew of fart and dick jokes , and enough fat people jokes that i lost count after the first thirty minutes .
and did i mention the part where larry miller gets anally raped by an overgrown hamster ?
the movie finally dissolves into a really bad hallmark family special about realizing who you are and what you can be in this world -- with enough soft lighting and people on the verge of tears in every scene .
pure and simple ,
the klumps is a failure .
its script was handled by not one but five screenwriters , and it really shows during the awkward transitions between scenes .
any sense of story and plot were lost in the rewrite process .
it 's more discerning to learn that chris weitz and paul weitz , the team behind one of the funniest films of the last decade , american pie , have their names stamped to this trash .
hey guys - quick
note - keep this movie off of your resumes .
the characterization of sherman 's family , the klumps , is one of the most ignorant stereotypes of a black family i have ever seen in cinema .
everyone member of the family is a large person who wipes the bins clean at a local buffet restaurant like pigs at a trough .
the grandma is an oversexed fiend who constantly talks of ways to pleasure her man and her sagging breasts .
the father is gruff , is fired from a blue - collar job , is sexually inadequate , and can not communicate with his family about his feelings .
the mother is ignorant of all the negativity around her and seems to hold no opinion about anything or anyone .
the brother is silent and brooding and resembles the ice cube gangster character from boyz in the hood .
sherman himself is terribly insecure and never conveys anything for the audience to become attached to .
but the main problem with the film is its inability to create any type of convincing conversational or situational comedy .
the family scenes from the first nutty professor worked so well because their conversations were short and direct .
and you got the feeling that these crass people could n't act like this all the time .
the sequel does the reverse and drives the negatives of the klumps right in to the hilt , making the first five minutes of their interaction enjoyable and the last 55 or so unbearable and pathetic .
after a while , their conversations just become a barrage of frustrated anger tinged with indecency and overworked premises that end up drawing energy away from any type of empathy one might feel for the central themes of the story .
its also a damn shame that the makeup magic of rick baker -- who worked on the original nutty professor and won an academy award for his work on an american werewolf in london -- and amazing digital special effects that enabled murphy to interact with himself in such beautiful motions are built around such a lame story line .
even the best effects ca n't seem to save the most pathetic of movies these days .
now that i think about it ,
the worst thing about this film has to be all the money that it will make .
people will be lined up around the block for it .
the studios will concoct the a sequel for release in the summer of 2002 .
eddie murphy will be signed up to take not just one role or five roles , but he 'll play every character in the movie .
i just ca n't wait to see eddie murphy in a love scene with himself .
[EX A]: N

[EX Q]: let me just start this review off by saying i am a huge fan of professional wrestling and have been for fifteen years .
i am not too fond of ted turner 's world championship wrestling , however , and i am even less fond of it now after seeing this ridiculous excuse for a wrestling movie tonight .
the plot concerns two losers named gordie boggs ( david arquette , aptly cast as a neandrathal ) and sean dawkins ( scott caan ) who are so obsessed with professional wrestling that they believe everything they see on wcw monday nitro is something more than a flashy show .
when they finally get to see their hero , wcw world champion jimmy king ( played by oliver platt .
i personally would have gotten a wrestler to play king ) , he ends up getting screwed over by evil promoter titus sinclair ( a wasted palitaliano , in a role originally meant for real - life wcw president eric bischoff before he was fired and rehired six months later , and if anyone reads this who knows bischoff , they will agree with me that the role of sinclair had his name written all over it ) , they embark on a quest to find him and help him get his title back .
when they find him , they discover in horror
that jimmy king 's real life is nothing like it is on
wcw tv .
king is a drunken atlanta native rather than an english king .
after convincing king that they do n't care that his persona is n't real , gordie and sean sneak him back onto wcw monday nitro , after which sinclair agrees to book him in a main event steel cage match for the wcw title and his job back in las vegas at wcw 's pay - per - view .
gee , whiz , there are so many things wrong with this movie , i do n't know where to begin .
yes , i do . . .
1 .
the characters of gordie and sean show you what eric bischoff , wcw president who thought up this project , thinks of wrestling fans .
he thinks of us as idiots who take everything wrestlers do seriously .
he actually thinks wrestling fans are dumb enough to believe this is meant to be taken seriously .
i got news for you , eric : nobody above the age of four is dumb enough for that
, this is 2000 , you know , not 1985 !
i know he 'll probably cover arguments up by saying it is n't meant to be taken seriously
but it is , because that 's how big an ego bischoff has .
2 .
there was a documentary made in 1998 , wrestling with shadows , that documented the owner of the world wrestling federation , vince mcmahon 's screwing bret " the hitman " hart out of the title .
this movie 's storyline is basically a comic rip - off of that plot with the poor man 's wayne and garth thrown in .
eric bischoff is trying to make vince mcmahon look bad with the character of titus sinclair , but any wrestling fan knows titus is more like bischoff than mcmahon , and that vince did what he had to do to bret hart .
3 .
the movie 's main wrestler , jimmy king , has an english king gimmick and the audience cheered big for him .
no wrestling fan actually enjoys characters like that in this day and age , we want bad asses today !
4 .
why make this a comedy , instead of an emotional , rocky - style drama ?
i know wrestling is n't a sport , but you can still get behind a guy who struggles as a wrestler and finally makes it in the end .
5 .
in the movie , gordie starts up an ill - fated romance with nitro girl sasha ( the lovely rose mcgowan .
what she sees in that freak marilyn manson i 'll never understand ) , only to find that she has hospitalized king 's trainer for sinclair .
would n't it have been easier to just have them fall in love instead of doing the typical spy - girl - for - the - bad - guy cliche ?
i hate that .
6
. last , but certainly not least , there was not one single moment in this movie that i could not predict would happen , nor did i laugh once either .
the world wrestling federation should have been the wrestling company to make the movie , for these reasons :
1 .
they 're the better promotion .
2 .
they have better and younger talent , performers and wrestlers .
3 .
they give their fans what they want and do n't treat them like idiots .
4 .
they 're winning the ratings and they 're the promotion everybody cares about .
5 . simply put , they could make a movie a hundred times better , and they could do a wrestling movie the right way .
the only good thing about this movie was they played outtakes at the end .
and if i spoiled it for you , good , i saved you from wasting seven dollars .
[EX A]:
N