In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
--------
Question: humanities quest for knowledge never ends .
so a team of scientists and film - makers travel to the amazon to search for a legendary indian tribe .
the party consists of anthropologist steven cale ( eric stoltz ) and the camera team consisting of terri flores ( jennifer lopez ) , danny rich ( ice cube ) , gary dixon ( owen wilson ) , denise kahlberg ( kari wuhrer ) and warren westridge ( jonathan hyde ) .
early on their journey they meet paul sarone ( jon voight ) whose boat is stuck on the shore .
they agree to give him a ride to the next village .
he claims to know the area well and can be useful locating the native tribe .
very soon their friendliness backfires on the group because sarone turns out to be a snake hunter without scruples who only wants to catch a giant anaconda and sell it to a zoo .
we do n't have to wait too long for the giant snake .
she just had a panther hors d'oevre and now is looking for the main course .
our heroes paddle around in the amazonas as if it were the pool in their own backyard .
no wonder giant animals mistake their splashing for a dinner bell .
our anaconda is a polite one and swallows the first victim in one big gulp .
enjoy !
so much for the first attempt to catch her .
but who would want to catch a giant snake with a fishing pole ?
our villain sarone shows his soft side when he stops terri from shooting the snake . too bad that anaconda is just about to strangle another member of the expedition .
one by one she goes after the others .
eric stoltz is stung by a giant wasp right in the beginning and is mercifully unconcious for the rest of the adventure .
the rest of the crew keeps entertaining the viewer although not the way the makers of the movie had planned .
however the scenes without the anaconda are rather boring .
whenever the leading lady shows up we 're in for a laugh .
the snake reminds us of a favorite character of a famous animated movie even if she should be an awe - inspiring monster .
her attacks always follow the same plan : one last hypnotic look - she 's looking at you , kid - then she speedily wraps herself around her victim and starts to gush it down .
mostly we do n't see the act of devouring .
but she looks nice when she wiggles away with her bulging middle part . whoever did the special effects on this movie may have wanted to go to a zoo first and study some real snakes .
maybe then the anaconda model would have looked more real .
the animatronics are somewhat more believable .
but that did n't work for the strangling scenes .
do n't go see the movie for the f / x .
they are everything but up - to - date .
the viewer who likes to watch the end credits will see to his / her surprise that a snake expert was a consultant for the team .
we may doubt though that he has ever seen the final result of his work .
a well known american science magazine is also mentioned in the credits , but i will refrain from naming it here to avoid further damage to its reputation .
the majority of viewer will have left the theater as soon as the credits start rolling , anyway .
what kind of audience is the target group for this movie ?
hard to say .
this ca n't be a serious horror movie , or can it ? see for yourself .

Answer: N


Question: you know something , christmas is not about presents .
it 's about over - hyped holiday films with lots of merchandising and product tie - ins . at least that would seem to be the message of " the grinch , " which has been advertised since last christmas and whose logo is currently plastered all over stores .
hollywood expects us to ignore this cynical greed as the movie scolds us about losing the true spirit of the season .
you know the plot : there 's this evil furry green guy called the grinch ( jim carrey ) who lives on a mountain overlooking whoville .
down below all the who s are preparing for their whobilation , but the grinch is determined to steal their christmas .
the movie is , of course , a live - action version of the beloved children 's book , which was previously adapted into a 1966 tv special by looney tunes animator chuck jones .
it 's rare that a big budget hollywood release is shamed by a thirty - year - old half - hour cartoon , but that 's the case when jones ' version is compared to ron howard 's .
the tv grinch hit all the right notes : boris karloff 's soft , deep narration ; thurl ravenscroft singing " mr . grinch " ; max the dog weighed down by the gigantic antler tied to his head ; and the grinch 's wide
, toothless grin .
by contrast , the movie hits one sour note after another .
first
, there are the numerous bad choices that jeffrey price and peter seaman made in padding out the short book into a 105-minute movie .
young wide - eyed cindy lou who ( taylor momsen ) is depressed about the misplaced priorities of her parents ( bill irwin and molly shannon ) during the holiday season .
she begins to sympathize with the grinch , who turns out to be surprisingly sympathetic .
cindy lou discovers that the grinch turned tearfully away from whoville in grammar school when he was publicly humiliated while expressing his love for the prettiest girl in the class , martha may whovier ( played as an adult by christine baranski ) .
are we expected to like the grinch , hate the who s , and want him to steal christmas ?
the grinch is n't even the villain here ; that role is filled by the corrupt mayor of whoville ( jeffrey tambor ) who was the grinch 's rival for martha 's affection .
not only are the characters needlessly complex ,
but the once - simple plot becomes so convoluted that the actual theft of christmas seems like an afterthought .
the casting choices are n't any better than the screenwriting decisions .
jim carrey seems woefully miscast .
while his face is so supple that the rubber make - up seems superfluous , carrey brings nothing else to the role .
his accent keeps changing ; i assume he was shooting for karloff ,
but he ends up sounding like a weird slurry of richard nixon , sean connery , and cartman from " south park .
" not knowing what else to do during his many scenes alone in the grinch 's home , carrey falls back on his stand - up comedy and clowns around ace ventura - style .
needless to say , his wise - cracking antics do n't quite fit the character of the grinch , who is an embittered loner filled with hate .
little taylor momsen brings little to role of cindy lou except big eyes and a cute smile .
she would have been fine if cindy lou was limited to her original purpose in the seuss story ( finding " santa " in her living room stealing the tree ) .
however , the expanded script makes cindy as important as the grinch , and momsen is not up to the challenge .
bottom line : when you 're stealing christmas ( movies ) , leave this one behind .

Answer: N


Question: this is the worst movie i 've viewed so far in 98 .
the avengers = silly = man dressed in a bowler hat + woman wearing tight leathers
> evil scientists dressed in teddy bear suits + greater evil , sir august de wynter wearing kilt .
the question is what could have gone wrong with a potentially great idea with big name cast ?
the same question was probably asked of last year 's stinker batman and robin .
i feel the production got a little too smug ,
the script a little to smart and direction was somehow lost in the chaos of random events that collided together to form a movie .
my greatest criticism rests on the fact that there was no chemistry between emma peel and john steed ( thurman and fiennes ) ?
something that was a vital element of the 60 's tv serial of the same name .
the dialogue goes on and on about tea and other finer british perks , but does not allow much room for character development and interaction , except to perhaps grate on the viewer 's nerves .
one wonders why the dynamic pair bother kissing in the end except for pure english formality .
connery as sir august , does not fair better than thurman or fiennes .
his dialogue is as erratic as stormy weather , mostly embarrassing and poor quality .
if there is a movie you would prefer never to see , i believe the avengers would be a good choice .
for one thing , you will not have to witness a product that is far inferior to the three high profile names that is associated with the title .
i can not understand how something
so poorly produced could have been released , but i put it down to one of those freak happenings in nature , like lightning you ca n't see it coming until it hits you .

Answer:
N