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

[EX Q]: so much for sweet returns .
after smart horror films were starting to be made again after the exploitative 80 's slasher movies , starting with 1996 's " scream , " and followed by " scream 2 , " " urban legend , " and the original , " i know what you did last summer , " a film like , " i still know what you did last summer , " was bound to be made sooner or late .
it is a perfect example of the exact reason why horror films temporarily burned out , and that is because they reached for the lowest - common - denominator in filmmaking , favoring non - stop deaths and gore for suspense , and trading in fleshed out , likable characters for one - dimensional nitwits .
it has been exactly one year since julie james ( jennifer love hewitt ) suffered through the ordeal of being terrorized by ben willis , a psychopathic fisherman whom her friends and she accidentally hit in the middle of the road , and then , thinking he was dead , dumped him into the ocean .
since then , julie has relocated to boston university , and although often paranoid and haunted by bad dreams , she has been able to put her life back together .
when julie 's friend , karla ( brandy ) , is called up by a radio station and answers correctly what the capital of brazil is , she wins a vacation to the bahamas for four people , which also includes karla 's horny boyfriend , tyrell ( mekhi phifer ) , and will ( matthew settle ) , who karla sets julie up with after her own boyfriend , ray ( freddie prinze jr . , also returning from the original ) , does n't show up .
when they reach the secluded island , they discover it is the last day of the open season , and will be stranded there for the 4th of july weekend with a few employees to fend off a violent storm headed for them .
of course , julie , her friends , and the workers are n't the only ones there , as the murderous ben willis , dressed in fisherman garb , returns to seek revenge on julie once and for all .
it is a sad state of affairs when a movie like , " i still know what you did last summer , " is made .
i am a very big fan of horror movies , and so it is especially disheartening to find out that this sequel to " ikwydls , " which i am a fan of , is almost an exact replica of a " friday the 13th " movie .
while the original focused more on the story and characters , as well as genuinely suspenseful moments , thanks to the screenplay by kevin williamson ( who did n't return to write the sequel , and it shows ) , " i still know . . .
" has no story to speak of , and is so vacuous of ideas , that the filmmakers , were forced to have a murder occur every five minutes just to keep the audience interested . also gone are any signs of character development , and since every single character died before i got to know them , all i was left with was to stare at the screen , indifferent to what was going on .
while i cared about the fates of the characters in the original , it made no difference to me in this sequel who lived and died .
they were all paper - thin and pointless , except to become victims to the lethal hook of the fisherman .
another element that made the original so memorable were some superbly crafted set - pieces , like the store sequence with sarah michelle gellar , but there are none to speak of in this sequel ( although they do come close at one moment with brandy ) .
since so many people were killed every couple minutes , the suspense and scares evaporated faster than salt in water .
also of note is the mystery of the second killer , and accomplice to ben , but it is obvious from the first frame who it is , and so i could n't even have fun at that , like i did in the " scream " movies and , " urban legend .
"
it figures that just as slasher films were starting to get some recognition again , a film would come along and ruin it for everyone else .
maybe the people who made , " i still know what you did last summer , " should have realized that in order to make a good movie , you must have a screenplay --- or at least one that is n't such a black hole for thoughts and ideas .
the ending of the film inevitably leaves the door wide open for a third part , but judging from this amazingly lackluster first sequel , everyone involved should have quit while they were still ahead .
[EX A]: N

[EX Q]: i am a steven seagal fan .
i only say this now because " mufti splenetik " is n't my real name and because i probably need to explain why i went into this film expecting great things .
any proud seagal fan worth his beans will tell you that the seagal formula is something you can depend on .
seagal films can always be counted on for minimal dialogue , heaps of expendable baddies with extemely crunchable bones ( which we 'll always hear when seagal does his limb - twisting thing ) , rarely a female co - lead in sight ( unless it 's a real - life model - wife who has n't worked since weird science ) and , usually the worst possible titles you can imagine .
not to mention very straightforward plots , generally all - round bad dialogue and mr implacable leather - face himself in that same black outfit he 's been in since nico doing his " my hands are sharp , nimble knives " thing , seagal the stoic , sir petrified ponytail , duke of dull .
in the glimmer man , seagal breaks out of this formula : he gets a * sidekick *
, attempts to banter , and puts on a new vest .
he 's also put on quite a lot of weight .
small potatoes , you may say , a man should be able to accessorize and banter if he wants to , but damnit , if it ai n't broke , why fix it ?
( more on this disappointed person 's dashed expectations later ) .
as jack cole , seagal is a homicide detective with a questionable past .
while he and his partner ( played by keenen ivory wayans ) are investigating a series of ritual killings , cole himself becomes a suspect , especially when a background check run by campbell reveals practically nothing on cole .
it turns out that cole is a former trained government assassin ( you just ca n't trust these homicide detectives ) , someone whom victims used to catch just a glimpse of in the jungle before he pounced on them , and hence , well , you know , that " glimmer man " thing .
an increasingly fishy homicide investigation in the present soon leads to the gradual uncovering of a larger , more threatening conspiracy that involves a crooked businessman ( bob gunton ) , cole 's former cia boss ( brian cox ) and deals involving chemical weapons .
the glimmer man plot is pretty standard stuff , drawing ( as with his other films ) elements from the hotter films of the year ( eg , se7en ) .
it 's the other changes that disappoint .
for example , although there 's a fair amount of violence in this movie , there 's also the disastrous pairing of seagal with keenen ivory wayans , probably the best known of the wayans tribe ( how many are there , exactly ? ) from television 's " in living colour .
" wayans plays whiney straightman to seagal 's bead - adorned and brocade - draped cole , keeping up his " are you crazy " part of the dialogue with wasted zest .
as campbell , wayans confines himself to bemoaning his new partner 's eccentric habits , but the chemistry between the two is minimal , and seagal 's wooden comebacks make for painful watching .
a cook in under seige 2 , seagal is now a buddhist who speaks chinese and wears prayer beads and intricate silk jackets over his normal black ensemble .
he chants , refuses to fight unless truly provoked and introduces campbell to powdered deer penis to cure his allergies .
again , a benign ( if trite ) plot device except for the fact that these new character traits require seagal to speak more than usual .
heck , he has to deliver punchlines and carry a steady conversation with someone other than himself for a large part of the film .
is that a lot to ask of the seague ? too much .
seagal 's best characteristic used to be that he knew his purpose in this already complicated world of movies : to crunchily snap off bad guy appendages , and to do it silently , and alone .
not for seagal , the snappy one - liners of arnold and stallone , nor the attempts to show that he can act , much less think .
no kindergarten cop , no oscar , just simple , unadulterated deathblows .
that 's really how it must have started : like - minded fans who knew what they wanted streamed in to watch the seague do his thing , knowing that never in the seagal universe would they ever have to see him do anything else .
we trusted him .
we got to know him .
now , betrayal .
i do n't know if i can watch another seagal movie without that little niggling doubt that he 's going to try to be funny again .
i 'll try , but it wo n't be easy .
if you have n't watched the glimmer man yet ,
you might want to wait for the video to come out .
it 's easier to just fast forward the dialogue parts and linger on the action sequences .
after all , if we ca n't depend on our fantasies , what can we depend on ?
the flying inkpot rating system :
* wait for the tv2 broadcast .
*
* a little creaky , but still better than staying at home with gotcha !
*
* * pretty good , bring a friend .
*
*
* * amazing , potent stuff .
*
*
*
* * perfection .
see it twice .
mufti spelenetik is still a steven seagal fan .
everybody makes mistakes once in awhile .
[EX A]: N

[EX Q]: although i had not been a viewer of the " rugrats " television series , i went into their first animated feature film , " the rugrats movie , " with a positive attitude .
the trailer looked cute enough , after all .
after seeing it , i think the words in my recent " antz " review , in which i stated that it was the worst film of its type since 1995 's " the pebble and the penguin , " were a bit premature .
" the rugrats movie , " is
bottom - of - the - barrel children 's fare at its worst , and starts to make , " antz " look good in comparison .
as in the show , " the rugrats movie , " is about a group of very little friends , ranging from babies to a three - year - old .
the head of the group , tommy pickles ( e .
g .
daily ) , becomes distraught when his mother has a newborn baby named dill ( get it ?
dill pickles ? . . .
hardee - har - har ! )
and is informed by his three - year - old cousin , anjelica ( cheryl chase ) , that the new babies always take all of the attention away from the other children .
when the other children , chuckie , and twins lil and phil , suggest taking dill back to the hospital , tommy goes along with it , but on their way there , they crash in the forest , and become lost , running into wolves and circus monkeys , among other things .
"
the rugrats movie , " judging from the idea of being lost in the woods , could have been a potentially fun family film , and there were many different things that could have been done with the story .
so what did the writers choose to do ?
why , they set up a protracted , cliched scene where the children almost go over a waterfall , of course !
for the youngest of children ( ages 3 - 7 ) , " the rugrats movie , " may very well entertain them , judging from the audience
i saw this with .
of course , if you looked around at all of the older kids and their parents , they were all desperately struggling to stay awake , and that included me .
for an adult , " the rugrats movie , " is a piece of garbage .
the plotline is unoriginal and the writing has absolutely no wit or charm .
there is n't one laugh to be had in the film , nor is there any excitement . if anything is even marginally good in the picture , it is the bright animation style , so it is especially unfortunate that it was n't to service a more quality film .
"
the rugrats movie " is doa from the start .
i am all for a worthwhile family movie , but sometimes an animated film comes along that is simply awful .
as said before , young children may like it , but even they deserve better than this . for adults , it is a nearly unbearable , excruciating chore to sit through .
as for me , " the rugrats movie , " is not the worst of the year , nor is it the most deeply hated , but
it is the most boring .
parents : do yourselves a favor and take your kids to see the rerelease of , " the wizard of oz .
"
that is a picture that contains a great deal of magic and wonder , two things of which , " the rugrats movie , " is completely missing .
[EX A]:
N