In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
--------
Question: i have no real tangible proof of this , but i swear that there are a lot of producers in hollywood who adamantly believe that if you take a bad script , written by a bad writer and give the project it to an equally bad director , then it is actually possible to make a good movie . using their logic , all that really needs be done to change the bad movie into a good movie is cast a bunch of super - famous actors and provide an almost unlimited production budget .
this is the only way i can fathom how 20th century fox hired jon amiel in order to direct this eighty million dollar waste of my time
( not counting the time it took me to get to and from the theatre ) .
now , before i continue to ferociously attack what 's wrong with this film , i just want to point out that one of the reasons it fails so miserably is because it does have the potential to be an exciting thriller .
catherine zeta - jones plays virginia baker , an insurance investigator tracking down an infamous art thief named robert macdougal ( sean connery ) .
if you 've ever seen any hollywood blockbuster before , i really do n't have to spend too much time on frivolous plot details : the two team up for various jobs , stealing various things for various purposes .
the problem we come to is that we 've all seen this a few billion times before and this film does n't break any new ground in the big - budget / hollywood / action genre .
the result is that the entire production feels contrived
.
i 'm going to be completely honest here : pretty much the only thing keeping me awake throughout the run - time was looking at catherine zeta - jones .
now while this may be a compliment for ms .
zeta - jones , it certainly is n't for either the writers or the director , who are not nearly as clever as they think they are .
just about the most profound thought they can inject into this film is when they have macdougal lecture baker on the semantic difference between " entrapment " and " blackmail " .
with an eighty million dollar budget , you 'd think that entrapment would at least feature edge - of - your seat action scenes or breathtaking special f
/ x . well , you 'd be wrong .
the action that is present in this film takes place in a huge skyscraper and is relatively unspectacular .
unfortunately for all those involved with entrapment , die hard narrowly beat it to the screen by ? 11 years .
the reality is that after 15 minutes of watching this picture , you know exactly what 's going to happen , despite rather pathetic attempts in the screenplay to throw in plot twists .
many scenes seem to exist merely as a reason to outfit zeta - jones in extremely tight - fitting clothing .
one particular scene features baker crawling around trying to avoid laser - beams while she tries to steal an ancient chinese mask .
nothing wrong with that , but she entered the room from the floor and knew exactly where the mask was -
so why did n't she and macdougal tunnel in directly under the mask instead of the other side of the room ?
i 'll tell you why : because it 's a great excuse to photograph zeta - jones ' posterior as it slides underneath those beams ( and it also allows a second scene of the exact same thing - the rehearsal ) .
ving rhames also makes an appearance in this movie , and though he has great screen presence ( although so do connery and zeta - jones ) and the most interesting character in the film , not even he can rescue this film from the depths of the boring film abyss
( a concept i invented just to describe this picture ) .
one last complaint : entrapment is littered of instances where macdougal will just slip into a shadow or behind a building , or he becomes obstructed by a moving vehicle and then in the next shot , he 'll spontaneously disappear in ninja - like fashion .
i can picture amiel patting himself on the back , thinking to himself " it 'll leave the audience wondering for days
: how did he do that ?
"
we know jon , it 's called editing .

Answer: N

Question: once again , the battle is dreamworks versus disney : earlier this year , the mammoth companies fought to the death with their end - of - the - world asteroid flicks , deep impact and armageddon .
here we are now , just a few months later , and they 're at it again with dueling bug movies , antz and a bug 's life .
what i find so astonishing is that both pairs of movies are so inherently similar in both story and execution .
i mean , come on
-- what were the chances of two studios both deciding to bring out computer - animated films about bugs ?
as was the case with the meteor movies , disney has come out on top : though antz is a likable movie , a bug 's life is far superior .
in fact , this movie made me realize what was wrong with antz
: i became immersed in the world of a bug 's life , while antz just made me scrutinize everything .
but it 's not really fair to base an entire review on a comparison .
a bug 's life is a remarkable film in its own right , and deserves to be seen apart from any other computer - animated film about bugs .
in fact , it 's one of the best films this year : it 's smart , subtle , and funny , but it 's also perfect family entertainment and relentlessly entertaining .
i have n't had such a good time at the movies in months .
it tells the story of an ant named flick ( voice by dave foley ) ; he 's a nice guy , but he 's also a troublemaker .
the ants spend all season putting together the offering , a big pile of food that they provide for the grasshoppers .
just before the grasshoppers come , flick accidentally knocks over the offering , and ruins everything for the entire colony : the grasshopper 's leader , hopper ( kevin spacey ) , is enraged , and tells them that the ants need twice the food by the end of summer , or they 're all dead .
flick , feeling responsible for this , sets off to look for help -- he realizes that the only way to be rid of the grasshoppers is to fight them .
he heads to the city ( the city being a house a few miles away ) , where he finds a colorful bunch of circus bugs : a ladybug ( denis leary , who is spectacular ) , a black widow ( bonnie hunt ) , a caterpillar ( joe ranft ) , a butterfly ( madeline kahn ) , a rhinoceros beetle ( michael mcshane ) , and a stick ( david hyde - pierce , also giving a hilarious performance ) .
flick does n't know they 're actors , and they do n't know that flick needs them to kill a bunch of grasshoppers , so they return to the colony with flick and find themselves in an unusual position .
the most obvious element of a bug 's life is the quality of animation .
created by pixar ,
the same people who brought us toy story , a bug 's life has some of the most amazing visuals i 've ever seen .
the bugs seem to inhabit a three - dimensional space , and occasionally there will be a shot that is indistinguishable from live action .
this is a lush , colorful world , full of life and imagination : the way the animators insert the things all of us see in our daily lives ( matches , bottlecaps , tin cans , etc . ) and make them active objects in the bugs ' world is innovative .
the film is also mercilessly exciting , particularly in a superbly - staged scene involving our heroes ' escape from a bird ( a little bird never seemed so huge and threatening ) .
but the makers of a bug 's life know where the importance lies : story and characters .
flick , with solid voice work from foley , is a great guy to lead the story .
but the real treat comes with the circus bugs ; they 're such a likable group of characters -- the standouts are the stick ( hyde - pierce is so good ) , francis the ladybug , and the big fat caterpillar .
all of these bugs have more than a token personality , which makes the suspenseful scenes work because we care about the bugs , and it also keeps the tear - jerking scenes from seeming obligatory .
in my review of antz , i said that the film is a clever cop - out because it presents a bunch of little humans reacting to an ant - like existence .
in concept , a bug 's life is basically the same movie , except that i was never given enough time to find things that i did n't like about it .
with such strong work in both animation and script , a bug 's life is nothing but
a joy to sit through .
it really is too bad that it had to come out so close to that other bug movie , but a bug 's life is so good that i 'm sure it will find its audience .
after a slew of endlessly violent and cynical movies , it 's downright refreshing to sit through an innocent picture like this and laugh without feeling guilty .

Answer: P

Question: words i thought i 'd never write : the sequel to urban legend lacks the grace , wit , and power of the original .
put the gun to my head , pull the trigger , and put me out of my misery .
better yet , put the horror genre out of its misery .
when you 've finished watching urban legends :
final cut
, you 'll share my same grim point of view thanks to the horrible acting , terrible script , and ridiculous directing which has become all too common today .
urban legends : final cut is a smorgasbord of stolen movie ideas ( mainly from the blair witch project and scream ) : fabulous people with perfect teeth and skin , one creepy film school , and a dog eating a freshly removed kidney from one of the movie 's hapless victims .
urban legends delivers a story about a bunch of film students working on their thesis films to win the coveted " hitchcock award " which guarantees the winner a director deal in hollywood .
one female filmmaker ( jennifer morrison , the freaky dead girl from stir of echoes ) writes a fiction script based on a serial killer who kills his victims according to " urban legend " tales .
suddenly
, her entire crew starts getting bumped off with urban - legendary homicides , but the bodies are always missing and she is often the only witness to the killings .
the killer wears a fencing mask and a long black overcoat ,
looking like a scorned olympian out to avenge his defeat in sydney .
why this is scary is never explained .
of course , the golden rule of sequels is that there must be least one recurring character for continuity 's sake .
urban legends has one minor , recurring character from the original who we never cared about anyway
( the security guard , of all people ) .
the other central problem is that this character has already seen the urban legend killings once before
, but she 's utterly clueless about what 's going on around her .
call it suspension of disbelief .
this film is also a prime example of
how horror films are now completely dead in the water .
the last decent horror film was the blair witch project , and that seemed more like a snuff film than fiction .
the stalking killer with crazy motivation has become a tired clich ?
, as everyone seems to have forgotten : real horror is not about what is seen but about what is unknown .

Answer:
N