In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
--------
Question: you 'd think that after awhile hollywood would stop trying to make movies out of video games .
it has n't worked so far .
" street fighter ? "
" super mario brothers ?
" " wing commander ?
" " mortal kombat ? " not a watchable film in the bunch .
still i held out some hope for " tomb raider .
"
after all , the game 's premise is heavily influenced by the indiana jones trilogy and all the mummy movies , so there are cinematic elements imbedded in the concept .
however , despite the potential of the project , " tomb raider " proves to be yet another bomb .
the plot is a convoluted accumulation of nonsense probably borrowed from a dozen bad movies .
there 's a once - ever-5000-years alignment of planets coming up , and the illuminati have to find both halves of an ancient triangle that controls time in order to take over the world .
of course , the ancient folks who divided the triangle buried the halves in tombs on opposite sides of the world .
our heroine , lady lara croft ( angelina jolie ) , finds the key that opens the tombs in relics that her dead father ( jon voight ) dug up .
she figures that if she gets the triangle , she can bring her dad back from the dead .
of course , no one was expecting much of a plot from this movie anyway .
in both video games and action movies , the plot is just an excuse for the action sequences .
however , the action in " tomb raider " shows little style or originality .
there 's lots of shooting and some kung fu fightin ' , but none of it progresses beyond the level of a cheap direct - to - cable flick .
the other goofy archeologist flick of the summer
, " the mummy returns , " was much better ; it had its flaws , but its action was creative and large - scale .
since winning her academy award for " girl , interrupted , " jolie has n't taken any projects that would display her acting talents .
"
tomb raider " seems to be more interested in displaying her breasts ; so much attention is drawn to them that it 's a shame
there 's no oscar for best performance by a wonderbra .
while we do n't see much of her acting ability
( with the exception of a wonderful upper - crust british accent ) , we do get a hint of jolie 's less savory side .
considering the rumors of incest that hang over jolie and her supposed obsession with death , having lara be obsessed with resurrecting her dead father ( and uninterested in any of the living males around her ) seems a poor choice .
having jolie 's real life father jon voight play the dead dad makes it even creepier
.
i have n't decided what to make of director simon west yet .
his first feature was the star - studded disaster " con air , " but my opinion of him improved with " the general 's daughter , " which was thick with sultry atmosphere .
now this train wreck .
i hope he improves again because his next project is the big screen version of the cult tv series " the prisoner .
"
hollywood has already screwed up " the avengers , " and " the prisoner " represents a chance for redemption .
( by the way , speaking of british tv , " red dwarf " fans should look for chris " rimmer " barrie in his first major film role ) .

Answer: N

Question: pre - review note : seeing as the only concern of body shots is " sex " , i will be forced to refer to that particular act innumerable times throughout the duration of this review .
because of this , i will try to vary word descriptions of " sex " ( meaning if you are offended by pejorative terms , and \ or your name is jerry falwell , you are kindly invited to hit the x up on the left corner of your screen ) , so if there happens to be a word you come across and can not comprehend , fret not , it 's most likely just another way of referring to " sex " .
i think we 'd all agree that any word used incessantly becomes a bit monotonous
so i hope you appreciate my attempt to liven up what could potentially be a very boring review .
though not as boring as the movie which makes steve forbes flat tax plan seem as lively as watching a naked mathew mconaughy play the bongos while high on god knows what .
body shots is a film so frightened of coitus that scenes of copulation are filmed ominously , in the way you 'd normally expect to see a violent attack .
it 's about people who think about screwing , seek it out , and talk about it .
these are things we all do , sometimes .
the characters in this film spend every waking moment pondering the simplicities of sexual acts .
their lives center around the next sexual encounter , but they seemed depressed .
it 's as if fucking is all they have to look forward to after a busy workweek .
at its core body shots is a message movie , the kind of thing i could picture really progressive church groups showing to middle schoolers in order to turn them off coition .
michael cristoffer ( who directed gia , another film that treated bumping uglies as if it where evil ) is a moralist with nothing new to say .
his characters do n't communicate anything of interest to each other , so cristoffer gives them an opportunity to let out their inner thoughts by speaking directly into the camera .
they voice simplistic platitudes like " i like to come " or " sex without love equals violence " .
huh ?
and yes that is as complex as this movie 's observations get .
the characters are stupid and shallow , with not one registering as anything more .
the plot concerns vapid over sexed twentysomethings on an all night hunt for carnal pleasure , then the after math ( the morning after ) of such events .
we meet the characters as they speak directly to us , confiding in us with their idiotic ruminations on intimacy .
i would normally go into the characters and the actors who play them , giving you the pros and cons , but for this film i can not .
i 'm not trying to be clever or witty , but i honestly hardly remember anything that would set them apart from the others .
with the exception of trent ( played by ron livingston as a bargain basement patrick bateman ) , the rest fade into each other-- a patchwork of fake breasts , defined abs , pearly white teeth , and creamy , flawless skin .
i vaguely recall brad rowe as the sensitive one , only because his character gets the worst lines ( " sex without love equals violence " ) .
in between all the confessionals , cristoffer films everything like a headache commercial , with blurry slo mos and dramatic head turning .
the fact that this director at one point won a pulitzer prize completely baffles me .
this film is made without one iota of intelligence or insight into the generation that its tag line claims to be defining .
if body shots is meant to say that all twentysometyhings are idiotic and f * * k - obsessed , fine , i do n't have any problem with a film that tries to persuade me to think a certain way , but cristoffer only gives us one side .
additionally that one side is n't even entertaining ; the characters indulge in buggery without an ounce of sexiness . or realism .
one sexual encounter takes place outside a club on a chain link fence between the two most sensitive characters .
they suddenly have vigorous intercourse with each other for no apparent reason ( other than that they both happen to be standing next to each other ? ? ?
alas , if it could only be that easy ? ? ?
kidding of course ) , then , not only is n't it erotic , it is n't real .
it does n't feel like an authentic sexual encounter .
every f
*
* k scene in this film ( and there are many ) is treated in the same unsexy manner .
body shots makes fornication dirtier than the most scummy porno film .
it shows us none of the pleasure that should go along with it , and most of all , it fails to show us why its characters love making it so much if they seem to hate the act of actually doing it .
the resulting search for nookie ( and you can take that cookie ? ? ? )
over one night leaves us with several tedious plot lines to follow .
the main concern is much ado over a rape that may or may not have occurred .
the film shows us two separate versions of the possible rape ( one where it is consensual the other where it is not ) and in both versions the young actress playing the possible victim gets her shirt torn off .
this is a topic that could be interestingly explored if done intelligently , and if memory serves me i ca n't think of one film that has done so , and yes i saw the accused which may be one of the most overrated movies of the 80 's next to wall street .
unfortunately nobody gives us reason to care , not the writer , the director or the actors nearly all of whom seem to have wandered off the set of a noxious 90210 spin off .
paul thomas anderson approached boogie nights in a manner similar to what cristoffer does here , though boogie nights succeeded .
it was similarly moralistic , but it gave us two different viewpoints ; it showed us how the lifestyle of porn enticed its characters , and it showed us the possible fall - out of such a decision .
the characters in boogie nights were as idiotic as the characters are here , but anderson seemed to care about them .
he gave them heart .
cristoffer gives them nothing but raging hormones .
he preaches to us , by using his characters to preach to us .
this is not the way to get any message across .
why not just direct a public service announcement on the perils of hittin ' skins ?
cristofer kind of does that , though
without an ounce of insight , and with a helping of leering exploitation .

Answer: N

Question: let 's say you live at the end of an airport runway .
large jetliners continuously pass over your house , rattling your windows and allowing few moments of peace .
let 's say the ground beneath your feet is also contaminated with toxic substances , and high voltage power lines run across steel towers only yards from your home .
now let 's say an airport conglomerate wants to buy your property in order to lengthen the runway , and offers you more than it 's worth .
would n't you jump in the air and have your bags packed before you landed ?
of course you would .
but what if this bit of land was your idea of paradise , and the house your castle ?
that 's what they are to darryl kerrigan ( michael caton ) , and although he 's happy that a multi - national corporation would like to buy his home , sorry , it 's not for sale .
unfortunately , the corporation wields quite a bit of influence over the australian government , which serves darryl and his family with what amounts to an eviction notice .
not about to take this lying down , darryl enlists the help of his inept attorney friend dennis denuto ( tiriel mora ) and makes a determined , albeit pathetic , attempt to fight back .
the castle , an australian comedy by rob sitch , is perhaps one of the simplest movies i 've seen in recent memory , yet also one of the funniest .
in fact , it is this film 's reliance on simplicity which makes it so successful .
the good guys and the bad guys are clear , the humor is straightforward , and the storyline is as uncomplicated as it gets .
it 's the perfect setup for a relaxing , hilarious good time , and as much as i hate to admit it
, i liked the fact that i did n't have to think all that much while watching this film .
i just sat back and enjoyed myself .
the situation is one we 've seen before : regular joe fights back against the government , or big business , or whatever .
what makes this film different is its characters .
darryl thinks he 's got the best life in the world - he tells his family that living next to power lines is a constant reminder of the success of mankind , he asks who would ever want to go out and eat in a fancy restaurant when he 's got the meat loaf feast prepared by his wife sal ( anne tenny ) , and he swells with pride when his son dale ( stephen curry )
digs a hole in the yard .
steve kerrigan ( anthony simcoe ) constantly combs the buy and sell ads looking for " investments " like jousting sticks and overhead projectors , while wayne kerrigan is in jail , as a result of dennis denuto 's incompetent courtroom maneuvers .
the great thing about the kerrigans is that they are n't so stupid that they get annoying .
they 're just a group of simpletons whose naive nature is perfectly harmless and even endearing .
we look upon them with a little bit of pity , but a whole lot of affection .
screenwriters sitch , santo cilauro , tom gleisner , and jane kennedy pit
this lovable bunch of unlikely crusaders against a stoic court system and a condescending business conglomerate , further polarizing the extremes and deepening our feelings for the kerrigans .
sympathy for their situation , the laughter they bring us , and the family 's wonderful characterization , simple as it may be , leaves us with a degree of emotional investment that causes us to actually care about what happens to them .
i suppose one might wonder how deep characterization can go when your characters are as inane as the kerrigans , but trust me , it works .
i particularly noted that the writers did not have to use slapstick in order to get laughs .
do n't get me wrong - slapstick , when executed well , can be genius .
it 's just that too often , a film will resort to it 's use as a shortcut to amusing the audience , not always successfully .
instead , the jokes in the castle are all hinged upon the dialog uttered by these people who have no idea that they are totally skewed to the rest of the world .
when they are by themselves , the are funny , and when they are with normal people , they are hilarious .
one of the few problems i saw with this film was a detour taken about midway though .
the kerrigans go out to a vacation spot for seemingly no reason other than to pack in a few more jokes and increase the film 's running time .
luckily
, it 's a funny little detour
that , while slightly distracting from the film 's main drive , is still quite enjoyable .
with all the levity abound in the castle , the film still manages to take on a pretty heavy concept , that of the innate right of a citizen to keep his property , an issue which has been bandied about in courts across the civilized world with differing outcomes .
i 'm not certain the courtroom monologue near the end of the film would actually hold up in real life , but it brings to the forefront the essence of the constitution ( of australia ) and certainly sounds impressive at any rate . and , for that matter , it 's more than i would have expected out of a light hearted film like this .

Answer:
P