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

[Q]: jean - claude van damme movies tend to be , if nothing else , a lot of mindless fun .
his latest film , " knock off , " skips on the fun part leaving a wildly incoherent exercise that is , well , simply mindless .
you ca n't really blame van damme .
no one , i suspect , has ever expected " the muscles from brussels " to contribute a heartfelt performance brimming with introspection and delicate shades of gray .
and even his sidekick co - star , " saturday night live " alumnus rob " makin ' copies " schneider , does what 's expected of him , although neither appear to want the role of straight man .
no ,
the problem with the film is its direction .
the first five minutes of the film are incomprehensible . . .
and it goes downhill from there !
five hundred characters , it seems , are introduced within the first fifteen minutes .
van damme does n't land his first kick until after thirty -- too late for most action fans -- and by the time the hour mark has rolled around ,
your jaw will be on your cup holder and you 'll be wondering why you elected to spend seven dollars on this mess
.
director hark tsui , whose previous film was the van damme / dennis rodman teamed " double team , " films at such a frenetic pace that it 's hard to know what 's going on
, who 's on whose side , and what the point of all this is .
faster than you can yell " fruit stand !
"
we 're watching a crazed rickshaw race with schneider being bounced along by an energetic van damme .
when schneider starts whacking van damme in the behind with a four - foot eel while enthusing " move your beautiful big ass , " the movie takes an unprecedented turn to the bizarre .
every now and again " knock off " will deliver some truly ingenious directorial flourishes -- inventive camera shots and angles , wild rides down gun silencers and from the tops of buildings to the sprawling street below , revealing cut - ins within the frame -- but they all happen too quickly , and within such a furious frame of reference , that they 're wasted . if only hark could have slowed things down just for a minute . if you 're interested in the plot , you 're better off reading a capsule review than trying to extract any meaning from the on - screen shenanigans : " jean - claude van damme plays a shady bluejeans manufacturer who uncovers a russian mafia plot to terrorize the world with " nanobombs " hidden in cabbage patch knock - offs .
maybe .
with paul sorvino .
"
a more accurate summary would be " jean - claude van damme bums around hong kong failing to avoid large , blatant coca - cola product placements .
"
the fact that the film is staged during hong kong 's last days under british rule gets some lip service but does n't figure in at all .
perhaps " knock off " 's most intriguing credit is that ron and russell mael composed the frenzied music score .
some of you might remember the mael brothers as the ' 80s synth pop duo sparks ; their contributions here are as confused as the accompanying action-- " kimono my house " indeed !
like the cheap jeans and " pumma " sneakers manufactured in hong kong , van damme 's latest is a real phony .
[A]: N

[Q]: the only historical figure that has been written about more than william shakespeare is jesus christ , which explains why the bard 's materials are such a popular source for remakes , revisions , rewrites , inspiration , subtlety , credit , and dispute .
indeed , in recent years , american contemporary cinema has been swamped with a wash of shakespearean products . including this year 's upcoming a midsummer night 's dream , shakespeare 's material has been the cause for twenty - six big screen productions since 1990 .
but for a change of pace , mrs .
brown director john madden gives us a story of the bard himself in the wonderfully vibrant shakespeare in love .
marc norman and tom stoppard 's story is largely fantasy , although as the viewer soon learns , shakespeare in love is not a movie that takes itself seriously .
( will shakespeare of the 1590 's would 've been married to anne hathaway , and he would 've had a teenage daughter and two young sons ; here he is a bachelor played by joseph fiennes . )
will is a writer struggling to come up with a great play , and his current comedy in the works -- " romeo and ethel , the pirate 's daughter " -- just does n't quite seem right .
with the help of the great writer christopher marlowe ( rupert everett ) , and the inspiration of true love with noblewoman viola de lesseps ( gwyneth paltrow ) , he changes things around and writes one of his greatest tragedies , " romeo and juliet .
"
the love story between will and viola loosely parallels the story of romeo and juliet , to great effect .
fiennes and paltrow develop a sexy chemistry as the two lovers which gives the movie much momentum ; this momentum smoothes out the bumps in the unfinished and largely unsuccessful comedy .
the supporting roles are well filled out , from geoffrey rush as will 's worrisome agent , philip , to tom wilkinson as the producer hugh fennyman .
even ben affleck , leading the troupe of actors , manages to make a favorable impression ; and judi dench lends some brief moments of screen time as queen elizabeth i .
gwyneth paltrow is by far , however ,
the standout of the lot , creating a large percentage of the forementioned vibrance .
the story is well - crafted if nothing else , although it has dangerous moments where it flirts with the " let 's make a movie " -genre .
the dialogue is breezy and lighthearted , and certainly accessible by the audience 's lowest common denominator .
there 's something for everyone in this romantic comedy , making it prime date flick material .
although certainly not inspiring in any regard , it revels in a wholesome , well - rounded atmosphere that has been absent in many of 1998 's pictures ; the true - love story is one of the best around .
certainly recommendable when the traditional slew of indifferent year's - open releases is just around the corner .
[A]: P

[Q]: i feel sorry for the financial backers of " waterworld , " which is supposedly the most expensive film ever made ( at $ 172 million ! ) , and is also one of the stupidest - boy did they get ripped off !
in fact , this film is not really a movie , but more of an amusement park ride with a plot .
it 's not even just another case of cliches strung together
( well , it is that too ) , it 's something that 's painful to watch because it relishes in its flaws .
kevin costner stars as a man who is some kind of mutant half man / half fish .
he is an explorer / mariner on an alternate earth that is completely covered by water because the polar ice caps melted .
he 's referred to as the mariner , but they " the meaner " would have been a more appropriate title because he 's cold , rigid , and strict -
and he 's supposed the be the good guy !
he docks at a small floating village of sorts .
he trades dirt for money and this introduces us to the other important characters .
first we meet one of the villains , then the soon - to - be heroine , a child prodigy , a wacky inventor , and a group of primitive people that somehow have some of the technology we have today , but also some of the low - tech tools used by pirates and vikings .
immediately the film 's biggest flaw is apparent
: are these people primitive or highly advanced ?
it does n't seem like anyone can read yet
they have ski - doos and airplanes !
how are these things powered ?
and if they have airplanes , could n't they just keep flying until they reached dry land ?
also , if the planet is completely covered in water where did they get the materials to make these things ?
i 'm sorry ,
i 'm all for checking your brain at the door when going to the movies , but elements like these can not go unnoticed because they draw our attention away from the story and confuse us
.
there was potential here for a good pirate story set in medieval times before modern technology , so why mix the two together ?
it does n't make any sense .
there really is n't much of a plot here because the story moves
so quickly it never takes time to explain anything .
the only thing we learn is that the prodigy child , enola ( mojorino ) , has a tattoo on her back that is supposedly a map to " dryland .
" who put the tattoo there and how come
it has taken them this long to figure this out ?
we never get an answer , just a stupid action movie about whoever can get the girl will be the victor of sorts if they reach dryland .
to make a long , boring , stupid , and just plain bad story short
; the mariner escapes with a woman named helen ( tripplehorn ) and enola .
they sail for a long time , encountering some strange people in the process and fight off " the smokers " as lead by the idiot villain deacon ( hopper ) , who kidnaps enola .
the story becomes a overly grand adventure with the mariner taking on an army of goons , rescuing enola , and bringing them all to salvation ( how original ) .
even with all its special effects , action , and adventure this film is boring
.
not a single character is likable , therefore neither is the plot .
dennis hopper completely rips off jack nicholson 's joker , while costner just plain rips .
still , " waterworld " is professionally made with a good production design and an original idea but no substance to it .
i just hope they do n't make a sequel !
[A]:
N