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

[Q]: synopsis : melissa , a mentally - disturbed woman who likes to smoke , seduces doug , a minor - league baseball player who likes to study anatomy , work on motorcycles , and make out with his girlfriend in a public library .
when doug decides to stop seeing her , melissa maliciously takes revenge on those around him , including his girlfriend , his mother , and his cat .
comments : malicious , i suppose , is an acceptable moview for what it is : a cheap , b - movie thriller which rips off dozens and dozens of spurned - psycho - lover - who - wants - revenge films
( like fatal attraction , hand that rocks the cradle , etc . etc . ) that have come before it .
malicious , however , really does n't provide very many particularly suspenseful moments .
the plot starts off energetically enough , the main characters are introduced and the affair between doug and melissa begins and ends pretty early on in the film .
it starts to drag , unfortunately , after this .
melissa will obviously try to take her revenge on doug ( as always seems to happen in movies like these ) , but she does so in unimaginative ways that have been done in other , better thrillers before .
she drugs someone .
she kills a family pet and leaves it in the girlfriend 's apartment .
and , of course , she stalks ,
so we see a number of shots , which are supposed to be suspenseful , where she 's spying on doug and his girlfriend .
i wo n't reveal the ludicrous ending to this turkey , but i warn you that it 's both painfully obvious and a real yawner
.
john vernon does a remarkably good job at playing the not - so - bright baseball jock who initially gets swept away by melissa ( one of the script 's faults is to try to pass off a character like this as a pre - med student ) .
the same can not be said , though , for molly ringwald .
at times , she can effectively pull off the obsessed lover routine , especially during her silent , i'm - going - to - stare - you - down scenes .
at other times , however , she just seems somehow goofy and out of place .
in one particular scene which i guess was supposed to be suspenseful , she screeches " f --
k you , you b-----d " and throws a phone .
she delivers the line so ridiculously that one ca n't help but laugh
.
malicious certainly is n't the worst thriller of its kind out in the video racks ( a number of really fat turkies in this genre are out there ) , but it is n't all that good or original either .
feel free to treat this film maliciously , watch something else .
[A]: N

[Q]: jean - luc picard ( patrick stewart ) and the rest of the crew of the u .
s .
s .
enterprise are back for their third outing in the ninth film based on the 1960 's series , star trek .
gone are kirk , spock and mccoy and in their wake in the very able and very talented cast from star trek : the next generation .
as usual , a crisis is brewing and it is up to the crew of the enterprise to make the galaxy safe again .
this time out the united federation of planets and an alien race led by f .
murray abraham are trying to move some colonists off a planet against the colonist 's will .
it turns out that this planet is the fountain of youth and the federation and their alien buddies feel that is should be used for the good of everyone and not just a few hundred colonists .
of course picard feels that this sort of treachery is wrong , so he disobeys direct orders and vows to help protect the colonists .
insurrection is a lighter movie than the last two star trek films .
the film focuses on the lofty question of whether the rights of society as a whole outweighs the rights of a small group .
in this respect it gets back to the roots of star trek by disguising social commentary as science fiction .
it does n't do a bad job , other than it tries to inject too much humor into the story line .
many of the jokes are your typical inside star trek - fan - only jokes , while many of the others just fall flat .
the other criticism that i had with the story was that it ignores common sense .
there are only a few hundred people on this whole planet , why do they have to be moved ?
the explanation is that the planet has to be bombarded with deadly radiation so that this fountain of youth effect will be strong enough to help heal f .
murray abraham 's aliens who number only a couple of dozen .
so the basic story line is bad enough in that we have a few hundred being booted out for a few billion , at least that 's plausible .
but in reality we have a few hundred being moved for the benefits of a few dozen , which makes no sense whatsoever .
the other little hiccup in logic is the inclusion of worf ( michael dorn ) , the trusty klingon .
worf was on star trek : the next generation , so they want to include him in the films .
no problem so far .
worf is now a character of star trek : deep space nine , so the writers have to find a way to have him show up .
in the last star trek movie , first contact , the included worf in a credible fashion , in this one , the writers are so lazy that the completely gloss over why he is even in the movie .
what little explanation they do give is so small that you would have missed it if you were n't hanging on every word on the screen .
my minor problems with the movie aside , star trek : insurrection does have an overwhelming number of good points as compared to its bad ones .
while many of the jokes do miss the mark , many are pretty good , even for non - trekkies .
the special effects are among the best for the star trek series .
the action is plentiful and well done .
this is a very good - looking movie .
it should come as no surprise to anyone who ever watched star trek : the next generation that the acting is first rate .
it is very obvious that these actors have been working together for over a decade .
they interact with each other with a skill that few other ensemble casts can muster .
most star trek fans probably will not be disappointed with this latest film in the series .
if you 've always hated star trek , there is nothing here that is going to change your mind .
star trek : insurrection is not the best film in the series , but it is good enough to dispel the long standing tradition of the odd numbered films in the series being far inferior to the even numbered ones .
[A]: P

[Q]: i think that saying that the x - files is one of this summer 's most anticipated films is safe .
for five years , " the x - files " television show has developed a dedicated fan culture , whose rabid devotion to the series rivals that of " star trek " fans .
the premise of both the movie and the television series is two fbi agents who investigate the paranormal ; fox mulder ( david duchovny ) is the avid believer whose quest to find the truth about extraterrestrial life borders on the paranoid , and dana scully ( gillian anderson ) is the scientific skeptic trying to find a rational explanation to mulder 's flights of fancy .
outlining the plot of the x - files movie is virtually impossible , since to be general would result in confusion , yet to be specific would give too much away .
nevertheless , i will try .
"
the black ooze , " and extraterrestrial ,
virus - like substance is threatening earth .
a " shadow government " is aware of this , but tries to cover - up the alien existence .
mulder and scully know
" the truth is out there , " and so try to expose both the invasion and the cover - up .
there are three central questions i have heard asked about this movie : 1 .
will those who do n't watch the series be able to understand the movie ?
yes .
isolated as an individual text , the x - files can stand alone .
they have given enough background for anyone , familiar with the show or not , to understand the movie .
although some of the secondary characters ' histories may confuse the uninitiated , those characters are not essential to the film .
this is a major problem : they trot out token secondary characters from the series out for an appearance and then disappear just as quickly .
why bring superintendent skinner into the picture in the first place , and then have him sat silently on an fbi internal affairs committee ?
why bring in " the lone gunmen , " three computer geek conspiracy theorists , for an even briefer appearance ?
these characters are recurrent on the series , and their appearance in the film was met with whoops from the audience ( suggesting their popularity among fans - actually most of the audience could pass for " the lone gunmen " ) .
still , then they vanish just as quickly .
2 .
the television show never gives us any answers .
will the movie actually explain some things ?
yes .
in the x - files we get a fairly complete history of " the black ooze , " what it is and what it wants .
we finally get some understanding of the motivations behind the " shadow government .
"
there are even some subtle tie - ins with contemporary ufo - ology , including the " greys " and the roswell crash of 1947 .
3 . is the movie any good ?
no .
the x - files is a dreadful movie and shows some fundamental problems with writer / creator chris carter 's talents and the relationship between cinema and television .
first off , the screenplay by series creator chris carter is sloppy and cliched .
after approximately forty - five minutes ( the length of a television episode minus the commercials ) , the pace drops to a snail 's crawl .
not long after that point , when carter attempts to answer some questions we have had about the series , we wish he had not .
the explanations are so trite and ridiculous
that one would have preferred it had carter not explained quite so much .
i am willing to suspend my disbelief a fair bit , but the absurdity carter wants me to swallow was just too much .
breaking the suspension of disbelief destroys the movie - and listening to other fans leave the cinema , maybe the series too .
the explanations are not only absurd , they are tired and unoriginal .
the extraterrestrials breed and gestate like those from the alien series , and their craft looks like a leftover set piece from independence day .
note that the alien movies , id4 , and the x - files are all from 20thcentury fox - a studio that is beginning to cannibalize itself i think .
the x - files is noteworthy for being the only movie based on a television series to be produced while the series was still running .
in comparing the movie and television series certain aspects of the respective media emerge .
the avoidance of the series to answer the questions it raised annoyed and frustrated many people .
however , i rather liked that about the series .
television allows you to impose as much , or as little , meaning on a show as you want .
it is the proverbial " blank screen " which we project our minds on .
meaning on television is open and ambiguous ; it is the nature of the medium .
cinema , on the other hand , is the opposite .
it projects onto us the filmmakers mind .
we can , in some films , fill the textual gaps ourselves , but that almost never happens in an american film .
meaning , in cinema , needs to be self - contained and determined .
so , when the x - files made that jump from small to big screen , carter needed to take into consideration the differences in the medium as well .
he did not .
by making explicit , what the television show left implicit , carter reveals the limits of his creativity and skill .
when they say that " fans " make a tv show , it is not far from the truth .
on television , fan culture must impose its meanings on the text because there is nothing there .
how true that is when we see the " explicit " x - files - there is nothing there .
the following was printed in the st .
john 's express , st .
john 's , newfoundland , canada .
all views are the authors , but copyright is held by robinson - blackmore , 1998 . ; movie review by mikel j .
koven .
[A]:
N