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

plot summary : the year is 2024 .
the ozone layer has long since gone and the earth is now protected from radiation by a shield invented by connor mccleod .
the shield , although saving lives , has made the atmosphere hot and humid .
connor is a mortal and a tired old man who has given up hope .
on returning from the opera one night connor is accosted by the leader of a " terrorist " organisation .
they have tried to find out what the company that now runs the shield unit are covering up .
connor is then attacked by two assassins sent by katana from the planet zeist ( like zeit -- get it ? ) .
they fail and connor becomes immortal again by chopping their heads off .
he then brings ramirez back to life in glencoe in scotland .
both ramirez and connor are rebel leaders back on zeist and have been sent to earth as punishment .
connor now has the option to return being the last one but opts to stay with his new found immortality and fight to find out about the company and the shield .
katana meanwhile , fearing connor would return , sets out himself to kill the highlander .
if you have never seen it . being a fan of highlander and mr .
connery , i was in the cinema as soon as i could to see highlander ii :
the quickening .
i wish it had been quicker .
i feel whatever else you can say about a film ( bad script bad music , etc . ) if you sit just plain bored through most of it then nothing much else needs to be said .
the film was short but in my opinion only twelve minutes or so
( the time mr .
connery is on the screen for ) is worth watching .
the plot sounds a little ridiculous but i was willing to give it a chance .
maybe they could pull it off .
instead , i find that the characters have completely changed from those in the first film .
it 's as if they are different people with the same names .
witness connor jumping into bed with the leader of the resistance -- where is the attitude of " who wants to live forever , when love must die " gone to ?
the love sub - plot
* must * have had footage cut out .
the highlander and ramirez both seemed aware of powers they had never mentioned before .
putting our heroes in deadly situations and then having them walk away because of some new power is very annoying .
i still want to know why connor 's coat becomes flame proof when he is immortal !
we are not given enough time on zeist to believe in it , nor are we told why advanced aliens still use swords to kill .
why not dynamite or laser saws or just plain bullets followed by a quick chop to the neck ?
i know the head needs to come off
but you could at least immobilise your opponent with laser rifles first .
to be fair one assassin tried this
but he must be the world 's worst shot .
meanwhile connor develops luke - skywalker - like powers of laser beam deflection .
as for " bad guys , " we see a rebellion on zeist , crushed easier than a grape and then the rest of the plot depends on katana being obsessed with killing mccleod in case he returns to zeist .
two assassins are sent , presumably they are meant to be good at killing but an aged connor kills them both with no problems .
no more assassins are sent .
katana , supposedly a very powerful man goes himself to kill connor .
has he no more assassins ?
has he no better ?
why was the rebellion crushed so easily then ?
michael ironside is totally unconvincing
( bring back the kurgan ) .
he seems like a cartoon character and really is n't that evil , just stupid and violent .
we see the hollywood trick of the chief nasty threatening a child again and killing lots of innocents .
yet he still seems like no threat -- perhaps because he seems too stupid to threaten connor , or maybe because his two best assassins would n't have been amiss with larry , curly and mo .
so much for plot and characters .
the music is atrocious .
it is at best intrusive and at worst annoying . bring back queen .
there was an audible sigh ( of relief ? )
when connor played a queen track in a juke box .
i believe this at least is to be corrected for the american release .
the acting is at best flat , except for mr .
connery .
lambert is uninteresting and when he delivered " there can be only one " this time around it
just made me wish there had only been one -- highlander .
michael ironside is unconvincing
; sorry , michael , i usually like you and everyone else was incredibly forgetable .
so why 2/10 ?
visually the film is interesting at all times .
it has a blade runner feel to it and some of the special effects are quite stunning .
add to this an irrepressible sean connery who smiles throughout the whole film -- or is he smirking to himself ?
his lines and delivery might make the film worthwhile
had it not been so obvious that he can not take the whole thing seriously at all
but hey
--
*
i 'd * have done it for 12 million .
oh , and i agree with a previous reviewer
, she * does * look like sharon stone but i believe it is her first film .
incidentally there is a line producer credited and i hear rumours of highlander iii : the wizard .
N

porter stoddard ( warren beatty ) is a successful architect married to successful fabric designer ellie ( diane keaton ) for twenty - five years .
they and best friends mona ( goldie hawn ) and griffin ( garry shandling ) are about to face marital crises in a film most well known for its torturous path to the screen , " town and country .
" " town and country " has a pedigree befitting it 's title with an all star cast photographed by oscar nominated cinematographer william fraker and mouthing the words of screenwriter buck henry ( " the graduate " ) under the direction of peter chelsom ( " funny bones " ) .
after years of reports of budget overruns and reshoots and the racking up twelve different release dates , the media has been prepped for beatty 's next " ishtar .
"
so , is it that bad ?
the answer is no .
but it 's not very good either .
the major problem with " town and country " is that it 's unstructured and random .
stoddard is immediately established as a philanderer , having just bedded a flaky cellist ( nastassja kinski ) .
next scene finds him and ellie celebrating their anniversary in paris with mona and griffin .
then mona spies griffin hustling a redhead into a motel and begins divorce proceedings ( buck henry cameos as both couples ' divorce lawyer ) .
ellie thinks she 's overeacting , but sends porter to support mona on a trip to check out her family 's mississippi manse .
the two childhood friends end up in bed together , making us wonder why they 'd never become a couple to begin with . back home , their second coupling is interrupted by ellie bursting in to tell mona
she thinks porter 's cheating on her .
porter goes off on a trip with griffin to sun valley , idaho to have more comic misadventures with wacky women as griffin attempts to tell him that he 's gay .
the four friends , along with every woman porter 's dallied with , all end up back in new york city somewhat happily ever after .
although the film begins promisingly , resembling a woody allen take on new york city wasps , too many strands drift off into nowhere .
the stoddard household is huge , containing two adult children ( josh hartnett , " the virgin suicides " and tricia vessey , " kiss the girls " ) , their colorful bedmates and a maid who 's just imported her shirtless boyfriend from the rainforest back home .
after an amusing early scene that has porter overhearing three bouts of lovemaking while in search of a nocturnal snack , the six supporting players are dropped except for an out - of - nowhere appearance by the formerly forgotten son .
porter 's romantic misadventures with women ( other than mona ) are equally mishandled .
once the marital discord begins , the film seems as if it was editted with a machete , stopping and starting , never regaining its rhythm .
while beatty gets off a few tart observations , his character is mostly passive and bemused .
maybe we 're supposed to feel sympathy for an adulterer who does n't initiate his own sex romps ?
keaton 's ellie has a trusting nature that 's a result of her own self involvement resulting in an unlikeable character .
hawn smartly recycles her mature sex kitten wives of " the out of towners " and " the first wives ' club " while shandling 's relegated to true second banana status .
kinski is bland and unmotivated .
andie macdowell takes a weirdly unappealing role and does what she can with the screenplay 's most bizarre subplot , which finds charlton heston as her rifle toting , billionaire daddy and marian seldes as her alcoholic , wheelchair - bound , foul - mouthed mother .
heston and seldes are fun , as is jenna elfman as a sun valley bait and tackle salesgirl who brings porter and griffin to a halloween party .
oscar nominatored cinematographer william fraker gives the film a nice look , but director chelsom shows none of the quirkily and blackly humorous depth
he brought to films like " hear my song " and " funny bones .
"
the script is this film 's weakest link - it 's telling that most of the ( few ) laughs come from old - fashioned physical slapstick and the sight of beatty in a bear suit .
while " town and country " is n't exactly painful to sit through , it mostly just lays there .
N

after a marketing windup of striking visuals and the promise of star caliber actors , mission to mars ends up throwing a whiffleball .
fiercely unoriginal , director depalma cobbles together a film by borrowing heavily from what has gone before him .
there are aliens similar to those in close encounters of the third kind .
the stranded astronaut theme is reminiscent of robinson crusoe on mars .
the astronauts encounter space flight difficulties that smack of apollo 13 .
interior spacecraft visuals are redolent of 2001 : a space odyssey . instead of using these components as a launching pad to create his own movie , de palma stops right there , refusing to infuse the film with anything even remotely resembling cleverness or heart .
mission to mars takes it 's first wobbly steps at a pre - launch barbeque in which the perfunctory character introductions are done .
during these surface scans of the characters , we learn that jim mcconnell ( sinise ) has lost his wife .
it 's a plot point revisted throughout the film with jackhammer subtlety .
the rest of the crew exhibit a bland affability .
there is no contentiousness , no friction to add the the dramatic tension of these men and women being confined to close quarters for an extended length of time .
maybe depalma was going for the comraderie of the right stuff , but in that movie , the astronauts had embers of personality to warm us through the technical aspects .
it 's the year 2020 and this is nasa 's first manned excursion to the red planet .
a crew , led by luke graham ( cheadle ) , arrives on mars and quickly discovers an anomaly , which they investigate with tragic results .
graham is able to transmit a garbled distress call back to earth .
in response , earth sends a rescue team comprised of mcconnell , woody blake ( robbins ) , wife terri fisher ( nielsen ) and phil ohlmyer ( o'connell ) .
obstacles are put in the crew 's way
and and they matter - of- factly go about solving them .
i should say , mcconnell goes about solving them .
time and again , mcconnell is presented as some kind of wunderkind , which would n't be so bad if the rest of the crew did n't come across as so aggressivelly unremarkable .
( mention should be made of the misogynistic handling of fisher in a situation where the entire crew 's mission and life is in mortal danger .
on a team of professionals , she is portrayed as an emotion directed weak link .
women serve no purpose in the movie other than to serve as a reflection of a male character 's personality trait . )
by the time they land on mars and try to solve the mystery of what occurred , mission to mars starts laying on the cliches and stilted dialogue with a heavy brush .
there is an adage in film to " show , do n't tell .
" mission to mars does both . repeatedly .
characters obsessively explain the obvious , explain their actions as they are doing them , explain to fellow astronauts facts which should be fundamental knowledge to them .
the film 's conclusion is momumentally derivative , anti - climatic and unsatisying .
as i walked out i wondered who the target audience might be for this film .
the best i could come up with is pre - teen age boys , but in this media saturated era , this film 's components would have been old hat even for them .
i have to think what attracted such talent to this film was the lure of making a good , modern day b - movie .
the key to such a venture is a certain depth and sincerity towards the material .
i felt no such earnestness .

N