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

Ex Input:
you do n't need to have seen the original " species " to appreciate how utterly lousy
" species ii " is .
with few exceptions , sequels tend to be worse than the films that spawned them , but the fact that " species ii " is a follow - up is n't the only reason
it 's so miserable .
it 's the predictable storyline , the cardboard characters , the banal dialogue , the failed attempts at humor , the revolting special effects , the gratuitous nudity ( all female , of course ) , the bad acting , and the bland direction .
the plot , simply geared at getting the alien species back on planet earth so that it can reak some more havoc , involves three astronauts landing on mars and inadvertently bringing some alien slime in a soil sample back aboard their shuttle .
the slime , well , sort of jumps out at them and the screen turns black .
that should have been the end of the movie right there .
back on terra firma , at least one of the crew is now a carrier of alien dna and , as you 'll remember if you saw the first movie , driven by a strong urge to procreate .
on a parallel track , government scientists have cloned a version of sil from the first film ( now called eve , again " played " by natasha henstridge ) and are keeping her around for some testing .
this , apparently , includes observing eve 's reaction to " the dukes of hazzard " tv show , which she appears to enjoy .
eve 's bio - rhythms go off the scale each time one of her kinfolk " mates , " which we are forced to witness in gross - out detail , but otherwise there does n't appear to be a whole lot of reason why henstridge is in this film , unless it was written into her contract ( let 's hope it cited one sequel and one sequel only ) .
eve finally breaks free of her confines -- and her bra -- for the finale , but the effects are so messy you ca n't really see what 's going on .
peter boyle is totally wasted as an institutionalized scientist who screams " i told 'em not to go !
"
at the top of his lungs , referring to the mars mission but more likely aimed at the makers of this piffle .
michael madsen reprises his role of press lennox ( so that he can enter high security areas , flash a badge and claim to be press , maybe ? ) , as does marg helgenberger as dr .
laura baker , the one subjecting eve to the tv reruns .
they 're both unbelievably wooden .
what 's a talented filmmaker like peter medak ( " the ruling class , " " the krays , " " let him have it " ) doing directing this tripe
, i wonder .
it 's an unfortunate trend ,
this : once - talented directors throwing in the towel and lending their names to unchallenging horror flicks like " species ii .
"
last year peter hyams gave us " the relic " ; no thanks necessary there .
and the first " species " was helmed by roger donaldson who , although certainly no genius behind the camera , had demonstrated much better judgment with his previous choice of projects .
is it just that there are no better offers out there ?
" species ii " is worthless . worse than that , it 's also exploitative , offensive , and insulting to the intelligence at every turn .
it 's not that there is n't anything positive to say about the film .
there is .
after 92 minutes , it ends .

Ex Output:
N


Ex Input:
the reunion film is not an original idea in any way , shape , or form .
it 's been done throughout film history over and over again , and has become one of the many sub - genres , like the prep school sub - genre , the angst - filled teen sub - genre , and the slasher sub - genre .
what makes " peter 's friends
" so remarkable is not how it does n't follow the rules of this sub - genre , but how it follows it so well , and creates characters that i would n't mind hanging with .
what are the rules of the reunion sub - genre ?
well .
. .
. 1 .
you need a group of friends , most of them married or at least dating , and sometimes even married or dating eachother .
2 .
you need to have them brought back together over some sort of a crisis .
3 .
they are not to have spoken together much since they split apart .
4 .
the reunion has to come in intervals divisible by 10 . 5 .
they all have to be slightly to highly neurotic .
6 .
the reunion has to bring them together , seperate them with little crises , then bring them back together because , after all , they 're friends .
7 .
there has to be some sex or at least some making out either between the friends or with other people that are there or were invited .
8 .
eightly , they 're all unhappy or marginally so .
9 .
there 's some sort of sexual tension amongst some of them that 's built up over the years .
10 .
the friends are all wildly successful in the world of entertainment and the arts , sometimes internationally so .
11 .
the film is filled with nostalgic radio hits from the time when they were friends , sometimes causing them to get together in dance / song .
since it follows these rules so closely , it will probably be ( and has been ) coined off as just a " british ' big chill . '
" and in some ways it is .
both follow the rules , as i said , and both feature lots of bitching , big confessionals , and broken relationships .
but while " the big chill " was , at least to me , a tad too whiny and unsatisfying , " peter 's friends " hits its mark , making this film funny , dramatic , and poignant .
the friends of peter 's were all in the same theatre group back in ' 82 , performig wildly outrageous british acts for people far too stuck up to enjoy them
( the opening scene has them all dancing in tux tops and tutus ) .
after peter 's ( stephen fry ) wealthy father ( richard briers , hardly on screen enough to register , but oh well ) dies , leaving a giant mansion to him , he has to decide whether or not to keep it .
not sure what to do with it immeadiately , he decides to throw a giant reunion party , inviting back all his old chums .
of course , all or most of his chums follow the tenth rule .
andrew ( kenneth branagh , also directing here ) is an actor who 's unhappily married to a tv star , carol ( co - writer rita rudner ) .
maggie ( emma thompson )
is a successfuly publisher of self - help books , but looks like she needs them more than her customers , as she is lonely and unhappy .
roger and mary ( hugh laurie and imelda staunton , who were also married in " sense and sensibility " ) are married , and are the most successful creators of jingles in the uk , but have suffered a tragedy as one of their newly born twins has recently died .
and sarah ( alphonsia emmanuel ) is as promiscuous as ever , having a new boyfriend as of two weeks named brian ( tony slattery ) who 's married and wants a divorce because of her , giving her doubts .
as for peter , things seem okay . . .
the film features lots of inner - friend jokes , and even some old theatre anecdotes ( which i at least find a lot of fun in , as i 've done lots of theatre myself ) .
and there are big confessions , brawls between the friends , and by the end , almost everyone is unhappy , even though some have resolved their problems long before the end ( which i kinda dug ) .
the final twist would seem forced an anti - climactic , but for some reason , i felt the same way the rest of the friends did .
maybe it 's because the people in this film are so likable that i just wanted to join their clique .
that 's really what makes " peter 's friends
" so lovable
: the way you just want to hang with a group of friends who can be so dysfuntional sometimes , but when someone 's in crisis , can come together wonderfully for one another .
it 's when you have a giant crisis like this and people want to selflessly help you out instead of subtely pushing you away
that makes you realize you have true friends , and these people are true friends .
not to mention kenneth branagh is able to make the film seem nostalgic for the 80s
( a decade i grew up in , unfortunately ) without taking us outside of the 90s .
there are some 80s classics and anti - classics like tears for fears " everybody wants to rule the world , " but unfortunately no stupid / fun 80s songs ( i think if i ever did an 80s reunion film , i 'd put some crap go gos song on , or at least some good old " come on eileen " ) , but this is the british 80s we 're talking about .
oh well .
but anyway , the direction is pretty good , although nothing amazing .
branagh 's forte is really making shakespeare fresh and magical , but at least he 's very good with making a less ambiguous film like this .
the writing is good from rita rudner and martin bregman , with lots of good one - liners , and even some really bad but good puns ( to mock the fact that andrew lives in l .
a .
, peter , while cutting some logs , asks him is he has wood in l .
a . , and andrew says ,
" no ,
but we have hollywood
" - punishment like that ) .
the actors , as in most speaking movies , are better than their material , though , with some stand - out performances to the six friends , as well as the outsiders like slattery , rudner , and phyllida law as the old housekeeper of the peter 's mansion .
a little note should be made about hugh laurie 's performance , as he looks like he took some massive doses of prozac before doing this - i mean , i 've never seen him actually act this dramatically .
"
peter 's friends " is a really enjoyable film which makes people like me pine for some sort of future reunion , although i do n't know what kind i 'll have ( like most people , i do n't look forward to my high school reunion ) .
because of the way these friends are still able to maintain the same amount of care they have for one another and after such a long period of seperation , i just look forward to the day when i can have friends like that .

Ex Output:
P


Ex Input:
star wars : ?
episode i -- the phantom menace ( 1999 ) director : george lucas cast : liam neeson , ewan mcgregor , natalie portman , jake lloyd , ian mcdiarmid , samuel l. jackson , oliver ford davies , terence stamp , pernilla august , frank oz , ahmed best , kenny baker , anthony daniels screenplay : george lucas producers :
rick mccallum runtime :
131 min .
us distribution :
20th century fox rated pg :
mild violence , thematic elements copyright
1999 nathaniel r. atcheson a fellow critic once stated his belief that a reviewer should not speak of himself in his own review .
i 've attempted to obey this rule in recent months , but to do so would be impossible in this case .
the fact is , nearly every person who goes to see the phantom menace brings baggage in with them .
the original star wars trilogy means so much to so many people .
for me , they calibrated my creativity as a child ; they are masterful , original works of art that mix moving stories with what were astonishing special effects at the time ( and they still hold up pretty darn well ) .
i am too young to have seen star wars in the theater during its original release , but that does n't make me any less dedicated to it .
on the contrary , the star wars trilogy -- and the empire strikes back in particular -- are three items on a very short list of why i love movies .
when i heard that george lucas would be making the first trilogy in the nine - film series , i got exited .
when i first saw screenshots from the film , well over a year ago , i embarked on a year - long drool of anticipation .
and when the first previews were released last thanksgiving , i was ready to see the film .
but then there was the hype , the insane marketing campaign , and lucasfilm 's secretive snobbery over the picture .
in the last weeks before the picture opened , while multitudes of fans waited outside of theaters and stood in the boiling sun days in advance just to be the first ones in the theater , i was tired of hearing about it .
i was tired of seeing cardboard cut - outs of the characters whenever i went to kfc or taco bell .
i just wanted to see the movie .
reader , do not misunderstand .
i did not have an anti - hype reaction .
the hype was unavoidable .
i understand and accept the hype -- it 's just what happens when the prequel to the most widely beloved films of all time get released .
five minutes into the phantom menace , i knew there was a problem .
" who are these jedi knights ?
"
i asked .
"
why are they churning out stale dialogue with machine - gun rapidity ?
" " why are n't these characters being developed before their adventures ?
" " why is there a special effects shot in nearly every frame of the entire film ?
" these were just some of my questions early on .
later , i asked ,
" where 's the magic of the first three films ? " and
" why am i looking at my watch every fifteen minutes ? '
by the end of the film , i was tired , maddened , and depressed .
george lucas has funneled his own wonderful movies into a pointless , mindless , summer blockbuster .
the phantom menace is no star wars film .
take away the title and the jedi talk and the force , and you 're left with what is easily one of the most vacuous special effects movies of all time .
it 's an embarrassment .
i looked desperately for a scene in which a character is explored , or a new theme is examined , or a special effects shot is n't used .
there are a few of each , but they 're all token attempts .
the fact is , george lucas has created what is simultaneously an abysmally bad excuse for a movie and a pretty good showcase for digital effects .
this is not what i wanted to see .
i did n't want to leave the phantom menace with a headache and a bitter taste in my mouth , but i did .
the story centers mostly around qui - gon jinn ( liam neeson , looking lost and confused ) and his apprentice , obi - wan kenobi ( ewan mcgregor , who scarcely has a line in the film ) and their attempts to liberate the people of the planet naboo .
naboo is the victim of a bureaucratic war with the trade federation ; their contact on naboo is queen amidala ( natalie portman ) , the teenage ruler who truly cares for her people .
after picking up jar jar binks ( a completely cgi character , voiced by ahmed best ) , they head to tatooine , where they meet young anakin skywalker ( jake lloyd ) and his mother ( pernilla august ) .
qui - gon knows that the force is strong with young anakin , and so the jedi knights take the boy with them on their journeys .
the bad guys are darth maul and darth sidious , neither of whom have enough lines to register as characters .
there is n't anything particularly wrong with this story when looking at it in synopsis form .
the way lucas has handled it , however , it unsatisfactory .
first of all , we do n't learn one single thing about qui - gon jinn .
not one thing .
what was his life like before this film ?
well , i imagine he did n't have one .
that 's why he feels like a plot device .
this probably explains why neeson looks so hopeless in the role , and why he 's recently retired from film ( i do n't blame him , honestly ) .
obi - wan , a character i was really looking forward to learning more about , is even less interesting .
mcgregor has just a few lines , so
anyone hoping to see the engaging young actor in a great performance is urged to look elsewhere .
since these two men are the focus of the phantom menace , lucas has served us a big emotional void as the centerpiece of his movie .
things start to pick up when our characters reach tatooine ; young anakin is perhaps the only truly fleshed - out character in the film , and lloyd does a thoughtful job with the role .
i was also hugely impressed with the sand speeder scene ; rarely is an action sequence so fast and so exciting .
and when anakin says goodbye to his mother , i found it moving .
also fairly good is portman , and she manages to give a little depth to a character where no depth has been written .
jar jar binks is one of the most annoying characters i 've ever had to endure , but he 's more interesting than most of the humans .
as soon as the relatively - brief segment on tatooine is over , it 's back to the mind - numbing special effects and depthless action scenes .
i 've seen many movies that qualify as " special effects extravaganzas , " but the phantom menace is the first one i 've seen that had me sick of the special effects fifteen minutes into the movie .
the reason is obvious : george lucas has no restraint .
i ca n't say that i did n't find the effects original , because i did -- the final battle between darth maul , obi - wan , and qui - gon is visually exceptional , as is most of the film .
but i also found the effects deadening and tiresome .
my breaking point was near the end of the picture , as anakin is getting questioned by yoda and the other jedi masters ; in the background , we see hundreds of digital spaceships flying around through a digital sky ,
and i wanted that to go away .
ca n't we have one stinking scene that is n't bursting at the seems with a special effects shot ?
i got so sick of looking at the cgi characters and spaceships and planets and backgrounds
that i really just wanted to go outside and look at a physical landscape for a few hours .
and then there 's the question of magic .
what was lost in the sixteen years between the phantom menace and return of the jedi ?
i have a feeling that lucas was so focused on how his movie looked
that he forgot entirely the way it should feel .
john williams ' familiar score is no help , nor is lucas ' direction .
i think it comes right down to characters
: there are none here .
i longed for the magnetic presence of han , luke , and leia , but i got no such thing .
and what about the ridiculous expectations ?
mine were n't that high ; i simply wanted a film that showed me the roots of the films that i grew up loving , a story that had a few characters and a few great special effects .
instead , i got two hours and fifteen minutes of a lifeless and imaginative computer graphics show .
i do n't hate the phantom menace as much as i resent it : i 'd like to forget that it exists , and yet i ca n't .
it 's here to stay .
i can only hope that episodes ii
and iii have something of substance in them , because if they do n't , then lucas will have pulled off the impossible task of destroying his own indestructible series .

Ex Output:

N