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

Answer: N


Question: " be gentle , " urges natasha henstridge to matthew perry in " the whole nine yards .
"
" i have n't made love in five years .
"
" neither have i , " rebuts perry .
"
i 'm married !
"
if jonathan lynn 's latest comedy relied simply on jokes of that caliber -- and it certainly tries -- then it 'd be an innocuous if rather obvious little film . instead , its failings go much deeper .
first off , who has n't had enough of the tough wiseguy intimidates the timid wise guy genre ?
if you want to make a pretty penny or two in hollywood nowadays simply write a " comedy " which pairs a robert de niro / james caan / bruce willis type with a billy crystal / hugh grant / matthew perry type and wait for the royalties to roll in .
who 's next ?
jack nicholson and martin short ?
it certainly does n't have to be funny .
"
the whole nine yards " is not a particularly funny film , but it is borderline offensive
.
offensive in the way it continues a trend of poking fun at career criminals who would n't think twice about pushing your mother - in - law off the brooklyn bridge with her feet encased in concrete .
that might sound like a funny sight gag , but the problem is these films have long since lost sight of the fact that taking a human life is n't all that funny to begin with .
when the corpse is placed in a car , doused with gasoline , set ablaze and referred to as " barbecue , " it makes you wonder when all this playing killing for laughs is going to end .
"
the whole nine yards " is also offensive in so much as its three central female characters are portrayed as nothing more than sex objects .
rosanna arquette plays a slutty , chain - smoking french canadian who 's married to matthew perry 's none - too - successful dentist .
it 's an unflattering role made all the more so by the unflattering outfits -- and unflattering situations -- into which arquette is thrust .
then there 's natasha henstridge ( " species " i and ii ) who plays the well - to - do wife of contract killer bruce willis .
she gets involved with perry 's character when he comes to chicago hoping to negotiate a finder 's fee with mob boss
yanni gogolack ( kevin pollack , transposing his vs with his ws ) after willis ' jimmy the tulip tudeski moves in next door .
henstridge and perry 's characters hitting it off is about as likely as bruce and demi getting back together .
perry might have the charm but he does n't have the physical attributes of a traditional leading man , especially in close - up .
most objectified of the bunch is amanda peet , who turns in a sexually - ripe performance as perry 's dental assistant with , it transpires , questionable career goals .
peet 's gratuitous nude scene proves how low this movie will stoop to keep its audience from dropping off .
when " my cousin vinny " is the highpoint of a directorial career including such forgettable films as " clue , " " greedy , " and " sgt . bilko , " you have to wonder if lynn chose the wrong career path .
perry 's pratfalling goofiness coupled with willis ' likable hardness could have had some potential but with no script to work with , and a director who seems to be watching from the wings , their characters run out of gas quickly .

Answer: N


Question: back in 1980s , chuck norris used to be synonym for the action films .
he could n't , of course , top the success and fame of big action names like sylvester stallone or arnold schwarzenegger , but sheer quantity of his films guaranteed that he was household name among shoot'em up and beat'em up genre aficionados .
that quantity was mostly provided by cannon group , prolific production company that dominated the b - movie market in previous decade by flooding it with cheap , formulaic and , more often than not , unwatchable genre products .
the hitman , 1991 action thriller directed by chuck 's brother aaron , is one of the last among them .
chuck norris here plays seattle cop betrayed , shot and left for dead by his partner ( which should n't surprise anyone , considering the fact that the partner is being played by michael parks , specialised for roles of usually very mean characters ) .
surviving the shooting , cop is pronounced dead and hired as deep undercover agent .
he infiltrates the underworld circles in seattle and becomes their top hitman , using his abilities to start brutal war between three major crime organisations - italians , french canadians and iranians .
since it is rather absurd to expect great acting ability from chuck norris , at least not in this kind of movie , the biggest attraction of this film should have been action .
well , the action in this film falls flat - it is boring , repetitive and not at all exciting .
it is nothing more than monotonous series of scenes
that contains violence too brutal even for this type of films .
we know very little about norris ' character while , on the other hand , gangsters are portrayed with more human dimension .
in the end we almost feel sorry for them , since they are shown totally powerless against norris and his unstoppable and bloody crusade .
during the film , somebody obviously became aware of that problem , so the screenwriter introduced the subplot dealing with the black boy who gets adopted by norris .
that caused another problem - any questions about nature of that relationship had to be quashed with another subplot - this one dealing with lady lawyer who sleeps with the hero and gets killed after fulfilling that screenplay obligation .
the photography in this film is dark , setting is depressive and this forgettable piece of 1980s style cinema leaves viewers without any reason to justify the hour and half spent in watching it .

Answer:
N