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

Q: how do you judge a film that is so bad , but intentionally so ?
in spiceworld , the highly popular singing group the spice girls accomplish their major goal : mocking themselves with a purposely cheezy film and having a lot of fun doing it .
if that was their goal , they did a fantastic job .
so is it fair to give it such a low grade when it was n't really meant to be much better than this ?
honestly , i 'd rather see this film before many others i gave higher grades ,
so does that mean i graded it inaccurately ?
truth be known , i do n't really think i can answer this question .
to understand spiceworld , you have to understand the spice girls .
unless you 're very
* very * young , or fairly older , you probably have at least heard of them .
they 're a group of five busty british babes who 've had # 1 hit singles and whose debut album sold millions .
they 're primarily adored by pre - teen girls who hope someday the contents of their training bras might match those of ginger spice 's ( real name : geri haliwell ) wonderbra .
all five of the girls have these " spicy " names for which they are better known than their real names .
there is the aforementioned ginger spice , as well as sporty spice ( melanie chisholm , or mel c . ) , scary spice ( melanie brown , or mel b . ) , baby spice ( emma bunton ) , and posh spice ( victoria addams ) , and
all of them , to some degree or another , resemble their stage names .
the spice girls took the world by storm , and spiceworld is actually a good- humored spoof of all that transpired during their quick rise to fame .
it 's quite nice to see what good sports the girls are ( and not just the one dubbed sporty ) about poking fun at themselves .
they do n't take themselves too seriously , and that 's probably the best thing about them .
it 's also surprising how natural they seem in front of the camera * acting * , and not just singing and dancing .
they 're not flawless by any means , but for the most part , they deliver their lines without feeling staged , and , like them or not , we get the sense the five are very at home within their characters ( which seems reasonable since they portray themselves ) .
what makes the film bad is that extreme fans of the spice girls wo n't get enough of their music , while the rest of us do n't get enough of a movie .
the real point of this is to look at the spice girls for over ninety straight minutes .
most of the film is very blas ? , but several parts are downright boring , and then they have those sporadic moments that actually make us laugh out loud !
if you 're a big fan of the group , you probably wo n't get enough of what you want , and if you 're not a big fan , you get too much time devoted to nothing more than " look at us " moments .
for the right crowd , the " music video " sequences will be the highlights of the film , but for others , they will serve as three - minute lulls in a hectic - but - overall - uneventful storyline .
other key actors include richard e . grant as clifford , the spice girls ' manager , alan cumming as the film - maker piers cutherton - smyth who attempts to make a documentary of the group , george wendt as martin barnfield , a producer who constantly works on pitching a spice girls movie , and roger moore in a small , self - parodizing role .
all provide relatively good performances , keeping in mind once again that this film was n't meant to be acted seriously .
even meat loaf shows up as dennis the bus driver and seems to have fun with it .
while this film is continuously compared to the beatles ' a hard day 's night , i think that is an unjust comparison .
it is supposedly the movie studio that first mad the comparison by way of press kits , but i do n't think drector bob spiers , nor the spice girls , intended it to be so .
i think the studios were just trying to boost hype and interest in the film , and have instead , come off rather pretentious
.
i do n't think this film is trying to be anything more than a fun , satirical look at a group that got so big , a movie seemed the next likely step .
and what could 've been better than a self - indulged yet self- mocking approach ?
probably nothing , and so it is .
spiceworld is a movie i thought would be embarrassing to enjoy , but now instead , i find myself wanting to defend a movie i did n't even give a good review .
it 's bad , but it succeeds in every way it intended .
it gives the spice girls a chance to play while allowing all those obsessive fans out there to indulge in every brainless moment .
perhaps the group is nothing more than a gimmick .
if that 's the case , the movie 's gimmick is that it * is * such a gimmick !
you might be saying , " a spice girls movie ? come on ! "
,
but when it comes down to it , i think that 's the point .

A: N
****
Q: a common complaint amongst film critics is " why are n't there more literate scripts available ?
" quiz show gives signs of hope that the art of writing is n't dead in hollywood and that we need not only look to independent films for thoughtful content .
paul attanasio 's script takes what could have been a tepid thriller ( the quiz show scandals of the late 50s ) and delivers a telling parable about the emptiness of the post war american dream and the golden bubble that surrounds and protects tv networks and their sponsors .
the film is riddled with telling symbols
( e . g .
a ' 58 chrysler , a radio announcement of sputnik ) but is never heavy handed . deft direction by robert redford and keen performances by ralph fiennes , john turturro and rob morrow
dovetail perfectly with the carefully honed script .
redford departs from the usually overlight , " cable tv quality " sets and camera work so common in recent 20th century period pieces .
quiz show
perfectly captures the colors and textures of the eisenhower years .
although i was only 4 years old when the " twenty one " scandal broke , enough of the 50s icons survived throughout my childhood for me to recognize the authenticity of redford 's almost tangible palette .
from plastic covered furniture to carefully coifed contestants , the images ring true from that era of rampant consumerism , of a generation that had gone through 15 years of depression and world war without " disposable income , " before the manifestation of its american dream .
the film deftly weaves several themes together , from assimilation and exclusion of jews from " the good life , " to the lengths that a scion of a literary family will go to to match his father 's fame .
though the 50s audience that is " rocked " by this scandal may initially seem naive to us , they should appear all too familiar , with our current national passion for the rise and fall of icons like michael jackson or tonya harding .
charles van doren and herbie stemple were the overnight mega celebrities of their day .
the tv audience is almost a fourth main character , always at the center of the decisions being made on their behalf .
at the film 's end , the credits roll past slow motion footage of that same 50s tv audience , mindlessly laughing at some piece of fluff .
like the distorted mirror that captured a blurred swastika at the end of cabaret , this " mirror " may reflect an image we 're not all that comfortable with .

A: P
****
Q: 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 .

A:
N
****