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

the word to describe sharon stone is " wonder " .
not that she _ is _ a wonder , but rather that
i wonder how she can be so inconsistent .
she has a dynamic screen presence in " basic instinct " , turns in a surprisingly fine acting job in " casino " , but possesses neither of those here .
stone teams up with private school headmaster 's wife isabelle adjani to kill adjani 's thoroughly unlikable husband ( chazz palminteri ) .
in a comedy of errors and unexpected twists
straight out of hitchcock ( as in ` homage to ' [ read " steal from " ] ) , it turns out that someone saw them or he 's not dead or maybe . . .
kathy bates turns in a credible , if unspectacular , performance as an investigative police detective .
her character is a bit dull but realistic , although her actions at the end are puzzling .
adjani is more than satisfactory as the timid beaten spouse driven to desperation .
it 's stone that is a disappointment among the actors .
how can she be the epitome of a femme fatale in previous films and come off as a blank in this one ?
costumed in skin - tight clothes and looking down her nose at everyone , she is someone you would want to avoid because she is boring , not enticingly dangerous .
even the threat ( or promise ? ) of a lesbian relationship between the conspirators is only half played out .
on the positive side , there are enough unexpected plot developments to keep your interest alive .
that is if you can put up with stone 's cardboard cut - out character and scenes directly lifted from hitch 's movies .
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

there was a time when john carpenter was a great horror director .
of course , his best film was 1978 's masterpiece , " halloween , " but he also made 1980 's " the fog , " and 1987 's underrated , " prince of darkness .
"
heck , he even made a good film in 1995 , with " in the mouth of madness .
" but something terribly wrong happened to him in 1992 , with the terrible comedy , " memoirs of an invisible man .
"
somehow , carpenter has lost his touch , with junk like his failed 1995 remake of , " village of the damned , " to his uninspired 1996 sequel , " escape from l. a.
"
those movies , however , look like cinematic works of art compared to his latest film ,
" john carpenter 's vampires .
"
if i was him , i definately would n't want to put my own name in the title .
it is a sad state of affairs when carpenter can make something as misguided and flatly written and filmed as , " vampires . " the story is simple .
jack crow ( james woods ) is a vampire hunter who , along with one of his partners , montoya ( daniel baldwin ) , and a prostitute , katrina ( sheryl lee ) , survives an attack from the master vampire , valek ( thomas ian griffith ) .
since katrina was previously bitten by him , crow takes her along because anyone who is bitten by valek becomes telepathically linked to him until they themselves turn into vampires a couple days later , and crow is hoping to find him with the help of her .
it seems valek 's mission is to steal a black , wooden cross from a roman catholic church that will enable him to become so powerful that sunlight will not destroy him .
my question is : how many time have we seen this same story played out ?
well , the answer is just about as many times as a better version of the story has been made .
" john carpenter 's vampires , " sadly enough , is one of the most unscary horror films i 've ever seen .
in fact , there is n't even one suspenseful moment in the whole 105-minute running time .
the non - stop vampire attack sequences are stylelessly filmed , without any interesting camera work , which is usually a trademark of carpenter 's .
and then we come to the screenplay , which , as far as i can tell , is nearly non - existent .
there is no story development , and there is n't even an attempt to flesh out the characters .
james woods can be a good actor , but he has nothing to do here but to say a couple of " pseudo " -clever
lines of dialogue .
daniel baldwin has some potential , but his character comes off as being very dense . and sheryl lee ( faring much better as laura palmer in " twin peaks " ) , like all of the female characters , plays an offensive stereotypical whore .
there is not an ounce of intelligence , or excitement in , " john carpenter 's vamires , " which is very disheartening coming from an ex - fan of carpenter 's .
he has said that he turned down directing , " halloween : h20 , " because he could n't work up any excitement for it .
and yet , when asked about a " vampires " sequel , he said he would be happy to do it .
i think that 's a definite sign
that carpenter has finally lost any trace of his lasting talent , not to mention a significant number of iq points .

N