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

[Q]: plot : a group of asbestos cleaners get a job removing the gunk from an old insane asylum .
as each day passes , the crew members begin to discover things about the place and themselves which set other things in motion .
saying anything else about the plot would be a crime .
have fun . . .
critique : " i feel like shooting myself in the head
" are the first words that came out of my mouth after seeing this movie , a good indication as to what kind of film to expect here .
this ai n't your average " happy go lucky " kind of picture .
this is a deliberately slow - paced mystery - horror film drenched in atmosphere , with a very creepy insane asylum ( in which most of the film takes place ) , very few clues up - front and lots to talk about afterwards .
will it bore some people to sleep ?
you bet it will !
is it made for the scream audiences of the day ?
absolutely not !
i guess you can describe this film as a horror movie for the " cerebral crowd " .
a film that patiently unwraps itself frame after frame , giving away very little with each step and each sound , unwinding itself until its final scenes offer up a world of revelations and plenty more to discuss later .
i 've always loved movies that have me talking about them afterwards like the shining and lost highway and this film fits right into that group .
in fact , i guess i can pussyfoot around the actual word all i want but the best way to describe this kind of movie is a " mindfuck " .
if you feel like watching a movie that moves very slowly , gives you a handful of characters with divergent backgrounds , tosses a few very ambiguous and supernatural cookies your way and is extremely disturbing once you put it all together , well ,
then this movie is definitely for you !
it 's the kind of film that you actually have to see twice to fully appreciate ( damn , i missed that whole " peanut butter " thing ! )
and one that will likely creep the shit out of you if watched alone in the dark .
" brrrrrrrrr .
.
.
now what was that sound in the basement ?
honey , can you go check ? " and one thing this film does n't have , unlike its hollywood - ian counterparts like the haunting , is special effects .
in fact , that 's one of the greater things about this movie : it feels real because it looks like it 's actually taped on video with very credible actors in very credible circumstances ( i did some research
and it was , in fact , shot on digital video .
. .
ah - ha ! ) .
another great thing about it is that it 's actually very gory and somewhat violent in theme , and yet we rarely see anything of the sort on the big screen ( it 's mostly implied , kids ! ) .
and as clich ?
d as it might be to say .
. .
it 's usually much scarier when stuff is left to our imagination or implied in movies as such .
other films that this one reminded me of include henry : portrait of a serial killer and the blair witch project , with that same real sense of dread , brooding and terror .
the film does however move awfully slow and if you really do n't get " into " it completely ( you really need to concentrate here ) , you will lose the motion of the story and the pent - up tension might be released .
but overall , this film is yet another great example of the horror genre making a very cool comeback this year with no tight tanktops in sight .
and with david caruso acting like the king hotshot like only he can , how can you go wrong ?
definitely not a film for everyone but
a must - see for anyone looking to throw themselves into the psyche of the disturbed ( count me in ! ) .
stanley kubrick would be proud !
oh yeah . . .
so where 's that gun again . . .
?
where 's joblo coming from ?
the blair witch project ( 4/10 ) - blair witch 2 ( 7/10 ) - the haunting ( 3/10 ) - the house on haunted hill ( 7/10 )
- lost highway ( 10/10 ) - the pledge ( 6/10 ) - the shining ( 9/10 ) - the sixth sense ( 8/10 ) - unbreakable ( 8/10 )
[A]: P


[Q]: here is a film that is so unexpected , so scary , and so original that it caught me off guard and threw me for a loop .
okay , it is n't quite original ,
considering it is a sequel to the box office hit species , but
it certainly is smart .
most films of this genre are reminiscent of those cheesy b - horror films from the 50s and 60s , and some even become them .
however , as we learned with the 1995 small - budget horror / sci - fi film , sometimes expectations can be shattered .
a lot of criticism has gone against this film ( from what i have read so far , anyway -- yep , all two reviews ) , and it makes me wonder why these types of films are automatically dismissed as gory , laughable pieces of trash .
but , the thing is , it is n't .
it 's well made , well acted , and quite intelligent .
i can see most of the critics now complaining about the level of gore or the level of sexuality in the film .
but the species series is n't about the lack of these elements .
it 's about how much it can get into one film .
and yet , behind it all , it has this basic premise that allows it to get away with doing so .
species ii begins in the present day , though it seems to be an alternate universe .
many films ( especially sci - fi ones ) create similar timelines as our realistic one , but change it to fit the film 's needs .
species ii begins with the arrival of an american spacecraft , the excursion , landing on the surface of mars .
aboard is patrick ross ( justin lazard ) , a very bright and very handsome astronaut .
patrick is the son of senator ross ( james cromwell ) , who just wants patrick to succeed .
well , it would seem that he has succeeded .
landing on the surface of mars , he is the first human being to ever do so .
of course , he is n't the first ever .
about a billion years ago , an alien species supposedly landed on mars and destroyed the perfect living conditions that were able to sustain life .
now , of course , the red planet is cold and rocky .
no life lives on it .
that is , no visible life .
patrick , upon leaving the spacecraft and landing on the red soil , collects samples from the ground .
he takes them aboard , and puts them in storage .
unfortunately , one of the samples contains a form of life , and it gets loose when it is heated aboard the ship .
just prior to heading back to earth , this life form creeps along the floor and inhabits the earthlings .
they pass out for approximately seven minutes , and then shrug it off as nothing , because they ca n't even remember .
they blame it on a technical malfunction .
back on earth , patrick begins to have strong urges to mate with as many women as possible .
as we know from the original , this is because the alien wants to breed and take over the planet .
however , the children that are bred are half - human , as their father is .
patrick is really looking for another alien to breed with , and he finds it in eve ( natasha henstridge ) .
eve was cloned from dna taken from sil , the original alien .
however , this time around , most of her " alien " urges have been either decreased dramatically , or lie dormant .
the project is led by dr .
laura baker ( marg helgenberger , reprising her role from species ) , and her motives seem respectable .
since she was involved with the original alien attack , she wants to learn how to stop the alien should it come again .
and it has .
story - wise
, species ii is much stronger than its predecessor , but it is also much stronger than , say , aliens
( hey , i love the film , but you ca n't tell me it was strong on story ) .
what surprised me the most with this film was the incorporation of historical facts into the screenplay .
in my search for extraterrestrial intelligence course in college , we learned about a piece of rock from mars which landed in one of the poles .
this piece of rock contained fossils which may have been proof of life on mars ( later , it was proven that it was not a living creature that created it ) .
the script uses this effectively , but also manages to provide a well - balanced plot .
beginning with the first man on mars ( something i have always dreamed of seeing ) , i was hoping that the film would turn this element into a useful starting point for the movie .
and it does it quite well .
the characters are all smart , and they know what to do and what not to do .
the only character that seems a little cliched is the general ( george dzundza ) , and yet
, he remains logical in everything he does .
there are the obvious flaws of course , mostly lying in the technical aspects .
the special effects are only mediocre , and some are just plain bad .
but for the most part , they remain believable
( i even noticed a homage to the alien series when the mothers gave birth to alien children ) .
also , the most realistic ones are usually the goriest , ranging from people being torn open , or someone 's head being blown off .
however , some plot elements also may elicit laughs from the audience , including a menage a troi that is all but necessary .
many people dislike the species series because all it is is an excuse for sex , nudity , and gory violence .
however , i tend to disagree .
what were the alien films about ?
and , if an alien species ever did come to earth , and their sole purpose was to destroy us , would n't you mate as quickly as possible with as many people as possible ?
my only gripe with this is during the scene where patrick goes searching for a mate in a grocery store .
i did n't realize that aliens were that picky on choosing women to mate with
( i just assume it is his part - human side looking for the most beautiful one ) .
the acting is quite good for this kind of film .
it is a vast improvement over the first film , at least .
the acting is the key element to this film : if it was bad , it would have lowered itself into camp ; if it was good , it would have asked for comparison with films like aliens .
okay ,
so it is n't that good .
george dzundza is probably the most obvious mistake on casting , as his over - the - top impersonation of a general makes him annoying and distracting .
natasha henstridge is limited this time around , as she is usually enclosed in a cage .
however , she does manage a very impressive performance with this aspect hindering any of her talent .
oh yeah ,
and she 's quite fun to just plain watch .
marg helgenberger is immensely better this time around , and her performance is probably the best in this film .
michael madsen is so - so , but he is n't annoying ,
and he soon becomes rather appealing
( with his nice cynic personality ) .
james cromwell has a small part , but he makes it much better than what it could have been with a more incapable actor .
as i say , any film with james cromwell dramatically increases in likeability .
mykelti williamson gives an enjoyable performance , and he gives the film a more down - to - earth feel .
and , of course , justin lazard .
lazard has so far been ridiculed for his performance ,
but i think he is effective .
sure , he is wooden , but is n't that what his character is like ?
the moment when he touches the glass separating henstridge from him was extremely well done , due to the couple 's acting .
species ii is rated r for strong sexuality , sci - fi violence / gore and language .
this is definitely an r rated film that young kids should not see .
more than likely , they would probably have nightmares and never have sex for the rest of their lives .
hell , i do n't even know if i will .
what is sure to be a critically lambasted film turns out to be the surprise film of the year .
i probably wo n't see another film where i was expecting so little and got so much for quite a while .
director peter medak has crafted a very suspenseful , and sometimes very scary movie out of a mediocre series .
medak has also mastered the wonderful " jump !
" moments , and has probably the second scariest moment i have ever seen on film ( scream still has the first ) .
strong acting , smart dialogue , intelligent plotting , and a sure - handed director , species ii is exactly what these films should be : entertaining .
[A]: P


[Q]: " goodbye , lover " sat on the shelf for almost a year since its lukewarm reception at the cannes film festival last may , and one look will tell you why .
it 's a mess .
and that 's * way
* before ellen degeneres shows up .
the film is one of those torrid double - indemnity crime stories that , in this case , required the services of three screenwriters .
i suspect that one wrote a sexy thriller , one wrote a murder mystery , and one wrote a comedy , then director roland joff ? tried to piece it all together in the editing room while scratching his head in bewilderment .
i did n't laugh at ellen degeneres much ( i think i was supposed to ) .
degeneres is horrible and her character is even worse , a tough - talking vulgar cop with a bad wardrobe and bad hair .
either degeneres is wearing a wig -- as most of the actors appear to be -- or she does n't yet have enough clout to secure a hairstylist .
every single word out of her mouth is supposed to be racy and hip , but her incessant wisecracking is poorly - written and merely stupid .
her reaction to the brutal killing of a jogger is " at least she died healthy .
"
and that 's one of her wittier asides .
degeneres ' sgt .
rita pompano is called in to investigate the allegedly accidental death of . . .
wait .
to give away too much of the plot would all but ruin a film that has very little going for it outside of its numbing plot twists and multiple triple - crosses .
it 's best described this way : sultry sexpot / real estate agent sandra dunmore ( patricia arquette ) is married to jake , a " creative yet unfocused " ( and alcoholic ) advertising rep , played by dermot mulroney .
sandra likes to act out her deep - seated sexual fantasies and jake 's brother ben ( the suave - as - ever don johnson ) likes to help .
ben is also coming on to his petite , mousy co - worker peggy blaine ( mary - louise parker ) and someone , somewhere , is planning to cash in on that huge life insurance policy of his .
the film is ripe with cheating lovers cheating on each other and back again .
although there are some genuine surprises , the plot twists get too contrived too quickly .
probably around the time degeneres ' gumcracking gumshoe appears .
at least the former " ellen " star is going for something a little different .
arquette turns in yet
another of her stiletto - heeled , platinum blonde bombshell roles
( see : " lost highway , " " true romance " ) while quoting embarrassing lines like " i 'm not wearing any underwear .
"
i hope she got paid a lot of money to do this .
here 's an example of some of the film 's flat - out stupidity .
sandra purchases a used car and disguises herself in a red wig prior to stalking two of the film 's duplicitous lovers .
she drives the motorbiking couple off a cliff while blaring her favorite " the sound of music " on her car stereo , intent on identifying herself to her hapless victims .
so what was the point of the wig and the car ?
"
the sound of music " stuff might be a reference to " the wizard of oz " allusions in david lynch 's " wild at heart , " but if so joff ?
must have forgotten that " wild at heart " was a despicable movie .
it 's hard to believe that " goodbye , lover " was directed by the same person who made " the killing fields " and " the mission .
" it 's not , however , hard to see why it sat on the shelf for so long .
it should have stayed there .
[A]:
N