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

[EX 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 .
[EX A]: P

[EX Q]: plot : this movie takes place over one day .
it 's a rookie cop 's narcotics training alongside a seasoned police veteran .
the rookie does n't know much about " street justice " , so the older cop teaches him about the way things work in the " real world " .
how even cops like themselves have to " bend the rules " and " break the law " every now and then , in order to catch the really bad guys .
critique : a pretty intense little movie with solid acting across the board , some ups , some downs and a thrilling ending , despite a couple of small flaws .
i really enjoyed this movie because it followed two extreme characters and put them in situations which had me wondering about what i would do if i were in their place .
the film gets right into the " dirty " side of , well .
..
the dirt on the streets , and proceeds to teach the rookie cop ( and us , the audience ) how things really work down there .
of course , we 're receiving this lesson from a man who has put away a lot of scum in his time , but the things he seems to be doing are n't exactly on the up - and - up either . and therein , lies the fun of the film .
do you agree that you yourself would need to break a few small laws in order to put away the people who break the really big ones ?
well , as the film moves along , we 're given two points of view in respect to this predicament , and to me , both sides made sense at some point or another . and
you got ta give a lot of credit to the screenplay for that , the director , who builds the film up wonderfully ( with the darkness of the day leading to the darkness in the script ) and the two actors who deliver their parts in spades .
hawke , first off , because he rarely plays these " commercial " roles but does so perfectly here , with a vulnerable side which has you feeling for the bastard right off the top .
and denzel , well , what can you say about mr .
washington that has n't already been said before ?
he comes through as per his usual high - level style here , and gives the audience a completely different side to his talent , of which , i personally would like to see more .
he 's nice
, he 's not so nice , he 's smart , he 's not so smart , he 's caring
and he 's a dog all the way .
the few problems that i did have with this film included the redundant nature of the whole thing at some point ( okay , we get it .
..
you have to be nasty in order to deal with these nasty people .
.. move on ) and this one really major " coincidence " which involved a bathtub , that saved the day for one character , but seemed a little too " convenient " for my taste .
i also never really understood how washington 's character got out of a certain dire predicament , only to be seen driving his car in the very next scene .
but obviously these small flaws did n't taint my overall enjoyment of this tense drama , a film that gets you right into the streets , into the nooks and the crannies , and into the moral dilemma which lies between the justice system and the day - to - day drug busts .
see it if you want to wrestle with some of these issues yourself
, see it if you want to see denzel and ethan strike up a palpable chemistry on - screen , and see it if you like holding on to your seat - handles real tight during a movie .
in fact , see it for the scene in which ethan hawke plays cards with a host of gang - bangers alone .
..
dang
, now that 's intense !
where 's joblo coming from ?
the corruptor ( 7/10 ) - crimson tide ( 9/10 ) - l. a.
confidential ( /10 )
- lethal weapon ( 8/10 ) - requiem for a dream ( 8/10 ) - seven ( 10/10 ) - shaft ( 7/10 ) - traffic ( 8/10 )
[EX A]: P

[EX Q]: the first in a very long list of things wrong with " i still know what you did last summer " is the title .
think about it for a second .
if the last movie was called " i know what you did last summer " , would n't the next movie have to be
" i still know what you did two summers ago " ?
if anyone working on this movie had an i .
q .
greater than five would have thought about it logically and said , " hey . . .
wait a minute " .
but alas , the people behind this film are obviously idiots , so i wo n't hold them to that .
what i will hold them to is the fact that they have a pretty bad movie on their hands , even for a teenage slasher flick .
i guess i 'm one of the few critics who actually kind of liked the original film ( emphasis on the " kind of " ) .
it was n't great or anything and maybe not even necessarily good , but at least it did n't have me glancing at my watch every minute
or so
like it 's sequel did .
there are just so many problems with this movie that it 's hard trying to figure out where to start .
first of all , i guess , is the setting .
the movie offers no rational reason why the film had to take place in the bahamas , other than the fact that the producers wanted a seaside setting .
exactly why does the fisherman want to go through all the trouble of faking a radio contest to get julie james ( jennifer love hewitt , one of the only survivors of the first film ) and her new college buddies out to the islands before he hacks them up ?
the movie suffers from this kind of logic all the way through .
in one scene , julie is in a tanning booth at a deserted gym when the hooked fisherman with the slicker comes in and seals up the booth so the damsel in distress ca n't get out , no matter how hard she tries .
when julie discovers she 's going to slowly fry to death , she screams for help and her friends come to her rescue .
now , this is all fine and dandy except for one thing ; instead of spending five minutes trying to bust open the booth , why not just turn the freakin ' thing off ?
in another scene , one of the characters , after having their significant other all but decapitated by the man in the slicker , says to julie , " just do n't tell anybody it rained the whole time .
"
oh yeah , i 've just been terrorized by a hook wielding sociopath and had some of my best friends gruesomely slaughtered , but hey , i 'll crack jokes anyway .
after all , it is in the script .
the film 's only saving graces are a few well - executed suspense sequences and a really cool cameo by the " re - animator himself , jeffrey combs .
he brings some good comic relief and life to an otherwise limp movie .
way to go , jeffrey .
i have a hunch that the reason this film fizzles while the first one at least kept it 's head above water is the recent absence of writer kevin williamson .
with " scream " and even it 's sequel , he displayed a real talent as a screenwriter .
his ear for dialogue and the terrific endings he puts on all his films make him a standout from all the rest of the horror writers , and i think " i still know " has really suffered by not having him on board .
the cool atmosphere is still there this time around , but i just did n't like the characters or the writing as much as i did in the first one .
even though the movie does n't have williamson , it still has a hacky ending , trying to do what kevin did with the first two " scream " s by ( some may consider this a spoiler , but if you have seen any horror movies whatsoever , then you should be able to guess the identity of the madman within twenty minutes ) having two killers and , this time , having one of them being a family member to the other .
i think someone in the audience put it best when , after the movie had ended with another " the killer is back !
" cliffhanger , he said " who is this time , the grandma ?
" all in all , " i still know " tries to be as successful as the first the film was , but
really fails in the attempt .
i mean , it 's okay when slasher movies rip - off each other , but
when they start copying themselves . . .
[EX A]:
N