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

Q: at first glance , three kings looks to be just another war movie , the 90s version of all those favourite war movies with names i can not remember .
the 90s version , it definitely is , just another war movie ? not in your dreams !
imagine pulp fiction approach to saving private ryan , tha 's three kings for you .
believe it or not , it bears the cool of the former and the stark humane meaning of the latter .
the story brings us to the twilight of the gulf war , with the allied troops victorious .
majpr archie gates ( clooney ) leads an enterprising bunch of grunts to a rather unorthodox post - war looting spree ; the millions in gold bars secretly stowed away by saddam in a desolate village in the desert .
as the rest of the troops are celebrating their victory and getting ready to be shipped home , this ' wild bunch ' goes awol on an armed hum - vee ( the vehicle of choice of the us army ) .
they soon find out that they have much resistance , as they get tangled with the local rebellion against saddam 's forces .
frequently switching their modes between looters and robin hood 's merry men , they become consciously attacked by their own morals .
as the film begins to roll , it seemed to have a rather ' light ' mood to it . ' special ' effects such as when gates describes to his men how a bullet can kill simply paves the way for a light - hearted funny action movie .
three kings is much smarter than that .
as the conflict becomes more and more complex , the audience will be trapped in a limbo , trying to stay focussed on that light - mood / serious - mood that the film seem to portray .
i personally found this analogous to the same feelings of the main characters involved in the film ; trapped between their initial plan paved by greed and their own sense of humanity .
this simply made the entire experience of watching three kings
truly brilliant .
action sequences are not shot as your old - fashioned war films nor anything like steven spielberg 's in - your - face war violence .
they are carefully built to generate tension with just the right tight close - ups and pauses , right before the action starts .
not john woo for sure but more of sergio leone 's spaghetti western style ( tons of them starring clint eastwood ) . great performances by clooney and wahlberg but
the brilliance have to lie in the conception of this film ;
the screenwriter and the director .
three kings ranks among the best films of the year ,
well , for me at least . highly recommended .

A: P
****
Q: i can hear the question already .
what on earth do these two movies have in common ?
to most people , not a lot , except that both are by renowned directors .
as i saw them , however , both movies have flawed romantic scripts wrapped in distinctive packaging of lavish visuals musical numbers .
but oh , how differently the packages affect their films .
while " everyone 's " production numbers make an otherwise ordinary woody tale something special , jane campion 's imaginative visuals only serve to emphasize how pompous and uninvolving laura jones ' script is .
i left " everyone says i love you " not remembering a lot about who loved whom , but its infectious happiness put a grin on my face .
i left " the portrait of a lady " not remembering a lot about who loved whom , and i could have cared less .
" everyone " features nothing allen has n't done before storywise .
woody is again desperately in love with a beautiful woman ( roberts ) , and against the odds they manage to click for awhile before allen is left wondering what went wrong -- again .
similar situations happen to his family and friends .
some of the more outlandish comedy scenes even hark back to his " early , funny " films .
the scenes between tim roth and drew barrymore could have come out of " take the money and run , " his directorial debut .
however , nothing allen has ever done prepared me for this one - of - a - kind display of sheer good spirits .
in fact , in this movie , the feeling itself is what 's most important .
yes , the movie would have been better -- among his very best , i think -- if it had a meatier story .
but what it lacks in substance it makes up for in feeling .
and what better way to express feeling than through music ?
love is often best expressed in a song , and the numbers the cast break into here cut straight to the heart .
some are a tad too goofy , such as the number where a lot of ghosts prance around in a funeral parlor ,
but i admired allen for even putting them in there .
it also helps that as usual , allen has a top - flight cast working with him .
their singing voices range from quite good ( goldie hawn ) to not quite good ( allen ) to literally unlistenable ( barrymore , whose real voice was dubbed by a professional ) .
but while their vocal abilities differ , all the actors do a great job of putting joy up there on the screen , and making it rub off on the audience .
granted , some people will simply never accept characters singing in movies , but for those attuned to it , this film should work wonders .
jane campion , too , has a top - flight cast working for her in " portrait of a lady , " too , but even their considerable skills can do nothing to keep the film from being a stilted , virtually lifeless mess ,
albeit a visually interesting one . campion and her cinematographer stuart dryburgh come up with a great variety of eye - filling images that linger in the mind .
unfortunately , what did n't linger in the mind for me
was the story the visuals were supposed to be reflecting .
i remember very well shots of a train with its light beaming and shots of men vanishing around nicole kidman , but i can remember very little of what happened between all these people .
even worse , i do n't find myself feeling bad that i 've forgotten .
the problem , i think , lies not with the cast , which seemed to be trying very hard for the material .
it was the script that could n't convince me to care about anyone .
the characters were putting out all kinds of emotion , but i found no reason to connect with any of them .
i understood that the story was about cold , emotionally vacant characters , but for me to care about them , i have to identify with them somehow and want them to inject feeling into their lives .
jones ' script never simply gave me that opportunity .
in the end , it almost seemed as if campion was trying to inject some life of her own into the proceedings with her visual flourishes . unfortunately , as she kept painting these dazzling pictures , they only served to push me further away from the material and remind me that there was no connection between me and the film .
in the end , the movie 's one strength ended up hurting it .
so here we have two films with pretty uninteresting plots , and
yet i was able to truly enjoy one of them .
why ?
with both films , my head cared about neither story , but
only " everyone says i love you " was able to make my heart sing .

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
****