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]: the love for family is one of the strongest driving forces in any man 's life , especially for those who have fostered their family under precarious circumstances .
thematically in cinema , love for family has been used frequently and emphatically to highlight more abstract aspects of characters ; it is rare , however , for it to develop as outstandingly as it does in roberto benigni 's neo - classic drama , life is beautiful .
through a central cast of father , mother , and son , benigni demonstrates the wonderful , undying love that a family shares in the best of times and the worst of times .
life
* is * beautiful for guido orefice ( roberto benigni , directing himself here for the sixth time in his career ) , an italian jew , master con man , and aspiring waiter extraordinaire .
living in 1930 's italy , he lives a carefree life of good fortune ; it is made even better when he happens upon a pretty schoolteacher named dora ( nicoletta braschi ) .
although dora is already engaged , guido manages to sweep her off her feet and persuades her to marry him instead ; the two have a child named joshua ( giorgio cantarini ) .
unfortunately for the happy family , the third reich and its nazi minions occupy italy and imprison all jews in work camps .
it is after the movie takes this dramatic turn that the movie 's theme of family love becomes the strongest .
although prior to this turning point benigni plays guido with a sort of goofy charm , he relaxes the role to ensure his son 's happiness .
now , instead of awkwardly seducing the sweet dora , he constantly reassures his son that everything will be all right .
benigni 's performance is truly a well - rounded one , and certainly one of the more fluid turns all year .
the supports are all strong as well , but the movie truly excels in its script .
life is beautiful is a self - proclaimed fable , one which tells its story in grand , two - part fashion .
in certain parts it manages to sink to the level of a " saturday night live " spinoff -- a number of humorous skits connected by a token plot -- but in the movie 's second half the script 's circular nature becomes admirably obvious .
characters make reprise appearances in fine form , and certain events which are intially curious become critically linked to the plot 's outcome .
in all , fans of foreign film will see this as a memorable motion picture , and novice movie - watchers may take this opportunity to see their first " artsy " film .
life is beautiful is an artsy movie by convention but
easily accessible to everyone , and above all is a fine thematic picture .
[EX A]: P

[EX Q]: there seem to be two reactions to dark city .
you either love it or you are unimpressed .
count me as a " love it . " as good as the crow and spawn are , dark city is better .
where the former two have a specific comic - book following , the latter is an original work with the potential for broader appeal .
it has a similar look to the others , but dark city is much more thoughtful and much less violent .
not clever or complex , the story is still fascinating , like a selection from the twilight zone .
a man ( rufus sewell ) is awakened in his bathtub by a man with a syringe .
surprised , the attacker runs off .
the dazed man gets out of the tub and finds a woman 's body in the room .
a mysterious caller warns him to leave the apartment immediately , so he packs some clothes and leaves , never sure why he 's leaving or what he 's fleeing .
ghoulish figures in long coats recognize the man and chase him through the dark city , hounding him like figures in a nightmare .
an odd blast of willpower allows the man to dream himself free from his pursuers long enough to check his i .
d .
the amnesiac learns that he is not dreaming and that his name is john murdoch .
now if only he could remember the rest of his life . . . . dark city is good on many levels .
first , the look of the movie is excellent . give credit to production designers george liddle and patrick tatopolous for creating a coherent look from diverse elements .
there are visual elements from the american 1920s-60s , mixed with dickens - era urban industrial elements .
it is all pulled together in a sad , dark look reminiscent of the diner in edward hopper 's painting , nighthawks .
proyas ' use of models gives an appropriately eerie unreality to the film 's world ( for not only does the audience see the city a model , but so do the ghouls ) .
the look is like a cross between tim burton 's batman and the bleak animation of the brothers quay .
second , the editing of the film is good .
the pacing is on track , and the plot is revealed , the " amnesia " explained , in satisfying increments .
also , the stylized editing within each scene gives the movie a tense , caffeinated look .
third , the special effects are well used .
they look good , but more importantly , the right effects are used for the right job .
one example stands out in my mind : the coated figures who haunt the city can attack telekinetically .
a simple ripple effect is used .
a more showy effect could have been chosen , but then it would have just been gratuitous .
restraint was shown where necessary , letting the more critical effects look more impressive .
finally , like gattaca , dark city spends a just a little effort striving for mythical significance .
unlike gattaca , the story is just open - ended and non - literal enough to be successful .
john murdoch 's recovery from amnesia is tied to the passing of the night , and the hopeful coming of the dawn .
his struggle with amnesia is both figuratively and literally the struggle of all mankind ( at least in his world ) .
when we finally see the big picture of the movie 's world , it is as mysterious as the iroquois image of the world being carried on the back of a giant turtle .
a few minor flaws keep me from giving this movie the same perfect score roger ebert gave , but
i do strongly recommend it , for its look , its pace , its story , and its timelessness .
[EX A]:
P