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

[EX Q]: in my opinion , a movie reviewer 's most important task is to offer an explanation for his opinion .
but with soul survivors , i 'm so full of critical rage that this review is liable to turn into a venomous , uncontrollable rant , obligations damned .
however , protocol forces me to do otherwise .
soul survivors tells the story of four college - bound friends : cassandra ( melissa sagemiller ) is sweet and innocent .
party girl annabel ( eliza dushku of bring it on ) is dating world - weary harvard student matt ( wes bentley ) .
matt still has feelings for cassie , who is now dating sean ( casey affleck ) .
driving back from a creepy , gothic party , the quartet gets into a horrific car crash .
sean dies , leaving cassie crestfallen and guilty , made worse because sean saw matt kiss cassie just minutes after sean revealed his love for her . as cassie mopes through her classes , she sees the ghost of sean all over the place , urging her to follow him .
along with being plagued by other ghastly visions , cassie is also followed by thugs from that strange party .
annabel and matt try calming her down , but no one shares cass 's visions .
she has to figure out this purgatory all by herself .
rarely have i seen a director
so thoroughly mishandle material .
in his directorial debut , steve carpenter does nothing to provoke the audience into feeling any emotion .
when the movie 's camerawork is n't pedestrian , it 's clich ?
d .
carpenter 's need for close - ups , his camera following sagemiller from behind , drain the movie of any anticipation .
we already know what to look for , so why should we be surprised ? and the sense of scary atmosphere , which was recently done so well in the others , is nowhere to be found here .
carpenter 's script relies on random twists and turns with a minimum of logic and loads of laziness .
this is a movie where the ending features one character providing an explanation about the plot to another character , which is one of the lamest screenwriting devices around .
the second lamest device , of course , is the , " oh , it was all a dream " resolution . and guess what ?
this movie has both ! not that the main body of the film , which has sagemiller constantly running in fear or having a nervous breakdown , is anything worthwhile .
since there 's no captivating dialogue , no character chemistry exists anywhere .
that 's a huge problem , since the four main characters are supposed to be couples .
carpenter ca n't even get the smutty scenes right , which are becoming more prevalent in pg-13 movies like bring it on and get over it .
[ the film was recently re - cut from an r rating to get more kids in the seats .
-ed . ]
when sagemiller and dushku dance together at a club , he rarely shows them in a full shot and he never keeps the camera on them for longer than a second before relating to some michael bay - style quick cuts .
and when sagemiller and dushku take a shower together after getting covered in paint , they 're fully clothed . regardless ,
any sexiness in that scene is undercut by its stupidity .
why would n't they wash the clothes in the sink or in the washing machine ?
why would they shower in their clothes ?
what if they were n't covered in latex paint ?
the cast , which will see better material in the future , would be wise to leave this one off their resumes .
i felt sorry for affleck , who i 've liked in other movies , and bentley , who was great in american beauty .
dushku , who possesses an alluring femme fetale quality , has got to stop taking roles belonging to rose mcgowan .
as for sagemiller ( star of the aforementioned get over it ) , i want to see her in a movie where she plays a person , and not an object for gawking .
and i 'm not even getting into luke wilson 's role as a priest .
at least he 's friends with wes anderson .
bottom line : soul survivors is so awful i feel compelled to knock on doors and warn people about it .
[EX A]: 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]: it 's amazing how a comedian can have the some of the funniest stand - up around but completely fall flat in the movies
.
take adam sandler .
on the basis of his first two cds ( " they 're all gon na laugh at you !
"
and " what the hell happened to me ? " ) , he 's the best thing to hit comedy since robin williams .
but when you put him in front of a camera , it just is n't the same .
i kind of enjoyed happy gilmore and thought that it warranted a marginal recommendation , but his latest film , the waterboy is about as funny as a root canal .
seriously , i 'm willing to wager than there were more laughs in saving private ryan than there are here .
in fact , i found this movie to be more depressing than comedic .
the first half hour generated not one smile in me , with it 's scenes of emotional abuse towards adam 's character of bobby boucher not only by the cruel football players , but also by his very disturbed mother ( kathy bates - what is the world coming to ? ) .
granted , after the film gets rolling , there are a few mild chuckles throughout
( i 'm even willing to admit that it actually had me laughing once or twice ) , but not nearly enough to sustain
the waterboy for it 's nearly hour and a half running time .
you 're all familiar with the plot because you 've seen it at least a million times before ; everyone picks on the hero until he shows a hidden talent and leads the underdog team to victory over the champions , in the process not only winning the respect of his teammates but also getting the woman he loves . and believe me , i 'm not giving anything away by saying that sandler 's team wins .
if you would actually feel any degree of suspense watching this movie , then god be with you .
the only things that keep this bomb from getting the big banana are the winning performances from henry winkler as the insecure coach and the severely underrated fairuza balk as bobby 's love interest .
i mean , they should be lending their talents to some loftier purpose , but they do extremely well with what they are given here .
kudos to both of them .
my advice to adam is to try and follow in the footsteps of veteran comedians like williams and steve martin , who made a very smooth and successful transition from stage to screen .
rely more on actual comedy rather than strange voices and rude noises to make people laugh .
or maybe even show what dramatic talent he might have , like jim carrey did with the recent truman show .
with the obvious and considerable talent that he possesses , he just ca n't keep going on like this .
[EX A]:
N