In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
--------
Question: note : some may consider portions of the following text to be spoilers . be forewarned .
on december 20 , 1996 , amidst all the year - end oscar bait releases from the major studios , miramax 's genre label dimension films quietly released a sly little ensemble slasher flick titled scream .
although the teen horror market had been given up for all - but - dead in recent years , the film shocked industry observers by scoring consistently high box office returns , eventually topping $ 100 million domestic and becoming one of the most successful films of its type in history , while delighting audiences by finally presenting a set of knowing slasher flick protagonists who were aware of the all the standard cliches associated with the genre .
the sleeper success of scream sent shockwaves through the industry -- suddenly , everybody was looking for hip , inexpensive fright films that might be able to reap similar fortunes .
the strategy of casting young tv stars to draw the youth demographic was given a boost .
scream director wes craven , previously best known as the creator of new line 's a nightmare on elm street film series , was thrust back into the limelight .
and scream 's rookie scribe , kevin williamson , burst onto the film scene in stunning fashion .
it 's hard to understate this last point .
mr .
williamson has , based upon his produced screenplays as of this writing ( scream , i know what you did last summer from october 1997 , and now scream 2 ) , enjoyed a meteoric rise to fame , quickly become the most well - known screenwriter amongst the entertainment weekly - reading , box office figure - watching youth culture since -- well , since that quentin tarantino guy ( whom , it is said , has also achieved some renown as a director ) .
indeed , in a singularly freakish oddity , it is the screenwriter , mr . williamson , and not the director that has been receiving the lion 's share of acclaim for the success of scream , and the print advertisements for scream 2 's theatrical release are similarly indicative of his increasing prominence : while the traditional " a film by wes craven " drapes the film 's title in the ads , right below it ( in equal sized font , yet ) reads " written by kevin williamson " , an affirmation of the screenwriter 's contribution to the project which may be unprecedented .
( i can envision the board of wga , licking their chops at this coup and counting the days until their goal of " a film by " is attained . )
and , much like mr .
tarantino 's screenwriting , mr .
williamson 's work is vaguely unconventional , incorporating both contemporary pop culture references and allusions to other films into the dialogue of his characters .
in scream , they satirically discussed other horror films ; here in the sequel , the characters discuss the relative merits of film sequels .
scream was written in 1995 during the infamous bob dole rampage against hollywood , and mr .
williamson 's rejection of this tirade clearly influenced the writing in both that film and this sequel .
while the sequel was planned from the outset -- a treatment of scream 2 was included when mr .
williamson sold the screenplay for scream -- the basic premise for the film and the reunion of the surviving characters
nevertheless seems extremely artificially contrived , and it 's only at about the film 's midway point when it becomes engaging .
like its predecessor , scream 2 opens with a splashy , eye - grabbing prologue which only vaguely ties into the film 's principal narrative ; this time around , we 're following the exploits of a young couple ( jada pinkett and omar epps ) attending a riotously gleeful sneak preview screening of stab ( a running film - within - a - film gag where the " true life " events behind the first film has been turned into a movie ) .
however , although it tries hard and has some good ideas -- the nightmarishly enthusiastic audience in the film vaguely reminded me of the one i was sharing the theatre with , and i was certainly thinking about gutting the overly - noisy person a few seats away myself after about fifteen minutes -- the prologue is a pale imitation of the bravura opening sequence in the original with drew barrymore ( where her performance not only convinced me that she * could * act , but was so good that it would rank among the best performances in a horror film that i 've ever seen ) .
there are too many knowing , hip pop - culture references crammed into the scream 2 sequence , and the setup is n't nearly as cleverly frightening as scream 's ; while the first film 's preface dizzyingly built up to a final shot that was exhilaratingly terrifying , the payoff here is almost campily theatrical .
flash to the campus of a smalltown ohio college ,
where returning characters sidney ( neve campbell ) and randy ( jamie kennedy ) have relocated for their studies and to escape the notoriety from the events in the first film .
the murders which open this film result in reuniting the survivors -- single - minded tabloid tv reporter gale weathers ( courteney cox ) roars into town to cover the breaking story , while ever - awkward former deputy dewey riley ( david arquette ) flies in to protectively guard over sidney .
they 're joined by cotton weary ( liev schreiber ) , who was falsely accused of homicide in a cameo appearance during the first film ; his role here is significantly expanded .
the film incidentally provides surprisingly little backstory , although i suppose a good case can be made that it really is n't necessary -- not because so many people have seen the first installment , but because this is , after all , a sequel to a slasher film : what do you * think * happened to these characters in the prior movie ?
there 's a lot of new faces on the scene too : sidney 's new boyfriend , derek ( jerry o'connell ) and her new roommate hallie ( elise neal ) , randy 's fellow film student mickey ( timothy olyphant ) , gale 's newly - assigned nervous cameraman joel ( duane martin ) , omnipresent local journalist debbie salt ( laurie metcalf ) , co - ed cici cooper ( ms .
buffy herself , sarah michelle gellar ) , and a pair of simpering sorority sisters ( rebecca gayheart and sirens ' portia di rossi ) .
any of these characters could be the killer -- or for that matter , could be the next victim .
as is seemingly becoming a regular staple of a kevin williamson screenplay , the narrative is once again framed around the increasingly - flimsy premise of a whodunit .
one problem that scream did n't have was keeping you interested in the identity of the killer . here ( and to some extent in i know what you did last summer ) , mr .
williamson 's screenplay seems slightly hampered by trying to turn the identity of the killer into a mystery .
the film occasionally becomes so bogged down with misdirection that you can sense it straining at the seams to try and drop red herrings left and right at the expense of its thriller elements .
( it does n't help matters any that the killer 's alter - ego is fairly obvious from the get - go . )
indeed , the finale plays as full - out camp when the villain is finally unmasked , frothing at the mouth with glazed eyes .
this is one of those cases where the villain goes on such an endless diatribe about their machinations , scheming , and motivation , that you actually get bored listening and just want them all to get on with it .
while the basic setup and premise for the film is fairly contrived , the aspect where it 's head - and - shoulders above its predecessor is in its suspense sequences .
they 're staged much more imaginatively here
( save for the first post - prologue murder , which is handled in such a mediocre , conventional fashion that it seems to be culled directly from the predictable 1980s slasher flicks that the first film satirized ) , and are much more fun to watch .
it 's hard to hold back a smile during a giddy scene where sidney and her companion have to climb over the incapacitated killer in order to escape from a car wreck , and a cat - and - mouse chase involving gale and dewey in a campus sound lab is very nicely staged , although its ultimate resolution is hilariously overblown .
in terms of its characters ,
the strong part of the film is the interesting relationship between gale and dewey ( who ambles onto the screen accompanied by his very own theme music ) .
their verbal sparring at the outset provides much humour -- an exchange where dewey defensively rebukes charges of a perceived aura of incompetency is well - written -- and there 's a curiously endearing aspect about their relationship amidst all the mayhem and bloodshed .
on the other hand , sidney is pretty dull here .
she does n't have any compelling presence , and there 's nothing particularly interesting about her this time around to make us care about her other than that she 's the returning heroine .
given this , and the fact that there 's no strong second banana character for sidney ( elise neal 's role is n't nearly substantive enough to adequately fill rose mcgowan 's shoes ) , it 's no wonder why the roles for gale and dewey have been significantly augmented for this installment of the film .
what surprises me the most about scream 2 is its zealousness in decimating its cast .
the film 's mounting body count bears out the fact that * no * character is safe ( well , * almost * )
; while in principal i applaud this bold policy , at some point you 've got to be wondering about just how many characters will make it to the next sequel .
( i was particularly surprised with the untimely demise of one in particular , whose casting for the next installment of the series would 've seemed obvious . )
but hey , as rose mcgowan 's character said in the first film : " no , please do n't kill me , mr .
ghostface
-- i want to be in the sequel !
" look what that got her .

Answer: P

Question: as we see the terrible events that unfold before our eyes in the middle east at the moment , hollywood does n't loose the oppertunity to get involved , by telling stories and expressing opinions .
this film centers on a relationship forged throughout the adult lifetimes of two marine colonels , hays hodges ( tommy lee jones ) and terry childers ( samuel l . jackson ) .
they fought side by side in vietnam , where childers saved hodges ' life by shooting an unarmed pow .
that 's against the rules of war but understandable , in this story anyway , under the specific circumstances .
certainly hodges is not complaining .
years pass .
hodges , whose wounds make him unfit for action , gets a law degree and becomes a marine lawyer .
childers , is now a respected and much - decorated hero that has served his country with his life and sould .
because of his excellent record , childers is sent to yemen to rescue the american ambassador ( ben kingsley ) , cowering in the embassy under assault from violent demonstrators and snipers blasting from rooftops .
childers does what he has to do : evacuate the family and protect the men under his command .
after three marines die and the colonel thinks he sees ground fire , he orders his troops to shoot into the firing crowd .
more than 80 yemeni men , women , and children are mowed down .
childers is immediately accused of ordering his men to fire on a crowd and murder of unarmed civilians .
he persuades his old friend hodges to represent him in the courtroom drama that occupies the second half of the film .
did childers violate authorized u . s .
military rules of engagement ?
or are there simply no rules in war ?
the answers to these stereotypical questions are obvious , but the inconsistent plot immediately raises all sorts of other questions .
the murder of 83 " innocent civilians " has to result into something greater than a simple trial in the u . s .
where is the accusations from the arab leaders ?
where is the u . n . ?
the film ends without even telling the most interesting story : what happens on the international arena ?
this film ( in a way akin to films such as " a few good men " ) has already been accused of breaking the rules of morality and ethics and even of racism .
these accusations are pretty heavy , but also unfair .
what director william friedklin truly broke was the rules of decent filmmaking
. one of the earliest apparent problems with ' rules of engagement ' is its lack of credibility .
the entire operation in yemen may remind us about what happens in the middle east right now , but is overdone , contrived and unrealistic - as if a chain of events had to happen in a particular manner in order for the plot to proceed .
a lot of it is so cheesy that no one could possibly accept it as reality .
that is precisely why it 's not offensive .
it is completely unobjective .
many stories are started and never finished .
many questions are asked , but never answered .
a lot of parallels are referring to nothing .
it seems that neither the director , producers or the screenwriter can make up their minds about the contents of their film .
is it about arab mentality ?
america 's foreign policies ?
america 's role in the world ?
corruption in the higher circles ?
it goes on and on .
it consists of countless stories , but not a definable plot .
it tries to be everything for everyone and ends up being nothing for no one .
i think that it is ironic , because director william friedkin 's probably most acclaimed film was " the exorcist " which had a silly story , but became a rather effective film .
in this case you have a strong story with many possibilities and the result is a silly film .
though several scenes bare the mark of professionalism ( such as the impressive battle scenes ) , his latest film does simply not engage .
i believe that friedklin is a director that is absolutely depended on great scripts and talented producers in order to succeed .
it 's obvious that he has neither and the result is therefore a catastrophe .
the characters feel designed , unreal , merely shadows , with no life outside the conflict .
even the actors can not save this film from going under .
though both jackson and jones act admirably , with performances that are as good as you get with a script like this , it is not something that these great actors can boast of .
they have roles that they could play blindfolded with their hand on the back .
jackson is gray and jones uninteresting .
the rest of the cast , including ben kingsly , blair underwood and guy pearce are simply waiting for their paychecks .
the time has come for the verdict .
on the charges of complete lack of objectivity , i find this film guilty .
on the charges of breaking the rules of reasonable filmmaking , i find it guilty .
but on the charges of racism i find this film not guilty , because of it 's inconclusive and often silly plot
that lacks objectivity everywhere , not only when concerning the arab population .
i must admit that the film is dangerously near the line of being racially offensive and i do think that screenwriter stephen gaghan went a bit too far , portraying the yemeni people almost as stereotypical hollywood bad - guys .
this is very sad , since in a time like this it is crucial to not lose objectivity and proclaim the truth .
however , it is absolutely necessary to remember that the muslim terrorists are responsible for most of the terrorist activity in and outside the united states .
and that it 's not a coincidence that u . s .
residents in the middle east , including yemen are on constant maximum alert .

Answer: N

Question: 1992 's alien3 marked not only the death ( by suicide ) of its popular protagonist , ellen ripley ( sigourney weaver ) , but , in many ways , the alien franchise itself -- box office receipts were anemic , thanks to poor audience word of mouth ; and the critics who rallied around the first two installments , 1979 's alien and 1986 's aliens , savaged david fincher 's slog of a sendoff ( myself included ) .
hence , weaver , director jean - pierre jeunet , and the others behind alien resurrection faced a two - fold challenge -- not only somehow resurrect ripley , but also rescue this once - profitable series from the scrap heap .
despite the odds , they have succeeded , even if the entertaining new installment does not measure up to the excellent first two .
writer joss whedon devises
a quick , easy , and painless answer to the dead ripley problem -- clone her , which is what shady military scientists do using some blood left behind on fiorina 161 , the prison planet of the third film .
that done , the _ real _ challenge presents itself -- what do with her .
alien introduced ripley as smart and resourceful
; aliens simultaneously toughened her up and made her more vulnerable , exploring her maternal side ; alien3 saw her undergoing the seven stages of death .
what could be next ?
whedon comes up with a clever spin : since the original ripley died while impregnated with an alien queen , the blood used for the clone is also " infected " with alien dna .
so the new ripley is , indeed , new -- a human / alien hybrid blessed with heightened instincts and strength ,
a psychic bond with the deadly species , and a more predatory attitude .
unfortunately , that is where alien resurrection 's clever streak in writing stops .
the alien series is known for having stronger stories than most creature features .
but the story in resurrection is more of an afterthought .
the movie begins with a plot involving some military types attempting to train aliens to do their bidding , but once the creatures break free , it is once again ripley and a ragtag crew (
this time a bunch of interstellar smugglers , including tough waif call , played by a game winona ryder ) trying to exterminate them .
and the alien ripley scenario is ultimately not exploited to its full potential ; i would have liked deeper exploration into the quandary of becoming one of the species she has spent her entire life trying to destroy .
while the settling into tried - and - true formula is a little disconcerting ,
the formula is tried - and - true for a reason , and jeunet tackles the proceedings with giddy abandon .
the alien , after all these years , is still terrifying , and a new breed that is introduced is no less so .
the violence is appropriately grisly and extreme , and the action set pieces are suspenseful and exciting , most notably an extended underwater sequence .
the film is absolutely mesmerizing visually , thanks to the solid work done by production designer nigel phelps and cinematographer darius khondji .
as technically adept as jeunet 's direction is , perhaps his ( and , for that matter , whedon 's )
greatest contribution is the infusion of humor into this notably downbeat and serious series .
a sense of humor may seem to go against everything this horror show stands for , but the self - awareness of the excess
just adds to the fun .
no , alien resurrection is not the great film that ridley scott 's alien or the even greater film that james cameron 's aliens was .
but after the dauntingly slow gloom and doom of fincher 's alien3 , jeunet 's resurrection is a welcome return to its roots as a wild , reckless thrill ride .
that is what made the alien series so popular in the first place , and that is what will keep the series popular in any future installments .

Answer:
P