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

[Q]: plot : a young man who loves heavy metal music and especially the band steel dragon , to whom he 's devoted a tribute band in which he sings , gets launched into stardom when the real group get rid of their lead singer and call on him to take his place .
critique : i 'm a sucker for movies like this .
a young man with a humble background and lofty dreams , works hard , devotes the time , the energy and the patience , and ultimately hits it big - time .
in the case of this film , our boy loves a certain heavy metal band and as luck would have it ( yup , luck always finds its way into these types of equations , although generally tied very closely to hard work ) , they need a new singer .
his entry and adaptation to the whole " rock ' n roll " lifestyle fills the rest of the film and is really fun to watch .
although i will preface this by saying that one thing that would definitely enhance your appreciation for this film is your own love ( or past love ) of heavy metal music and the whole scene around it .
metal was one of my first loves as a teen and even though the genre of music is n't that prominent anymore , i still check out my motley crue , twisted sister and anthrax cds every now and again .
that 's not to say that you wo n't like this film if you do n't like the music , but the music and live performances from the band , play a big part in the movie , and i for one , had a blast watching and listening to it all .
but the even greater draw in this film is the standout performance given here by mark wahlberg .
wow , hand this fella some major props , as he totally becomes this heavy metal geek / god ( incidentally , metal god was the film 's original title , and a much better one if you ask me ) .
he is this movie and
i was quite taken by his character pretty much the whole way through .
he came off like a regular guy with extremely passionate goals and work ethic , who was willing to do anything in order to fulfill his dreams .
aniston was also surprisingly good as the girlfriend ( and the romance angle between them was sweet ) , but she did n't pull me in hard enough during their emotional scenes .
i was also impressed by some of the " real " musicians who played in the film ( zakk wylde from ozzy osbourne , jeff pilson from dokken , stephan jenkins from third eye blind , blas elias from slaughter ) , but actor dominic west as kirk cuddy made the biggest impression among the band members .
it 's to note that this film was based on a real - life tale of a young man who used to sing in a judas priest cover band and then went on to become their actual singer ( their original singer also admitted to being gay , as in this film ) .
just for the record , i 'm certainly not recommending this film for its originality or surprise elements , since most of this stuff has already been covered in some way or another in other movies , but because it 's a fun , uplifting , well - paced movie with a solid central showing by wahlberg and energetic live performances .
oh yeah ,
and for those who dig the " heavier " side of music , the soundtrack also rocks ! !
you see . . .
dreams can come true .
. .
where 's joblo coming from ? almost famous ( 8/10 ) - blow ( 8/10 ) - boogie nights ( 9/10 ) - detroit rock city ( 8/10 ) - girlfight ( 6/10 ) - goodfellas ( 10/10 )
[A]: P

[Q]: on the basis of this film alone , i never would have predicted that , in two years , quentin tarantino would become the country 's biggest hotshot director .
reservoir dogs
has hints of the tarantino brilliance that emerged in pulp fiction , but is a much less substantive , more conventional crime story than the big pf .
here 's what the two movies do have in common . . .
--scenes of intelligent , amusing dialogue with no relevance to the plot --a story that jumps back and forth in time rather than going in a logical , chronological sequence --graphic yet necessary violence
--an engaging crime story --dialogue liberally spiced with swear words and racial / gender slurs --three of the same actors ( harvey keitel , tim roth and steve buscemi )
--a mexican standoff ending , although this one is considerably less optimistic than pf reservoir dogs is an entire hour shorter than pulp fiction because it 's only got one story to tell rather than three .
crime lord joe cabot ( veteran actor lawrence tierney ) has assembled five criminals who have never even met each other to pull a diamond store heist .
the five are instructed not to reveal their real names or personal details or anything the cops could use if one of them was captured and interrogated .
instead , they are all given code names off the color chart -- mr .
white ( keitel ) , mr .
pink ( buscemi ) , mr .
orange ( roth ) , mr .
blonde ( michael madsen ) , mr .
brown ( tarantino ) and mr .
peach ( tarantino 's chin ) .
most of the movie 's running time is spent with mr .
white and pink waiting at a warehouse for the others to arrive .
mr .
orange , meanwhile , is on the floor , dying from a gunshot wound .
the police had arrived at the scene of the crime way too soon , leading white to believe one of the five was an informant .
the story 's background unfolds through a series of flashbacks , of the crime itself and the meetings between joe and the criminals prior to the crime .
eventually , blonde arrives with a police officer hostage , and what follows is a truly brutal , uncomfortable torture scene .
let 's just say picasso would be inspired by what blonde does to the cop 's ear .
a lot of the time , reservoir dogs seems like your typical gangster heist - gone - wrong movie , but there are a few sequences that are uniquely tarantino .
the opening scene in the coffee shop starts the movie off on a high note the rest of it does n't live up to , as the criminals plus joe have a conversation on , among other things , tipping philosophies and their interpretations of madonna 's " like a virgin .
"
another scene involves roth 's lengthy manufactured story about running into a group of cops and a police dog in a bus station bathroom while carrying a giant bag of marijuana .
neither of these have much plot relevance but are given ample time to develop , like the captain koons gold watch speech in pulp fiction , only here these sequences are more enjoyable than the rest of the movie .
reservoir dogs is good
but it 's no pulp fiction .
[A]: P

[Q]: only a year after the initial release of " scream , " the horror send - up from veteran horror director wes craven and screenwriter kevin williamson that seemed to breathe new life into the slasher genre , the inevitable sequel " scream 2 " has arrived in our theaters .
while the tongue - in - cheek , parodic element is still noticeable in this film , it 's really a sideshow to a broader commentary on violence and the media and a more conventional horror story .
the first film , while often violent and gruesome , was mostly lacking in genuine scares because almost every scene was played for camp value and the discussion of the quirks and cliches of horror movies was nearly constant .
the premise of " scream 2 " is that a series of copycat killings begin when a movie called " stab , " based on a book written by opportunistic reporter gail weathers ( courtney cox ) about the events in " scream , " is released and two audience members are killed during the opening screening .
i had heard about this scene before i went to see the film and was surprised to find this sequence largely lacking in camp comedy .
its conclusion , in which a bleeding , wounded woman stumbles in front of the screen and dies in front of an audience that cheers on because they think it 's a publicity stunt , is more surreal and disturbing than anything else .
the satire in " scream 2 " thus takes on a broad focus and gradually evolves into an exploration of media perceptions in general .
although resident horror film geek randy ( jamie kennedy ) is back with fresh dialogue about sequels ( and , interestingly enough , how they are usually inferior to their predecessors ) , the characters in this movie are drawing from other entries in the pop culture encyclopedia as well .
everything from " friends " and " saved by the bell " to " showgirls " and " terminator 2 " is referenced here ; horror is only one of many genres available for lampooning , and there are n't any " wes carpenter " jokes this time .
more importantly , this film portrays characters willing to go to disturbing lengths for media attention as well as characters whose perceptions have clearly been warped by what they have seen on tv and film .
the killings are clearly an imitation of the previous murders from " scream " ( in fact , the culprit even plans to use the influence of horror movies as a courtroom defense ) , weathers exploits the situation for her own notoriety , and one man seems willing to save the heroine 's life only if it will earn him an interview on the today show .
understandably , " scream 2 " does not go so far as to actually blame the movies , but rather shows that those who do imitate horror movies are already sick and twisted .
couple that with the fact that several of the characters , most notably the lead character sidney prescott ( neve campbell ) , are fairly well - developed and that there are some genuine moments of spine - chilling suspense , and what we have is a pretty darned good horror movie in its own right
.
we do n't just get the horror of scary masks and graphic gore - we also get the horror of sympathetic characters who seem helpless as their friends are slaughtered ( and , in one case , a significant character who was an audience favorite even bites the dust ) and whose lives have been reduced to constant fear of a crazed murderer lurking around the corner .
while i have not seen any of his other work , it 's easy to see why craven is generally touted as the most sophisticated " slasher film " director , as he clearly cares about something more than just the actual acts of slashing .
unfortunately , " scream 2 " occasionally reverts to the time - honored horror tradition of throwing logic out the window .
for example , several characters seem quite clearly dead and inexplicably turn up alive later - there has been a running gag in both movies about the villain being able to pull off this particular trick , but it also happens with other characters and in an even less believable fashion .
there are also a few scenes in which the killer suddenly appears behind the next victim in a situation such that ( s ) he clearly would have been seen moving in that direction .
as for the question of whether or not " scream 2 " is yet another sequel not as good as its predecessor . . .
well , it 's hard to say .
i gave the first " scream " 3 1/2 stars as well because it worked pretty consistently as a light - hearted send - up .
" scream 2 " bounces all over the place stylistically , but
it does a better job delivering the genuine scares and asking the questions about media violence that were only hinted at in the first installment .
i 'm not sure which is the better movie , but i did leave the theater convinced of one thing : sequels , however much randy might argue , do not necessarily suck .
[A]:
P