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

Ex Input:
the bond series is an island in the film world ; where else would we look forward to cliches , and all of the other things that occur in most of these films ?
where else would pure escapism , a vulnerable hero , the " talking villains , " blatant product placement , predictable action sequences , and lots of promiscuity be hoped for instead of a significant change ?
i do n't understand it myself , but that 's what the bond series is based on .
for ( i think )
18 films , we 've mostly got the same thing over and over again , with some variation ( and a bit of change , most notably in the two dalton films ) .
but even i , a king of cynicism , ca n't bitch about it . and " tomorrow never dies , " the ( again , i think ) eighteenth bond film , and second brosnan bond film , is no exception .
thank god !
the plot , as in most of them , is pure balderdash , but seems to have a nice kind of edge to it .
instead of just plain billionaire psychotics , we get a rupert murdoch - esque media mogul / psychotic - elliot carver ( jonathan pryce , looking bitching with a white - haired cru cut , and always talking like he 's out of breath ) , who has the admittingly ingenius idea of getting ratings by creating a war .
no , this is not " wag the dog " - he wants a real war , between china and england , and is stupid enough to put the coverage out before anyone else discovered it . . .
in comes bond .
james is sent all around the world , trying to do research on carver , fighting with his men , and running into ( on more than one occasion ) a chinese secret agent like him : wai lin ( michelle yeoh , asian action star extraordinaire . . .
and co - star of " supercop , " nearly stealing the screen from jackie chan in that one ) .
the two eventually , and predictably of course , begin working together , and yes , there is some sexual tension between the two .
luckily , their relationship is never strained , and she never gives into his cassanova - ness until the finale .
thank god again .
in every bond film , james bags , on average , three women ( sometimes more , sometimes less - the latter being more potent towards the aids - cautionary dalton ) , and he does n't spoil this one ( though we never see them , of course - i mean , they need to stay around a pg-13 rating ) .
there 's always one at the beginning with some chick
we never see again , the big bond girl ( yeoh ) , and this time we have an almost - cameo by teri hatcher as carver 's wife , paris , who , it seems , was once one of the girls he bags at the beginning .
yes , teri 's very attractive , but she seems kind of dull .
of course , it 's not really her fault ; her part is under - written , and she 's only in a small part of it .
oh well .
and there are always the big henchmen , the guys who do the dirty work for the polished big villains .
this time we get a tall , arian - looking ( not to mention robert shaw in " from russia with love " -looking
) guy named stamper ( goetz otto ) , who is pretty awesome , although a bit stiff ( well , mostly his posture , really ) .
and for a bit of comedy , we get a cameo from vincent shiavelli as a german or austrian assassin who is ordered to do in bond at one point .
the government people have small parts , as usual , with q ( desmond llewelyn , looking near death , sadly ) getting only one scene ( in a more grouchy mood than usual ) , and m ( judi dench ) , getting more than m usually gets ( i mean , it is judi dench ) .
and for no reason whatsoever , except 'cause he was so good in " goldeneye , " joe don baker shows up again as wade , admitting he has no reason for being there , and is this time more annoying .
again , oh well .
the action sequences are not a let - down , although sometimes go on too long .
they pop up every now and then , mainly because they have to ( for the sake of the series ) , and some significant ones are the opening one , one in a garage with a bmw that runs on remote control , and a motorcylce chase ( on a bmw cycle , nonetheless ) through china streets ( or was it vietnam . . .
the plot 's not really essential ) .
they 're more high - tech , and feature much more laughs , which , yeah , i dig .
so what if they 're distracting ; they 're supposed to be !
the acting , from most around is great .
yeoh is , actually , one of the better bond girls , mainly because
she 's so unique .
the better bond girls are more independent , and have a certain wily - ness to them .
pussy galore , with her homoerotic undertones and all , is one of the best , and diana rigg , who married bond at the end of " on her majesty 's secret service " only to be killed , added some emotional depth .
yeoh is notable since she 's so active , and has great chemistry with brosnan .
pryce is an awesome villain , being slimy and lovable at the same time .
and brosnan is , once again ,
the mack daddy .
the bond series is built on cliches , mainly because they 're so fun and add to the escapism . if you can remember the dalton years , and they 're serious direction , you remember how unsuccessful they were , both financially and aesthetically .
the series would falter if bogged down with too much plot , too many themes , and too much characterization .
i do n't really understand it myself , yet i 'm one of the bigger fans of the series in the northeast united states .
having seen all of them more than once ( yes , i 've seen this twice already ) , you can tell i adore them .
while it 's not one of the best , like " goldfinger " or " from russia with love , " " tomorrow never dies " is nonetheless a truly awesome installment , even if not being as fully amazing as some of the better ones .

Ex Output:
P


Ex Input:
the most amazing thing about paul cox 's innocence is how unlike a movie it is .
i mean that as the highest compliment .
if most studios were to profile an elderly couple who rekindle a 40-year - old romance , i 'd want to run and hide .
the sex scenes would be handled as a farce , producers would shed 20 years off the characters ' ages ( so susan sarandon and harrison ford could star ) and true love would shine through any obstacle without explanation and consequence . along with a charming romantic story , the australian / belgian innocence shows how an increasing sense of mortality combined with revisiting the past while being entrenched in the present can make something that seems so right seem downright questionable .
the romance gets started when former musician andreas ( charles " bud " tingwell ) , learns that his true love , claire ( julia blake ) , lives nearby .
they decide to catch up on old times , but soon find themselves in a reinvigorating affair .
complicating matters is andreas ' frail health , and claire 's longtime husband ( terry norris ) , who ca n't understand why he 's suddenly become obsolete .
in my mind , the movie is less about the relationship between andreas and claire , than the feelings of everyone involved .
john , claire 's husband , endlessly questions what he did wrong .
claire initially insists she 's a grown - up , but admittedly behaves like a child , a prospect that thrills and disappoints her .
andreas , an agnostic , begins to question his fate , a message cox delivers in a memorable dream sequence .
cox litters the movie with flashbacks , including the repeated vision of a roaring train .
it 's a reminder of andreas and claire 's past love ( as young lovers , they met by train ) , but as it recurs , we get the feeling that the past and the present have clashed .
a pall is cast on the whole affair .
a master of the understated , cox strings together a series of memorable moments .
in andreas ' dream sequence , amidst the roar of the train and conversations , we get the whole picture of andreas and claire 's love .
we also get glimpses into john and claire 's relationship .
during a silent candlelit dinner shortly afterward , claire admits to john about her indiscretion , telling more than any monologue could .
all that 's heard is the scraping of forks against plates .
the characters are unlike anything i 've seen
-- they 're people .
so many times , movies and especially television portray senior citizens as gratingly spunky .
or they 're reduced to comedic buffoons .
ordinary people with a pile of emotions , claire and andreas are n't sure what the next step is .
they do want to be happy , which consists of an entirely different set of conditions than what they 've known throughout their adult lives .
bravo to cox , who wrote the script , for not making john a monster , so that claire 's affair is automatically justified .
norris is so effective
as john that he makes andreas and claire 's love difficult to accept .
we feel for him .
he 's a decent man .
sure , he may have become complacent , but he never expected this , especially now .
with so much presented to the audience , it 's only expected that the material gets a little drawn out and repetitive , which it does .
however , in bringing up tough questions and not offering easy answers , cox displays a skill and ?
lan is n't likely to be surpassed by anyone anytime soon .

Ex Output:
P


Ex Input:
walken stars as a mobster who is kidnapped and held for ransom by four bratty rich kids .
it seems that a woman has also been kidnapped -- she is the sister of one of them
( e. t. 's henry thomas ) and the girlfriend of another ( flannery )
--and
the asking price is $ 2 million , which said snots are unable to cough up alone .
they even cut off walken 's finger to show they mean business , because they are desperate to save the woman 's life .
suicide kings is a terrible film .
walken aside
, there is n't a single appealing cast member .
o'fallon creates characters that are functional types without any resonance .
in an amusingly unironic scene , walken plays poker with the foursome and describes each of their personalities to a tee -- it 's as if he was reading the summary sheet for a casting director .
the plot is another issue entirely .
o'fallon is someone whom i 'm betting has seen reservoir dogs and the usual suspects too many times , for not only does his story veer off on bizarre tangents from whence they never return
( do we really need the scene where dennis leary beats up an abusive father with a toaster , which is entirely unrelated to both the story and leary 's character , or the numerous anecdotal sequences ? ) , but the central plot itself is a serpentine mess , filled with crosses and double crosses and triple crosses .
.. by the fourth big revelation / twist , i had completely tuned out , wondering what on earth attracted these actors to the material .
recently a peer , a fellow young filmmaker , informed me that he had an idea for a movie about four guys , the mob , and the fbi .
it occurred to me then what 's wrong with indies like suicide kings
: i suspect o'fallon has never met a mobster , is not a rich man , does n't deliver endless " clever " monologues to his friends about his favourite types of boots .
.. in short , these guys are just riffing on other movies , and in doing that , making the same film over and over and over again .
tarantino found his niche and now hundreds of genxers with movie cameras are trying to find tarantino 's niche instead of carving their own .
-reviewed at the toronto international film festival

Ex Output:

N