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

Ex Input:
the swooping shots across darkened rooftops suggest a very tim burton movie , but , alas , no caped crusader descends to save * this * film
.
instead , it 's a skeletal housemaid ( julia roberts ) who must bear witness to this unfortunate retelling of " dr .
jekyll and mr .
hyde .
" for a few , fleeting , maddening moments , director stephen frears ( dangerous liaisons ) gets everything
just right-- the tone , the colors , the characters ; all the ingredients to make a most - powerful potion out of valerie martin 's best - selling novel .
yet it fizzles too quickly ; the volatile mixture losing potency from the very first scene .
casting is a large part of the problem .
the story all but collap- ses around ms .
roberts--
she does n't have the range for this kind of drama .
her accent also comes and goes , though it 's nowhere near as glaring as the total lack of chemistry between her and co - star john malkovich .
( he looks the same in both of his roles-- an incredible fact that 's missed by everyone in the story ! )
the very british supporting cast-- including michael gambon and george cole-- gives credibility to the smaller parts .
glenn close also appears as a madam that the good doctor calls upon .
her performance is as close to intentional camp as the movie ever gets and-- as a bonus-- offers a likely peek at her upcoming cruella de ville in the live - action 101 dalmantions .
the biggest botch in mary reilly is suspense : there is none .
no terror , no tension ; nothing .
without any weight , wit , or wonder to propel the story , the viewer is left with little more to do than pay attention to the period detail , a few buckets of blood , and stuart craig 's fabulously dreary production design .
all of which gets old after about an hour , at which point i recommend leaving .
( the pacing in the second - half is especially abominable .
if you * do * stick it through , your sole reward is a half - hokey special effect depicting the infamous transformation . )
mr .
frears reportedly recut his film several times , missing several release dates in the process .
( obviously , no one advised him to throw up his hands and just turn the whole damned thing over to mel brooks .
blucher ! )
mary reilly is the second robert louis stevenson story of the month , after muppet treasure island .
perhaps mr .
frears should consult with brian henson on future projects .
i daresay that
even ms .
piggy is a better choice for a certain roles than julia roberts .
and she does have a great chop !

Ex Output:
N


Ex Input:
is jimmy stewart the greatest actor of all - time ?
it 's quite possible .
his career spanned over 40 years , and he acted in more movies than most actors ever could .
yet , when he is talked about in the media , he is generally thought of as an actor who played one type of role : the nice guy .
and that 's really a shame .
"
the naked spur " features jimmy stewart in a role completely different than what people would expect from him .
it 's a western , which stewart specialized in around this period , and it casts him as a desperate man out to collect a bounty on a man who used to be his friend .
before he finds that man , though , he runs into two men who agree to help him , thinking he is a sheriff .
when the criminal is eventually caught , the two men discover stewart 's secret , and decide they want a piece of the action too .
the rest of the film is a suspenseful journey in which each man suspects the other constantly .
also featured is the woman travelling with the criminal , well played by janet leigh .
we 're never too sure who 's side
she 's really on until the end .
leigh is an actress probably best known for her role as the " shower lady " from " psycho " , and that 's unfair .
she gives a strong performance as a woman who is pulled between these two men .
stewart gives a performance unlike anything i 've ever seen from him .
he usually keeps cool no matter what occurs , but here , he gets downright hysterical at times .
i think perhaps he took this role to prove to the public that he was more than just a " nice guy " .
his performance borders on psychotic at times , but
i loved watching every second of it .
it 's roles like this one that make me admire him as much as i do .
he was an actor unafraid to take chances , and even ruin his public image .

Ex Output:
P


Ex Input:
tim robbins and martin lawernce team up in this road movie comedy .
robbins plays an exec who discovers his wife having sex with his boss .
he goes into depression , and drives around his neighbourhood until he arrives inside the usual ' ghetto ' side of every american city .
there , lawernce attempts to steal his car , but to no avail , and is dragged along with robbin 's on a trip to arizona .
there , they hold up a store , are mistaken for two other robbers ( just like in my cousin vinny ) and are chased by the police , and the other robbers .
of course , there 's gags along the way , usually from lawernce .
although the film is midly funny , and quite watchable , there 's something so horribly familiar about it all .
this film should really be called beverly hills midnight run there 's lawernce with his wisecracking and heavy profanity , just like eddie murphy in beverly hills cop , and pratically the same idea as midnight run .
it 's full of all the road movie cliches , and even has a ' comedy ' car chase , which just seemed so eighties .
even the credit sequence seemed to be out of a steve martin , or chevy chase , eighties comedy .
there also is n't much chemistry between robbins and lawernce .
in planes , trains and automobiles , there was real chemistry between steve martin and john candy .
in nothing to lose , there is hardly chemistry at all .
towards the end the chemistry seems to work , but for the bulk of the film , there is hardly any , the director directs the film in a workman like fashion , but gets the jokes across .
and although there is no chemistry between the two leads , they give good performances on their own .
lawerence gives a good eddie murphy performance , and robbin 's is alright aswell .
however , robbin 's performance is nowhere near as good
as the characters he played in jacob 's ladder , and the player .
in fact , if you want to see robbin 's do comedy much better than in nothing to lose , i suggest you rent out the hudsucker proxy , where he is much funnier .
nothing to lose does have some funny moments in it , however .
the humour is n't particulary sophisticated , but if you enojyed dumb & dumber , you might enjoy this .
the characters in arizona are funny , and there 's also a good scene where robbin 's asks a shopkeeper which ' threatening approach ' was better , lawerences ( which consisted of lawerence threatening to shoot the shopkeeper 's ass , and swearing a lot ) , or himselfs , ( which was speaking in a deep , scary voice ) but
the gags are predictable , the lack of chemistry infurating , and the ending too far - fetched and ' perfect ' nothing to lose then , is robbin 's first ' bad ' movie ( and hopefully his last ) , and suggests that odereick should twice before making another film .
he nearly ruined carrey 's career with ace ventura : when nature calls , let 's hope he has n't ruined robbin 's ( or even lawerence 's ) with nothing to lose .

Ex Output:

N