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

Example Input: john sayles ' " men with guns " is about what happens to a society when brute force and constant threat of violence are the only means of gaining and maintaining power .
the film takes place in an unnamed central american country , where the men with guns are the rulers .
most of the country is divided into tiny segments - some are controlled by guerrillas with guns , some are controlled by army soldiers with guns , and all the spaces in - between are controlled by thieves , bandits , and terrorists .
all people not fitting one of those descriptions are defined only by their powerlessness .
however , like so many central american countries , this one also features modernity .
there is an unnamed capital city that bears all the hallmarks of contemporary civilization : skyscrapers , hospitals , televisions , highways , etc .
but , it might as well be in another country because those who live in the comforts of the city have either decided to ignore the violence ravaging the rest of the land , or else they are simply ignorant of it .
the film 's main character , dr .
fuentes ( federico luppi ) falls into the latter category .
one of his patients , an army general , describes him as the most educated man he has ever met , and also the most naive .
fuentes is a true liberal , a caring man who thinks he can cure the ills of his country by fighting bacteria and ignorance among the indigenous indians .
with government assistance , he has trained a large group of eager young medical students and sent them into the rainforest to cure and educate .
this program was to be his legacy , and he repeats over and over that it was a good idea .
however , when he ventures into that same rainforest to visit his prot ?
g
? s , he finds that things have not turned out as he has envisioned .
as he travels deeper into the forest , going from village to village , the story is always the same : the doctors were all killed by either the guerrillas or the army soldiers , usually for helping the other .
when dr .
fuentes asks a village woman why the army killed one of the doctors , she replies simply , " because they had guns , and we did n't . " rational science and all its attempts to cure have been wiped out by the men with guns , because others ' sickness and ignorance helps them maintain power .
dr .
fuentes picks up several companions during his journey , all of whom are characterized by their loss .
first , there is a young boy named conejo ( dan rivera gonz ?
lez ) , who has neither a mother nor a father .
next , fuentes crosses paths with a thief named domingo ( dami ? n delgado ) , who deserted the army because he was tired of being jeered into committing murderous atrocities .
through his ordeal in the army , domingo has lost most of his self - respect , and defines himself only by his pistol .
along the way , the group also picks up padre portillo ( dami ?
n
alc ?
zar ) , a priest who has lost his faith .
as domingo is running from the army , so is portillo - he has been labeled a guerrilla sympathizer , and ran away from the village in which he was preaching .
last , the group takes on a mute girl named graciela ( tania cruz ) , who has n't spoken since she was raped two years earlier , her innocence and even her will to live forcefully taken from her .
sayles two major strengths as a director - characters and setting - are abundantly evident in " men with guns .
"
( like many of his films , sayles might have tightened this one somewhat in the editing room , but a longer - than - necessary running time is a sin almost always committed when the director is also the editor . )
he creates fascinating , complex characters , especially dr .
fuentes and domingo .
their uneasy relationship is also somewhat humorous in context of the film 's overarching theme of violence as power - domingo 's attempts to control fuentes with his revolver are constantly undermined by fuentes ' belief that the revolver is unloaded ( at first it is , but later is is n't ) .
the setting is also as thick with detail as the rainforest itself .
sayles knows how to bring a location to life , whether it be an early twentieth - century coal mining town in " matewan " ( 1987 ) or a contemporary texas / mexico bordertown in " lone star " ( 1996 ) .
sayles is not a particularly inventive director - he likes to let his actors do most of the work - but he and cinematographer slavomir idziak ( " gattaca " ) successfully evoke both the beauty and the danger of the central american terrain .
sayles also maintains a strong sense of authenticity by filming everything on location in mexico , using all latin american actors , and having all the dialogue spoken in either spanish or native indian dialects .
the one exception is a couple of bumbling american tourists who work not only as comic relief , but as evidence of just how clueless the united states is about what is going on a few hundred miles south of the texas border .
it would not be a stretch to say that " men with guns " is a depressing film .
in fact , the two feelings it evokes most are hopelessness and failure .
in addition to loss , the main characters are also failures at something , whether that be dr .
fuentes failure to change anything through medicine , or padre portillo 's inability to stand up and be the martyr he always dreamed of being .
nevertheless , it is bleak material sayles has chosen , and he deals with it accordingly .
the last shot of the film does offer a hint of hope , even in a world where , as one character puts it , " nobody refuses the men with guns .
"
Example Output: P

Example Input: it seems like i 'm reviewing cheeseball horror movies on a monthly basis now .
scream revitalized a genre the studios are now intent on burying into the ground again - the serial killers in these new slasher movies have nothing on sony and miramax in the " relentless " department .
i still know what you did last summer is a terrible film in many respects , but in the wake of the stupefyingly bad urban legend , it 's citizen hook .
jennifer love - hewitt reprises her role as buxom teenager julie james - who apparently escaped certain doom at the end of the last movie by . . . waking up .
she lives in fear of ben willis , the vengeful fisherman - victim of a hit and run by julie and her pals .
paranoid and beat , she accepts a free trip to the bahamas from her friend karla ( norwood ) , winner of the local radio station 's 4th of july getaway giveaway .
bikini - ready julie invites
boyfriend ray ( prinze , jr . ) , who - and here 's the movie 's biggest mystery - turns her down , but changes his mind and plans to surprise her before take - off . until he gets a roadside visit from captain hell - liner himself , that is .
unaware of this and feeling shunned , julie goes on vacation , anyway , with karla , karla 's boyfriend ( pfeiffer ) , and will ( matthew settle ) , a real boy - next - door type who 's sweet on julie .
to make a long story short - i ca n't believe it took a paragraph to describe the set - up for this gratuitous sequel - the trip is a disaster .
not only is it storm season , not only is the desk clerk ( the frighteners ' jeffrey combs ) a jerk , not only are the few island residents and our heroic vacationers getting picked off by the resourceful willis one - by - one , but the karaoke machine is n't working properly !
( you think killing is hard ?
try reprogramming a laserdisc so that gloria gaynor 's " i will survive
" now contains the lyric
" i still know what you did last summer ! " )
all is not lost - ray is on his way to save the day , and a helpful witch doctor is saying little prayers for julie and co .
this picture is really about breasts : two of them .
julie , like a good horror heroine , never does up her shirt to the collar , always wears white in the rain , and keeps sexy underwear on in case of a sudden desire to tan .
based on the hormonal charge i got out of the movie , i ca n't imagine what it was doing to the ten year old boy who sat next to me
- he gets jennifer love - hewitt , and my generation got heather langenkamp !
lucky bastard .
i did n't like
i know what you did last summer
and i ca n't say i liked this continuation any more or less .
the pacing in both films is languid-
how is it that so much time passes with neither murder nor character development ?
i still know what you did last summer has a better sense of humour than the first one , though , and at least it explains away willis 's random selection of victims .
( i do n't think the hotel maid or the stoner dude had the slightest idea
what julie did last summer . )
director cannon ( judge dredd ) is a competent filmmaker but not a particularly imaginative one - if there is a part three ( what on earth would they call it ? ) , and the fun denouement suggests there will be , here 's my suggestion : hire a filmmaker with flair , someone who can really energize this stillborn series - someone who wo n't rely on so many shock notes .
and let that person run wild with the camera .
( aside : if blandy [ sic ] must appear in the next one , try to keep the number of times she says " baby " to a minimum .
thanks in advance . )
Example Output: N

Example Input: there was a lot riding on this movie .
everyone even moderately interested in the " scream " series was dying to know how it would end .
what would be the " final act " ?
this is the end of an era for them , a movie which has kept them up nights searching for clues on the internet , talking and tossing around rumors with their equally enthused buddies , and , for kids under 17 , those elaborate plots consisting of buying a ticket to one movie and hopping into " scream " while narrowly escaping those menacing ushers who are only a year or two older than themselves .
no need to worry ; " scream 3 " is endlessly inventive and entertaining , a fine epilogue to the series that made kevin williamson a household name , reinvented the horror genre , and continued in the self - referential , post - modern tradition of quentin and co .
so , how does the story go ?
as opposed to what some fanatical internet sites would have you believe , sidney prescott ( neve campbell ) , now all - grown - up and constantly dealing with her pass in the constantly tormented sector of her psyche , is not living in hollywood fulfilling her dream to become an actress , but rather in upstate california , living , understandably , alone in the confines of fences and vast security systems .
she works at home as a crisis center affiliate over the phone .
but that 's not where the movie starts off .
instead , in a tactic that reminded me of the somewhat similar , and conceptually horrifying , sequence in " eye for an eye " ( 1995 ) , cotton weary ( liev schreiber ) , now a big star , drives home to his girlfriend in traffic when the killer calls , demands the location of sidney 's home , and , when he does n't get it , threatens the life of cotton 's girlfriend christine , and cotton ca n't do anything to stop him .
the rest of the sequence is particularly clever , setting up a constant throughout the picture : the killer has a high - tech electronic voice - changer that tops that of the first two .
not only does he sound unmistakably like talented voice - over artist roger jackson ( ha , ha ) , he can now easily duplicate the voices of the lead characters , including sidney , and the returned gale weathers ( courtney cox arquette ) and dewey riley ( david arquette ) .
at the same time , stab 3 , the third film - within - a - film based around the characters and events of woodsboro and windsor college , has taken a less authentic approach this time around in return to woodsboro ;
whereas the account of the first two films was true , the franchise within " scream " has now become totally fictional .
nevertheless , we learn , cotton made an appearance in the movie which is now in production , as himself to be killed off in the first scene .
so , it seems that the real killer is offing our heroes in the order in which they bite it in the movie ? ? '
either the actor portraying them , or the real thing .
sometimes both .
clever , indeed .
but , who goes next ?
no one knows .
three different scripts were penned , we 're told , to keep the true finale off the internet ( a nod to the " scream " 2 fiasco a few years back ) and no one knows for sure which one the killer read .
still , all the while sidney stays concealed in her home , only visiting dad for the first half - hour of the film , while also having horrifying visions of her mother , which takes us back a bit to sidney 's fear of becoming what her mother was ? ? '
or , at least , what her mother was secretly .
when sidney finally ventures out to hollywood as the murders become more prevalent , she 's chased onto the set of stab 3 , wandering through " woodsboro , " written and directed as an odd , surreal , nightmare indeed , this is one of " scream 3 " 's finest moments
.
okay , over the years , i 'll admit that i 've become quite the " scream " fan .
no , i do n't have the ghostface costume or the director 's cut laserdisc , but i often find myself compelled to pop in the dvd of either member of the preceding duo , and can get quite caught up in the dramatic element of these films ( yes , i said " dramatic element " ) , sometimes debating with family and friends the possibilities and endless theories that have become quintessentially affiliated with " scream " .
throughout the film , though , i noticed a much more subtle approach than the other two films .
granted that there 's stabbin - a - plenty going on throughout , but there 's considerably less blood , less gore .
honestly , i like this approach .
it 's more classical , more rebellious ,
constantly demonstrating the capable direction of wes craven .
he knows when to hold back and at the same time makes the movie ooze with energy , illustrating the delicate poise flowing from his years of experience .
some critics have noted that " scream 3 " seems to take itself more seriously this time ; maybe so , or maybe screenwriter ehren kruger ( arlington road ) , who took over after williamson had scheduling conflicts , saw an opportunity for true irony ? ? ' maybe even a little bit of satire ? ? ' if the film worked in a few more clich ? ?
s .
what puts a damper on this otherwise exceptional and creative film
, i 'm afraid , is the ending , or , rather , the identity of the killer .
it does the job , i guess , accomplishes what it should , bringing the three films full circle , but upon my first viewing it seemed rather dissatisfying because it appears a little too contrived , too arbitrary ; after a second viewing , which i endeavored upon due to this recurring disapprobation , the killer 's identity still seems a little too random , but his motivation came across more sound this time around , and the eventual conclusion was ultimately more satisfying .
all in all , " scream 3 " does not fall victim to the most lamented principle of a trilogy
: it is not the worst of the films .
as a trilogy , " scream
" was a lot of fun ; refreshing , humorous , offbeat .
almost sad to see it go .
but then , it does seem best to quit while you 're ahead , and " scream 3 " does a fine job of providing closure to its characters .
for now , " scream " holds the title as the finest series of horror films to be committed to celluloid .
not too shabby .
Example Output:
P