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

Input: Consider Input: in a flashback , the teenage girl in the eccentric family in the canadian film , the hanging garden , tells her senile grandmother that she is going to a school dance .
horrified , the grandmother wants to know if her granddaughter knows " the rule of 6 .
" if you do n't break off a kiss by the count of 6 , then you committed a sin with the boy .
and most of all , the grandmother wants to know if she has " protection ?
"
she must carry a rosary in her pocket at all times .
the richly acted film is written and directed by thom fitzgerald in a quirky but loving style .
although some may refer to the film as yet another dysfunctional family picture , that moniker misses the mark .
yes , every member of the household has their own special problems , but the writer did n't choose to name so many characters for various flowers by accident .
this delightful little picture mixes love , tragedy and pathos , resulting in a hopeful and almost magical concoction .
during the opening credits we observe the boy , sweet william , at the center of the story .
first , he 's an average sized young lad who is slapped off - screen by his father .
next , he 's 300 pound teenager , played with hopelessness and depression by troy veinotte .
when the opening credits end , we cut to 10 years later .
william is now an average - sized , reasonably happy adult , played with love and compassion by chris leavins .
william has returned after 10 years absence to attend the marriage of his free - spirited and foul - mouthed sister rosemary to his first childhood lover , fletcher ( joe s .
keller ) .
kerry fox from an angel at my table and shallow grave plays rosemary with a compelling joy .
nicole burnell , who gave such a devastating performance in the sweet hereafter , plays the teenage rosemary .
the father of the family , whiskey mac ( peter macneill ) , is an alcoholic autocrat who is more obnoxious than harmful .
his wife , iris ( seana mckenna ) , says that she would have left him years ago to at least go to some place warm were it not for her lack of money and her obligations to the kids . rounding out the family is christine dunsworth as nine - year - old violet , the sister whom william meets for the first time .
as the exuberant irish music fills the air at the wedding in the family home , william wanders off to try on one of his old coats , which causes him to laugh at the size of his former self .
the director manages to stage simple scenes in wonderfully imaginative ways .
he takes a common wedding dress train and uses it to set up scenes in fresh and fascinating ways .
rosmary 's trip to the bathroom after drinking too much beer is beautifully orchestrated , and kerry fox is at her hilarious best trying to cope with the long train in a small bath , all while talking to her brother . as much as anything , the film is a series of character sketches .
in one of the strongest we watch william in a flashback as he has his first sexual encounter , a homosexual one . although he is perfectly happy liking the same sex , his mother is aghast .
a woman friend of hers suggests she take william to a local housewife , dusty miller ( martha irving ) , who , for a fee , will have heterosexual sex with william .
with absolute finesse the director crafts a subtle scene that manages to yield significant emotional punch without being sensational .
dusty , after asking iris to watch her daughter , takes william and gently introduces him to the joys of sex with the opposite sex .
all of this notwithstanding
, he still prefers males .
the film is at its most poignant in several sequences in which the grown william comes face - to - face with himself when younger .
this causes his ugly old memories to be reignited .
in the most devastating , he has to come to grips with his former self who was so overwhelmed with the stress that he tried to hang himself .
even here , the director touches your heart without ever letting the story dissolve into anything approaching a tearjerker .
the ultimate result is an uplifting story that has more hope that one would ever expect from the outline of its plot .
the hanging garden runs 1 : 31 .
it is rated r for strong sexuality , language , violence and some teen drug use and would be acceptable for teenagers only if they are quite old and mature .

Output: P


Input: Consider Input: watching the movie , i vowed to subtract half a star from the review because the filmmakers included a saccharine syrup , cute ' n
cuddly , computer - generated monkey .
if the monkey died , the movie got an extra half star .
alas , the monkey showed up at the end , unharmed , to the wet sickly sound of gagging and rolling eyeballs .
what that means is that lost in space
actually deserved 2 stars .
that 's pretty generous , considering the movie 's camp lacked any hint of tongue in cheek
.
when will robinson ( jack johnson ) teaches his pet robot about friendship , you are actually supposed to buy it .
so why such a seemingly high rating ?
there are a few reasons that made me unable to throw away the experience with the garbage .
first , we saw the movie on opening night of the first day of operation of a brand new theater .
the sound and screen kicked ass .
nobody in the country enjoyed the movie as much as my audience did ( and i do n't necessarily mean that in a good way ) .
also , there were more than zero scenes where i found myself rooting for the robinsons , or getting caught up in the movie 's tension .
i even liked the computer - generated settings .
i usually prefer to see models or sets , but the cg was more detailed than i 've seen in a lot of movies ; it looks like someone spent a little overtime to render some of the futuristic cities .
also , gary oldman is never a bad actor , even though he is typecast as a villain .
william hurt is n't too bad either .
neither actor had a great role , but their performances were watchable .
and perhaps i should n't admit this , but something about the tone and outlook of the movie brought me back to my childhood .
there is very little swearing or blood ; there is a strong moral message , saccharine though it is ; there is a bit of romance ( whose culmination after 2 hours is a " real " kiss -- no sex ) .
it felt like one of those disney movies that i so looked forward to when i was six .
those movies were probably as bad as lost in space , but at the time , they were manna from heaven .
that type of moviemaking is a lost art .
now for the bad news .
worst and most unforgivable was the incredibly bad dialogue .
it 's squeaky - clean , family fun , trying hard to be as hip as pulp fiction .
"
you better hold on to your joystick , " is one such line .
and when a robinson is called upon to deliver a line about warp conduit thingamajigs , they inevitably stumble badly enough to embarrass even the lowliest star trek ensign .
second worst , and closely related , is the screenplay .
the story 's exposition takes place at a press conference , which allows the writers to explain what 's happening with the least amount of creativity , effort , or interest .
once the story gets going , i do concede a momentary burst of interest once in a while , but on the whole , the situations that arise are silly and contrived .
when gary oldman easily reprograms will 's pet robot to kill the robinsons , my friend summed it up perfectly : " he flipped the switch to ' evil . '
" then there 's the tone of the movie .
the colorado daily said the film would have been more interesting if the central character was will robinson and not his father john robinson .
then it could be an adventure movie .
they 're mostly right , except that johnson ( will ) was n't a good enough actor to carry it off .
still , that the film has the robinson patriarch as our hero shows a lack of imagination .
just because a movie is tame enough for kids does n't mean that we have to bow to a " promise keepers " notion of who 's the center of a family .
many quality family films have been made with a non - traditional family structure ( fly away home comes to mind ) to much better effect .
and the politics of the time seem a bit conservative and regressive for a futuristic movie .
in star wars , the rebels were the good guys .
we were rooting for those who were fighting against the system .
in lost in space , the rebels are the bad guys , a terrorist force that must be killed , crushed and silenced so that our children may live free .
that ominous excuse for violence almost makes me sympathize with the terrorists .
finally , a few specific details deserve criticism .
the movie tells us that the setting is the year 2056 .
why ?
why bother saying what year this is .
just tell us it 's the future .
i bring it up because the tv series was supposed to take place in 1997 .
setting a specific date only dates the movie and guarantees that it wo n't be timeless ( not that this movie was really in the running anyway . ) .
then there is a scene that shows john robinson checking one of his controls on a chair that rises about fifteen feet on a pole .
this silly waste of money reminded me of bugs bunny 's barber chair , and only shows that the future is a time when spaceship designers have n't learned a thing about ergonomics .
one vaguely redeeming quality is that the end credits succeed where the rest of the film failed : it made lost in space look cool .
the strong techno beat sampled the cheesiest dialogue and , out of context , made it sound hip .
this is overlaid on a cool jumpy credit sequence with interesting distorted clips from the movie .
but if that 's the best part of the movie , i ca n't in good conscience recommend it .
still , if you get stuck seeing it , as we did , you might be able to appreciate it if you keep your distance , think of liking bad movies as a child , and bring along your " bad movie bingo " cards .

Output: N


Input: Consider Input: movies do n't come much more ridiculously titled than " i still know what you did last summer , " but since the movie in question is best described as ridiculous ,
the title sort of works as a warning .
more than a silly - sounding mouthful to blurt out to the ticket vendor , this horror sequel 's moniker also contains a grievous oversight that anyone who saw the original will be able to spot : what " you " did _ last _ summer " you " actually did the summer _ before _ last summer , and since " i " knew about it _ this _ summer as well as _ last _ summer , it 's really illogical to say that " i " _ still _ know what " you " did
_ last _ summer .
the filmmakers would have at least made sense with the shorter " i still know , " the longer " i still know what you did two summers ago " or the appropriate " stupid people getting hacked to bits .
" that last suggestion is the preferable one since
the characters in this film do things that are the polar opposite of smart
.
for example , if your roommate is plagued by terrible nightmares as a result of being stalked and nearly murdered not long ago , would you sneak into her room late at night and hide in the closet , even if it was just to locate and borrow a cute little dress ? probably not , but that 's precisely what college student karla ( pop diva brandy ) does to best friend julie ( jennifer love hewitt ) , resulting in the first in a long line of phony frights .
julie , you 'll recall , was one of the sole survivors at the end of 1997 's surprise hit
" i know what you did last summer , " after a slasher with a grudge to bear - it 's a _ long _ story - began trying to pick off her , her buddies and various others in their coastal carolina village .
in this installment , the plot picks up as karla wins a trip to the bahamas , and julie , yet racked by guilt , decides that maybe a tropical getaway will help ease her mind .
yeah ,
right .
their island paradise has room , of course , for one more in the form of the still - alive killer ( muse watson ) from the first film .
he sports the same gorton 's fisherman get - up , a heavy hat and rain slicker that mask his identity , but why he 's still trying to stay anonymous is a mystery this movie never solves . . .
though i suppose his hook - hand would look funny protruding from the sleeve of a leisure suit .
in a sense , that 's the movie 's glaring flaw
- everybody knows who the bad guy is , thus evaporating the level of paranoid tension nicely sustained by its prequel .
the murders and attempted murders in that film were vivid and scary , but trey callaway 's derivative " i still know " screenplay makes the fisherman just as dumb as his pretty potential victims .
when julie lays blissfully unaware in a tanning bed , giving him a perfect chance to wreak vengeance once and for all , what does he do ?
he twist - ties the lid shut and cranks up the uv rays
- you 'd think he 'd want her gutted now instead of a skin cancer victim later .
even prequel " summer " lovers might balk at how little there is here beyond sporadically amusing absurdity and a few neat - o shots of blood flowing from toned teenage flesh .
the innovative gallows humor that scribe ( and " scream " wunderkind )
kevin williamson injected into " i know " 's unfolding story is sorely missed , replaced with the grating antics of a white rastafarian cabana boy who smokes weed and tosses off slang like " yo " ; you 'll cheer - not shriek - when he ends up with a pair of hedgetrimmers firmly implanted in his chest .
if " i know what you did last summer , " however effective , was just the kind of movie that those subversive " scream " flicks poked fun at , then the deadly " i still know what you did last summer " deserves a full - blown roasting on " mystery science theatre 3000 .
"


Output: N