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

Input: Consider Input: the original _
babe _ was my favorite movie of 1995 ,
a sleeper hit that transcended its target audience .
being a surprise commercial and critical success , it had no marketing tie - ins , which limited its final take .
thus , babe 2 arrives , with a budget greater than the money made in babe 1 .
plush dolls , vending machines hawking t - shirts , and macy 's thanksgiving day balloons arrive for holiday money - grubbing . too late .
this is a sad review to write , because babe 2 not only does _ not _ live up to the original , but it does n't even come to a fraction of it .
i should n't expect that sequels to modern fairy tales to match their predecessors ' magic , but this film tries too hard , and loses its charm
. consider a driver applying the accelerator with great intensity , unaware that his car is in neutral .
imagine with me , if you will , _ scream _ 's jamie kennedy , explaining the " rules " for sequels like babe 2 .
( 1 ) there must be _ more _ talking animals .
( 2 ) there must be _ more _ slapstick comedy .
( 3 ) there must be _ more _ songs for those mice to sing : that 's cute .
( 4 ) keep the story cards to break up the action : that 's cute too , even though " the pig gets wise " made no sense , given the context of that story partition .
( 5 ) there must be action , however illogical , that will conjure up pivotal scenes from the original : the trademark song that nobody remembers the words to , the baa - ram - ewe secret code , the " that 'll do , pig .
that 'll do .
"
now throw in the limitations : ( a ) james cromwell , now a hot commodity ,
has limited time on the set ( or maybe he did n't approve of the script ) .
( b ) christine cavanaugh , the voice of the original babe , demands more money ( $ 200 , 000 - -paltry considering the $ 80 million budget ) . out .
e .
g .
daily comes in with noticable results .
( c ) george miller , the director , is more well - known for his dark futuristic mad max films and his twilight zone segment , not for kiddie fare ( and no , he did n't direct that _ andre _ film in ' 94 ) .
( d ) the special effects are impressive ,
_ but limited _ .
babe talks , but most of the time from a single shot , repeated over and over again .
( babe is center screen , looking straight into the camera , with a happy smirk -- regardless of whether he 's happy , or scared , or tired ) .
season now with the " original " elements , which , as we will find out , are straight from the screenwriting - is - hell bin .
( i ) change the venue into " the big city " .
this has been praised as wildly original .
excuse me : did n't _ home alone
_ do this several years ago ?
how about the muppets ?
even _ the bad news bears _ travelled to tokyo
.
sorry .
no dice .
side note : to give the city a fairy - tale look , george miller crafted a fantastical fantasyland that merges the landmarks of the world 's great cities , and yes , it _ is _ impressive .
but this too is over - used , repeating the same view over and again on multiple occasions .
and , for the most part , babe _ remains in the hotel _ .
( ii ) given the limitations of cromwell , the human element is taken over by " the boss ' wife " played by magda szubanski .
s - t
- r - e - t - c - h .
she 's not a lead actress - type
, she 's not funny enough in her physical comedy , and she 's simply embarrassing in some of her pratfalls .
( have her arrested falsely on drug charges !
have her accidentally incite a riot with biker dudes and scantily clad babes !
have her bounce around on a bungee cord at a prestigious benefit dinner ! )
i was hoping for a little smirk during these scenes , but i felt sorry for the embarrassment that she put herself in .
i am restraining myself from talking about the dark nature of the film , the violence , the scene where a pit bull dangles from the bridge , head submerged underwater .
even the best fairy tales have a bit of the macabre in it , as the brothers grimm have demonstrated .
no . . .
my problem is with the story , or lack thereof .
_
babe _ is sent out to save the hoggett farm , but once in the city , that story is forgotten .
being a good - natured pig in the midst of the cynicism of his environs is nice , but , other than rescue that aforementioned pit bull , what did babe actually _ do _ ? without giving the ending away , the farm is saved from a left - field quirk that had nothing to do with the pig .
speaking of " pig " , or , " pig - pig - pig - pig - pig ! "
.
the word " pig " is so overused , had they changed it to an expletive , and had the pig be al pacino , i could have been watching _ scarface
_ .
this is screenwriting ? further ,
i can not explain the deep gnaw at my gut in the many scenes where accidents happen to good people in fantastically elaborate setups .
had it been a cartoon , and the victim be an equivalent of elmer fudd , maybe my reaction would have been softened .
but to farmer hoggett ?
his wife ?
an elderly mickey rooney ?
much too irreverent .
( " quick !
splice those singing mice into those scenes ! " ) .
the film is n't a colossal failure .
i did like glenne headley 's schmoozy chimpanzee .
i liked the pink poodle .
the dog on the cart , who momentarily thinks he 's in dog heaven . and a weird looking guy who may have been doubly - cast as an airport employee and a judge .
but most of the time , i was looking down , in boredom , or in embarrassment over the hacked - up script .
them singing mice , those chapter partitions , the proficient acting of the animals-- none of these can compensate for a story .
let me spoil the final scene : farmer hoggett looks at pig , proud , says " that 'll do , pig .
that 'll do .
"
that 's it .
hope i did n't ruin it for you .
but tell me this : what the heck did that pig
_ do _ ?

Output: N


Input: Consider Input: tomb raider .
fun ?
exciting ?
challenging ?
given the unprecedented popularity ( especially among teenage boys ) of the video game that sports an uber - buff , pistol packin ' babe who raids , well .
. .
tombs , you have to believe it 's these three things and more !
"
lara croft : tomb raider , " the big screen variant of said video game , which features a pumped - up angelina jolie ( the oscar ? winner for " girl , interrupted " no less ) in the title role is , however , none of these things .
it is n't fun , it is n't exciting , and the only challenge is seeing how long you can stay in your seat
( i suffered through to the bitter , bitter end ; the wife opted for barnes & noble at the 45-minute mark ) .
directed by simon west with the same subtlety he brought to " con air , " " tomb raider " is an empty - headed , big budget bore .
the story borrows unintelligently from that mother of all turkeys " hudson hawk " ( the same hokum about planetary alignments and sacred stones that , when brought together , well . . . who the heck cares ? ) and it makes " super mario bros .
"
( bob hoskins ' ill - advised career move ) look like " rocco and his brothers " ( that classic of italian neo - realism ) .
i 'll go out on a limb here and say i suspect there 's actually more character development in the video game than the movie proper .
this is where the jolie defenders / video game nuts jump in and say this movie is n't about character development
it 's about kicking serious butt ( or bum , since ms .
croft hails from england 's green and pleasant ) .
with lips , breasts , and biceps all inflated to the max , lara croft is all about posturing , and jolie has a hard time simply standing still without trying to look tough .
ok , let 's forget challenging .
should n't " tomb raider " be , at the very least , fun and exciting ?
should n't our butt - kicking heroine also encompass the sophistication of , say , james bond with the wit of indiana jones ?
there 's no humor to be found anywhere in " tomb raider , " even though it tries hard from time to time .
even " the mummy returns " did n't take itself too seriously .
the villain here is noticeably lacking , the special effects are ridiculously overblown and unnecessarily complicated , and the script is non - existent .
to liven things up ( perhaps ) , jolie 's live father jon voight puts in a few minutes as lara 's dead father lord croft ; talk about a stretch .
one thing i had n't expected from the film is that jolie affects a slightly better english accent than her pa ( although i suspect that thin - looking moustache he 's forced to wear gets in the way some ) .
unsuccessful ?
not entirely .
if anything , " lara croft : tomb raider " makes you want to check out the video game itself to figure out exactly what all the fuss was about .

Output: N


Input: Consider Input: the " disney stick - to - what - you - do - best " rule states that disney 's animated features will invariably be sublime
but whenever they try their hand at live - action kids ' entertainment , they will fail miserably .
this goes double for occasions when they try to make a live - action adaptation of a popular cartoon
( remember the 1996 version of 101 dalmations ?
i 'm still trying to forget ) .
that rule proves more dependable than ever with inspector gadget , an insulting , despicable and , worst of all , expensive piece of trash trying to pass itself off as a viable children 's film .
it will bore anyone over five and should prove unbearable for adults , even at its relatively skinny running time of 80 minutes .
it 's films like this that make me want to go to my local blockbuster and rent something from the days when brains were more important than budgets and wit compensated for lack of fancy effects .
just as matthew broderick began to convince me that there is hope for him as an actor yet , his career takes a nosedive to hell with his " role " as john brown , a depressed security guard with a big heart who hopes that one day he can become a real policemen and help the people around him .
he dreams of heroic deeds and the subsequent admiration of his long time crush , dr .
brenda bradford ( joely fisher ) .
but after a few bizarre coincidences it seems that he has to dream no longer .
john breaks every bone in his body while trying to save dr .
brenda 's father .
dr .
brenda has been working on a " gadget project , " which would make a half - man half - machine super - policeman to fight crime .
feeling indebted to john she decides to save his life by making him the subject , realizing his dream of becoming a policeman .
now , when he says " go go gadget
[ insert name of gizmo here ]
" he can use all kinds of nifty gadgets to capture crooks , bang up bandits and mangle murderers .
in the meantime , the evil claw ( rupert everett ) , the man responsible for the murder of the good doctor 's father is building a gadget of his own : a carbon copy of our inspector gadget except evil and john brown 's worst nemesis .
claw has plans of world domination , which leaves it up to the inspector and his gadget mobile ( voice of d. l. hughley ) to save humanity from his wrath .
state of the art effects fly at a mad pace in this $ 90 million dollar movie and
yet director david
kelogg never sets up a convincing atmosphere .
had they replaced all the fancy gizmos with dollar bills they would have wound up with the same effect .
what we see on the screen is like the raw ingredients of a meal : all of the expensive f / x amounts to nothing . part of the charm of the tv series was its sly irreverence which has gone down the toilet in the condescending movie .
can kids really admire a hero
so goody - two - shoes that he screams
" hey !
you ran a stop sign !
" while hanging off the back bumper of a quickly moving vehicle ?
i think that today 's children will respond better to somebody dashing , someone ultra - cool .
they ( probably ) receive enough preaching from their parents and its an insult to their intelligence to assume that they want to go to an action movie to see a father figure kick butt .
in addition to the more complex complaints above , there 's also the simple stuff
: inspector gadget is boring , formulaic and achingly implausible .
there 's no feeling that the director really cares about his story
: more than any other film i 've seen this year , this one really feels like it was made on an assembly line .
there 's a popular commercial ( for sprite , but that 's irrelevant ) running in movie theaters before features that spoofs the way major studios deal with projects .
it consists of studio suits discussing a fictitious ( thank god ) movie called " death slug " .
each executive gleefully presents a different merchandise tie - in ( slug taco !
slug on a stick ! ) .
at the end one of them asks " what about the movie ?
" another answers : " well , we do n't have a script yet , but we can bang one out by friday .
"
they probably could have replaced " death slug " with inspector gadget .
this film contains the sort of logical contradictions and blatantly obvious adherence to formula that could have been eliminated had any attention been payed to the script .
it 's no coincidence that most good children 's entertainment these days comes from animation .
animated features take so long to maker that it becomes a labor of love for the filmmakers and they put care and pride into their work .
these kinds of films are banged out quicker and a good percentage turn out worthless , sloppy and impersonal .
the studios are becoming factories and films their assembled products . ?
1999 eugene novikov&#137 ;


Output: N