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

Example Input: a movie like mortal kombat : annihilation works ( and must be reviewed on ) multiple levels .
first , there 's the rampant usage of randian subtext that pervades the entire movie .
but occasionaly , almost as if making an ironic , self - depreciating remark , the movie tosses in clearly marxist imagery .
no no . . .
just kidding .
had you going there for a moment , did n't i ?
in all seriousness however , and to be fair to the movie , it * is * necessary to provide two viewpoints : that of a movie watcher unfamiliar ( or only marginally familiar ) with the whole mortal kombat phenomenon , and that of a fan of the first movie and/or a fan of the games .
the first movie ( mortal kombat ( 1995 ) ) concerned itself with a martial arts tournament that would decide the fate of earth ( and it 's 5 billion inhabitants ) .
the mortals won , and in theory this should have prevented the emperor shao khan from taking over the earth .
unfortunately , shao khan was a poor loser , and the very final scene in mortal kombat showed him arriving anyway , ready to take over the planet , as our heroes assumed a fighting stance .
the first movie was extraordinarily entertaining for those ( like myself ) who are fans of the game .
i 'd even go so far as to say that many folks who did n't know about the game probably enjoyed the movie .
the writers and directors knew the limitations of both their cast and of the basic story itself , and they did n't try to overachieve .
there were a lot of really cool fight scenes ( with really cool accompanying music ) , intersperesed with some distracting ( but ultimately non - intrusive ) bits of fluff passing itself off as a plot .
and , as we know , the movie was a smashing success at the box office .
mortal kombat :
annihilation picks up precisely where that movie left off , with some introductory exposition to clue in those who may not have seen the first movie .
shao khan has decided that he 's going to take over the earth
* anyways * , and to hell with some silly rule about mortals winning the tournament .
thereafter follows approximately 85 minutes of film that alternates between being confused , being trite , being silly , and being just plain stupid .
one gets the general impression that the producers of the movie thought " hey , that last movie was such a success that we can get more money and make a * real * movie now . " too bad they did n't simply stick with the formula from the first movie .
i could write volumes about the things that are wrong with this picture , but here are the high points :
* the acting is truly bad .
sandra hess ( playing the sonya blade character ) is particularly execrable , especially in scenes where she tries to convince us that she loved johnny cage ( a character from the first movie who gets greased at the beginning of this movie ) .
* in one of the worst pieces of mis - casting
i think i 've * ever * seen , james remar plays raiden , the god of thunder .
in the first movie , christopher lambert played raiden and played his character as though he was in on the joke :
a french actor playing a japanese thunder god being revered by chinese mystics .
i generally like it when actors are cast against type ( tim " tiny " lister , jr . being cast as the president of the u . s .
in the fifth element , for example ) , and remar has always been one of my favorite " utility " actors but he 's so totally wrong for this part that he does n't even have the luxury of amused self - awareness .
*
there are too many characters that are introduced as being potentially important , but then never seen again .
* there are a number of completely meaningless story sidetracks , including a muddled scene where liu kang ( robin shou ) seeks out nightwolf ( litefoot ) , has a mystical hallucination , and then wanders off with jade ( irina pantaeva ) .
for these reasons ( and many others ) , i can only give the movie a 2 . . . . . . unless you 're a huge fan of the games and/or the first movie .
in that case , the following critiques also apply : * sandra hess , while being an even worse actress than bridgette wilson ( who played sonya blade in the first movie ) , is much more convincing as a fighter .
wilson looked like she was simply mimicing some movements taught to her by the fight choreographer .
hess looks like she actually knows some martial arts , and puts together a much more believable fight scene .
* in the fights , each of the characters does at least * one * thing they do in the game ( and often more ) .
sonya does her " kiss of death , " jax does his " earthquake , " liu kang does his " animality , " and so on .
a big bonus for those of us who were looking for similar moves in the first movie and found them only rarely .
*
there are n't as many fight scenes in this movie as there were in the first , because the folks making the movie mistakenly try to hang a more robust plot in between .
silly , silly folks .
and the lamest fight involved two of the women in what turns into a mud - wrestling match .
lame and so obviously sexist
even i ( politically incorrect , for the most part ) noticed and remarked upon it .
* the special effects are generally better , except for the final fight scene between the emporer and liu kang in which both perform their " animalities .
" motaro and sheeva are both more convincing and lifelike than goro was in the first movie .
for folks like myself who loved the first movie and enjoy the games , i give this a 5 .
you 'll probably like it , but not nearly as much as you liked the first one .
Example Output: N

Example Input: that 's exactly how long the movie felt to me .
there were n't even nine laughs in nine months .
it 's a terrible mess of a movie starring a terrible mess of a man , mr . hugh grant , a huge dork .
it 's not the whole oral - sex / prostitution thing ( referring to grant , not me ) that bugs me , it 's the fact that grant is annoying .
not just adam sandler - annoying , we 're talking jim carrey - annoying .
since when do
eye flutters and nervous smiles pass for acting ?
but , on the other hand , since when do really bad slapstick ( a fistfight in the delivery room culminating in grant 's head in joan cusack 's lap -- a scene he paid $ 60 to have included in the movie ) and obscene double entendres ( robin williams , the obstetrician , tells grant 's pregnant girlfriend she has " a big pussy , " referring of course to the size of the cat hairs on her coat , but nonetheless , grant paid $ 60 to have the exchange included in the movie ) pass for comedy ?
nine months is a predictable cookie - cutter movie with
no originality in humor or plot .
hugh grant plays a successful child psychiatrist .
why a child psychologist ?
so the scriptwriters could inject the following unfunny exchange :
kid : my dad 's an asshole .
grant ( flutters eyelashes , offers a nervous smile , then responds in his annoying english accent and i - think - i - actually - have- talent attitude ) : could you possibly elaborate on that ?
kid :
my dad 's a _ huge _ asshole .
more like a hugh asshole , but that 's beside the point , which is : nine months includes too many needlessly stupid jokes that get laughs from the ten year olds in the audience while everyone else shakes his or her head in disbelief .
so , anyway , grant finds out his girlfriend is pregnant and does his usual reaction ( fluttered eyelashes , nervous smiles ) .
this paves the way for every possible pregnancy / child birth gag in the book , especially since grant 's equally annoying friend 's wife is also pregnant .
the annoying friend is played by tom arnold , who provides most of the cacophonous slapstick , none of which is funny , such as a scene where arnold beats up a costumed " arnie the dinosaur " ( you draw your own parallels on that one ) in a toy store .
the only interesting character in the movie is played by jeff goldblum , who should have hid himself away somewhere after the dreadful hideaway , as an artist with a fear of ( and simultaneous longing for ) commitment .
not even robin williams , who plays a russian doctor who has recently decided to switch from veterinary medicine to obstetrics , has much humor .
his is a one - joke character--
the old foreign - guy - who - mispronounces - english stereotype ( did someone say yakov smirnov ?
that 's my favorite vodka , by the way ) , hence the line
" now it 's time to take a look at your volvo ,
" another nasty but unamusing joke , except this one goes right over the ten year olds ' heads , while the adults simultaneously groan .
nine months is a complete failure , low on laughs and intelligence and high on loud , unfunny slapstick , failed jokes and other uninspired lunacy .
hugh grant 's sunset boulevard arrest ( please , no caught - with - his - pants - down jokes ) may bring more people into the theaters , but they certainly wo n't leave with a smile on their faces , not after 90 minutes of grant 's nervous smiles .
everything in the movie is so forced , so unauthentic that anyone with an i .
q . over 80 ( sorry , hugh ) will know
they wasted their money on an unfulfilled desire .
but at least they did n't spend 60 bucks for it .
Example Output: N

Example Input: seen september 5 , 1998 at 10 p .
m .
at the sony nickelodeon theaters ( boston , ma ) , theater # 2 , with matt perreault for free using my sony / loews critic 's pass .
[ theater rating :
* * 1/2 : okay seats , sound , and picture ] modern society is now inundated with more sex and sexuality than it ever has been before , from teenage sitcoms to nc-17-rated films about fetishes .
the biggest debate of the subject is whether or not it affects reality or just reflects it .
"
your friends and neighbors " takes a different approach as it 's a film that revolves almost entirely around sex and how can be used for both pain and pleasure even within a small circle of friends .
one of the most important aspects of the film that most be noted and analyzed before the film can really be dissected as a whole is writer / director neil labute 's basic setup and some of the unique methods he employs to tell the story .
firstly , and most importantly is the fact the script tells a rather complex , detailed story of lust , betrayal , arrogance , hypocrisy , greed , and just plain stupidity between six different characters ( three men , three women ) , without hardly any supporting characters , ( a few have a line or two ) , mostly extras .
everything they do will somehow affect another character and ultimately come full - circle back to themselves , whether it be positive or negative .
but to just state
this is arbitrary , and explaining and criticizing the process is difficult .
labute 's ability to tell his story through a few characters is a remarkable feat , but what 's specifically impressive is the fact the characters ' names are never revealed until the end credits roll .
for the sake of this review , i will describe the characters and refer to them as their main characteristic .
another interesting accomplishment is the fact every scene takes place inside with limited focus .
we 're always able to tell where the characters are ( someone 's home , the gym , a restaurant , hotel room , etc . ) , but what the city they live in , what year it is , what the society is like ,
etc .
is relatively unknown .
the film is a complete character study with the tight , intense drama of the theater .
no one plot dominates the story , which makes the first act a bit tedious for its lack of background .
we 're simply dropped in on the characters ' lives and are expected to figure out the rest .
the characters are a group of middle - class white people who are all successful at what they do , but they 're only concern right now seems to be their sex lives .
first there 's barry ( eckhart ) and mary ( brenneman ) , a married couple who are going through a dry spell not unlike many other couples in other situations who do n't know what they 're problem is .
barry is kind of a dorky businessman who loves his wife , and the sex they have , but does n't have a lot of ambition - he just follows everyone else .
mary is a writer of some sort , but lacks aggression and emotion like her husband and is the meekness character , but ironically , does n't hesitate to commit adultery just to feel something .
labute 's script does a good job in characterizing mary and barry as individuals , but is very light on chemistry and connection between the two .
obviously , this is the theme , which is enhanced by the actors ' good performances , but at the same time seems just a bit hollow .
another couple is jerry ( stiller ) and terri ( keener ) who live together and seem to have been involved with each other for a long time , yet they constantly argue over anything and everything .
their sex life is also fraught with problems and for some reason they continue to do it throughout their infidelitous relationship .
if only one aspect of the film could use improvement , it would be this area .
it 's natural for a married couple to become bored with each other , but why would two people who can barely stand each other continue to have sex and live together ?
what did they ever see in the other person to begin with ?
labute never really answers , but since the film is more concerned with the payoff than the process , it still makes for good drama , tension , and manip ulation
so intricate and deceitful
it 's fascinating .
two other characters act as catalysts , cary ( jason patric ) and cheri ( natassja kinski ) .
cary is an arrogant , hostile sex - maniac who defines the word " bastard .
"
somehow he is able to bend women to his will , either through charm or just attitude , into getting his way .
he 's the kind of guy everyone should stay away from as we realize he 's secretly perverted , but somehow barry finds comfort in his company , although jerry is always nervous around him .
patric gives an outstanding performance , so much so that we want to know more about him despite how intimidating and unlikable he is .
cheri is a character labute uses as a catalyst to see how the other characters react to her .
she works in an art museum and at some point throughout the film , each character will engage her in almost the exact same conversation and her reaction is always different , from becoming involved in a relationship with one , to brushing it off as small talk with another , to being outright appalled by yet another .
she 's a sweet woman , perhaps the most normal of any of the characters , and although her symbolism is obvious , her role as the outsider is the most relatable .
i will not reveal who cheats on who and how each character is specifically affected by the others ' action , as that 's the hook of the film .
the first two acts begin to set up the characters and each 's scenarios , but it 's often difficult to tell what they will do about it and with whom .
the result is sometimes surprising , other times predictable , but the actual course of actions is always fascinating . for a while everyone has their fun , but ultimately each character 's guilt , attitude , or ignorance will disserve them .
one of the most important things to note is how realistic the story is supposed to be .
since the characters only interact with each other there is n't much pop culture references , as almost everything has a deeper philosophy behind it .
are we to assume that these people are , as the title states , our friends and neighbors ?
i do n't know of anyone going through the same situations as these people .
often times the film is not unlike a network melodrama , other times situations are like those not seen outside a porno movie .
but what this film does have that the others do n't is repercussions in the end .
although the film creates its own reality , it goes to show that even the immoral are n't immortal .
in what way " your friends and neighbors " is supposed to work is open to interpretation .
it definitely has a lot to say about the price that comes with infidelity , but it could have been even better had it expanded on that theme more specifically .
still , it 's an accomplishment in film - making because it has put a timeless theme into a modern perspective .
Example Output:
P