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

Example Input: i 've never written a review for a movie i have n't watched all the way through , but i had to make an exception with powder .
i was about forty - five minutes into this one at a friend 's house when he and his brother got into a huge shouting match that would have ended in violence
had we not left the house .
so i never got to finish the movie
and i 'm sure as hell not going to pay three more bucks to watch half of a bad movie .
but i can at least get a partial review out of it , because i saw enough to know this one was n't worth finishing in the first place .
the movie centers around a freaky teenager who 's spent his entire life living in the cellar of his grandparents ' house .
when grandpa dies ( taking his department store down with him ) , social worker mary steenburgen has to take powder ( first and middle names ?
gold bond ) to a state home , where we find out he 's a different from the other kids .
actually , we find out he 's different when we first see him , because he 's the most pale individual we 've ever seen and moreover he has no body hair whatsoever .
when powder is born in the opening minutes of the movie , the father takes one look at him and says " he 's not my son . " obviously .
all i want to know is where the pillsbury dough boy was nine months ago .
so the white - faced freak leaves his neverland ranch for the state home and faces the ridicule of other kids .
that is , until they try to haze him during his first cafeteria lunch by making him " wear " his spoon ( " you can either wear it on your nose or up your ass .
" decisions , decisions . . . )
and he uses telepathic powers to draw all the silverware in the room into a giant pile in the middle of the table .
so if his father is the pillsbury dough boy , his mother must be sissy spacek 's carrie character .
and you have to factor in two more things from the subsequent scenes , as we find out powder
has some sort of
super - intelligence ( " your i .
q .
test went straight off the chart ! " ) and attracts electrical power .
this first shows up as powder visits the world of high school ( if he 's such a genius already , why would he need a high school education ? ) and sits through a demonstration in jeff goldblum 's science class .
goldblum plugs in a " jacob 's ladder " device that shows current running up two wires and immediately the current flows across the room and into powder 's chest .
but goldblum just stands there for about thirty seconds watching , instead of just unplugging the damn thing .
i guess he was too busy contemplating why he was appearing in his third bad movie in a row
( following hideaway and nine months ) .
that 's about all i saw before the big fight began and , let me tell you , that was twice as interesting as the movie itself .
but like i said , i saw enough to know this would be one of those terrible melodramas about the isolation of people who have superior abilities and how hard it is for those people to assimilate themselves into mainstream civilization .
none of these movies ever handle the subject properly , instead introducing the feeble beauty and the beast copout of having a beautiful woman fall in love with the guy 's personality , overlooking his personal appearance .
i already had the female character picked out ( the girl who was sitting next to him in the back of the room during the electrocution scene ) , but i guess i 'll never know for sure what happened .
from noraruth@aol .
com mon jun 10 15 : 04
: 03 edt 1996 article : 3654 of rec .
arts .
movies .
reviews path :
nntphub .
cb .
att .
com !
not - for - mail from :
noraruth@aol .
com ( andrew hicks )
newsgroups :
rec .
arts .
movies .
reviews , rec .
arts .
sf .
reviews subject : review : powder ( 1995 ) followup - to :
rec .
arts .
movies .
current - films , rec .
arts .
sf .
movies date : 10 jun 1996 18 : 16 : 03 gmt organization : university of missouri - columbia lines :
70 sender :
ecl@mtcts1 .
att .
com ( evelyn c . leeper )
approved :
ecl@mtcts1 .
att .
com
message - id : " > reply - to :
noraruth@aol .
com ( andrew hicks )
nntp - posting - host : mtcts2 .
mt .
lucent .
com summary : r .
a .
m .
r .
# 05425 keywords :
author = hicks originator :
ecl@mtcts2 xref : nntphub .
cb .
att .
com rec .
arts .
movies .
reviews : 3654 rec .
arts .
sf .
reviews :
710 status : ro powder a film review by andrew hicks
copyright 1996 andrew hicks / fatboy productions .
Example Output: N

Example Input: anastasia contains something that has been lacking from all of the recent disney releases . ..
( especially hercules ) .
.. emotion .
all the wacky characters voiced by celebrities and fantastically animated adventure sequences are n't going to hold anyone 's interest unless there is an emotional core to hold it all together .
not since disney 's beauty & the beast has there been such a compelling animated film with interesting characters and drama that works .
the story of the romanov family , the rulers of russia , and their downfall begins the film .
anastasia , one of the daughters , narrowly escapes the mad monk rasputin ( voiced by christopher lloyd ) with her grandmother ( voiced by angela landsbury ) .
but anastasia gets lost , and grows up with no memory of her royal origins .
the grandmother lives in paris , hoping to someday find her beloved anastasia , the only member of the family to survive the russian revolution .
a young woman named anya ( voiced by meg ryan ) runs across dimitri ( john cusack ) and vlad ( kelsey grammar ) , who are trying to put together a scheme to create an anastasia to fool the grandmother and get the reward money .
they pick anya to pose as their princes , and of course , it is soon revealed that anya is in fact the lost anastasia .
dimitri realizes that he can never win her love as he is a commoner , and meanwhile , rasputin is not dead , and plots his revenge against the last romanov .
the plot is actually quite well structured .
there are a lot of complexities that may have to be explained to the kids later , but it moves along fast enough that they 'll never have time to be bored .
what this really means is that the adults wo n't be bored by it either .
there is a great deal of banter between anya and dimitri that is very funny , and their relationship develops quite naturally as the film progresses .
there is , of course , lots of comedy for the kids , including rasputin 's pet bat , bartok ( hank azaria ) , who is easily the funniest thing in the film . however , the comical scenes never distract from the drama , but are worked into the plot almost seamlessly .
the animation is gorgeous - the characters seem to come to life through the talented animators .
not since beauty & the beast have animated characters had so much life to them .
even without the voices , they act .
the musical number in paris is a show - stopper , with some of the backgrounds rendered in an impressionist painting style .
as with all recent animated features , there are songs , however ,
these songs do more than just provide fodder for top-40 singers to get on the radio ( although there are three of them during the end credits ) .
the songs are all very catchy , and advance the plot , instead of just being showpieces
( except for the paris number , but that 's so much fun , it 's okay .
.. ) . i ca n't reccomend anastasia highly enough .
it 's a wonderful film that ranks right up there with other animated classics .
kids and adults alike will enjoy it , and it 's also nice to have a quality animated feature film from another studio besides disney .
Example Output: P

Example Input: i have no real tangible proof of this , but i swear that there are a lot of producers in hollywood who adamantly believe that if you take a bad script , written by a bad writer and give the project it to an equally bad director , then it is actually possible to make a good movie . using their logic , all that really needs be done to change the bad movie into a good movie is cast a bunch of super - famous actors and provide an almost unlimited production budget .
this is the only way i can fathom how 20th century fox hired jon amiel in order to direct this eighty million dollar waste of my time
( not counting the time it took me to get to and from the theatre ) .
now , before i continue to ferociously attack what 's wrong with this film , i just want to point out that one of the reasons it fails so miserably is because it does have the potential to be an exciting thriller .
catherine zeta - jones plays virginia baker , an insurance investigator tracking down an infamous art thief named robert macdougal ( sean connery ) .
if you 've ever seen any hollywood blockbuster before , i really do n't have to spend too much time on frivolous plot details : the two team up for various jobs , stealing various things for various purposes .
the problem we come to is that we 've all seen this a few billion times before and this film does n't break any new ground in the big - budget / hollywood / action genre .
the result is that the entire production feels contrived
.
i 'm going to be completely honest here : pretty much the only thing keeping me awake throughout the run - time was looking at catherine zeta - jones .
now while this may be a compliment for ms .
zeta - jones , it certainly is n't for either the writers or the director , who are not nearly as clever as they think they are .
just about the most profound thought they can inject into this film is when they have macdougal lecture baker on the semantic difference between " entrapment " and " blackmail " .
with an eighty million dollar budget , you 'd think that entrapment would at least feature edge - of - your seat action scenes or breathtaking special f
/ x . well , you 'd be wrong .
the action that is present in this film takes place in a huge skyscraper and is relatively unspectacular .
unfortunately for all those involved with entrapment , die hard narrowly beat it to the screen by ? 11 years .
the reality is that after 15 minutes of watching this picture , you know exactly what 's going to happen , despite rather pathetic attempts in the screenplay to throw in plot twists .
many scenes seem to exist merely as a reason to outfit zeta - jones in extremely tight - fitting clothing .
one particular scene features baker crawling around trying to avoid laser - beams while she tries to steal an ancient chinese mask .
nothing wrong with that , but she entered the room from the floor and knew exactly where the mask was -
so why did n't she and macdougal tunnel in directly under the mask instead of the other side of the room ?
i 'll tell you why : because it 's a great excuse to photograph zeta - jones ' posterior as it slides underneath those beams ( and it also allows a second scene of the exact same thing - the rehearsal ) .
ving rhames also makes an appearance in this movie , and though he has great screen presence ( although so do connery and zeta - jones ) and the most interesting character in the film , not even he can rescue this film from the depths of the boring film abyss
( a concept i invented just to describe this picture ) .
one last complaint : entrapment is littered of instances where macdougal will just slip into a shadow or behind a building , or he becomes obstructed by a moving vehicle and then in the next shot , he 'll spontaneously disappear in ninja - like fashion .
i can picture amiel patting himself on the back , thinking to himself " it 'll leave the audience wondering for days
: how did he do that ?
"
we know jon , it 's called editing .
Example Output:
N