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

Example Input: synopsis : al simmons , top - notch assasin with a guilty conscience , dies in a fiery explosion and goes to hell .
making a pact with malebolgia , a chief demon there , simmons returns to earth 5 years later reborn as spawn , a general in hell 's army donning a necroplasmic costume replete with knives , chains , and a morphing cape .
sullen , wise cogliostro and flatulating , wisecracking violator vy for spawn 's attention .
comments : when todd mcfarlane left marvel comics ( where he had made a name for himself as a first - rate comic book penciller on the " spider - man " titles ) to join the newly - formed , creator - owned image comics , a new comic book legend was born : spawn .
mcfarlane 's " spawn " immediately became a commercial and critical success and a defining comic book series of the 1990s .
mcfarlane created a hero who was not only original but visually intricate , allowing mcfarlane to utilize his knack for artistic detail to the max .
the early " spawn " issues brilliantly capture mcfarlane 's genius at illustration and show his early attempts at writing .
with the popularity of " spawn " and the success of the current warner bros . 's batman film franchise , a movie version of some sort seemed inevitable for spawn .
in the summer of 1997 , hence , new line cinema released spawn , a live - action film based on the groundbreaking series .
this topheavy exercise in violence and special effects
unfortunately topples quickly and leaves fans of the comic book , like me , numbed by how much spawn misses the mark .
what happened ?
why is spawn so bad ?
todd mcfarlane himself
executive produced this disappointing misfire and even appears in a cameo .
i do n't think , however , that his presence necessarily hurt ( or helped )
the film .
i place the blame , in part , on the recent hollywood trend , fueled by public demand apparently , for special effects blow - out movies utilizing the latest computer technology .
these films focus upon the effects at the expense of everything else : character , plot , dialogue , etc .
spawn , reflecting this trend , shows the audience one gratuitous scene after another populated with morphing characters and filled with unnecessary pyrotechnics .
hardly a minute goes by in this film without fires , explosions , knives and chains appearing out of nowhere , glowing eyes , or constantly transforming demons .
a lot of it is visually interesting and technically solid , do n't get me wrong , but , because the script and cast are n't engaging , spawn ultimately comes across like overwrought wallpaper ( the surface may capture the eye , but nothing exists underneath ) .
spawn 's translation of the comic book suffers the most at the storyline level .
mcfarlane 's spawn was a tortured hero .
a mercenary by trade , al simmons was nonetheless a warm man in love with the beautiful wanda .
having died and journeyed to hell , he made a pact to return to earth to be with wanda .
simmons , however , discovers that his memories are fragmented , his body a creepy mess , and his wife married .
despite his sometimes violent nature , readers could n't help but feel sympathetic toward his plight as the spawn of the underworld .
spawn attempts to show all of this but does not spend nearly the time it should to do so .
when the characters are developed , they seem absurd rather than touching .
the cartoonish dialogue and implausible subplot
( a general possesses the antidote to a supervirus called heat-16 which he wishes to unleash to enslave the world ) do not help matters .
spawn , in an apparent attempt to duplicate the success of batman , also unwisely spends too much time on a villain , the violator ( batman favored the joker over batman ) .
john leguizamo , like jack nicholson in batman , receives top billing in the cast as the violator ; michael jai white ( al simmons / spawn ) is second .
i ordinarily find leguizamo an intensely annoying presence in films which seems to make him a perfect candidate for the violator .
the film , however , spends so much time on the violator 's offensive antics that they grate on the nerves .
apparently meant to be the comic relief in the film ( as nicholson was in batman ) , especially when contrasted with the sullen spawn , the violator 's lines are oftentimes grotesque and unfunny , leaving the audience wishing he would leave .
leguizamo does a satisfactory job in the role , but he is seen far too often in the film .
michael jai white , a relative newcomer to theatrical releases , seems to be an appealing actor , and he handles his role adequately , but we see little of him without various masks on .
more time needed to be spent on white 's character before he became spawn for the movie to pull at the heartstrings .
a special note should be made about martin sheen as the over - the - top , obnoxious , evil general wynn .
easily the hammiest performance in the movie , it 's hard to imagine how sheen mucked up his role so much ; after all , he played a vietnam assasin brilliantly in the great apocalypse now .
sheen 's excessive demeanor do not help the audience accept him as a mastermind villain and comes as a surprise considering his extensive career in film .
many other elements conspire with the disappointing script and abundant special effects to drag spawn down
.
mtv - style , jerky , in - your - face editing is one of them .
flames , for example , roll across the screen sometimes to announce a shift in setting .
cogliostro , unlikely wannabe guide for spawn , serves as a poor narrator for the film .
he goofily tells the audience , at one point , that " how much of [ spawn 's ] humanity is left remains to be seen , " as if the audience really cares as one violent sequence leads to another .
the music , finally , assaults the audience as much as the manic violence and offensive dialogue .
loud and obnoxious hard rock fused with drum loops dominate some scenes .
to be fair , however , marilyn manson 's " long hard road out of hell
" effectively compliments spawn 's return to earth , while filter and the crystal method 's
" ( ca n't you ) trip like i do " proves a surprisingly fitting theme song .
for as good a comic book as it is , " spawn " did not spawn a good movie .
spawn , instead , suffers from too much pomp and circumstance , and too little plot and character development
.
it receives two stars for its technically well - done special effects .
many other films , though , have equal , if not superior , special effects and are much better .
rated pg-13 , spawn seems more violent than many r - rated movies and probably would n't be appropriate for the very young .
Example Output: N

Example Input: aspiring broadway composer robert ( aaron williams ) secretly carries a torch for his best friend , struggling actor marc ( michael shawn lucas ) .
the problem is , marc only has eyes for " perfect 10s , " which the geeky , insecure robert certainly is not .
meanwhile , marc 's spoiled ( hetero ) female roommate , cynthia ( mara hobel ) , spends her days lying about their apartment and harrassing magazine editor tina brown .
writer - director victor mignatti 's " very romantic comedy " ( as the ad campaign states ) is supposed to be ( pardon the pun ) a gay ol' romp , but
it 's hard to have much fun with these annoying , self - absorbed characters and their shallow personal problems : marc and cynthia have sitcom - level domestic " crises " ( such as trying to kill bugs -- how hilarious ) ; robert and marc go to acting class ( how riveting ) ; the zaftig cynthia goes on eating binges
( how original ) .
but more than anything else , the three whine .
constantly .
marc whines about his turbulent romance with an apparent " 10 , " david ( hugh panaro ) ,
the hunky musician from across the way ; robert whines about not being able to find the right guy ; cynthia whines about having to find a job ( horrors ) .
the terrible trio whine their way to a happy ending that is wholly undeserved
. add in overly broad performances and some laughable lipsynching by panaro , and you 're left with one astonishing piece of cinematic damage .
Example Output: N

Example Input: as forgetful as some people may be it is doubtful that anyone could forget their wedding , especially three times .
but , alas professor brainard somehow manages to accomplish this feat twice before the momentous night that he actually creates flubber .
it 's amazing that he is able to remember any of the processes he uses to make anything .
the whole point here is how could a man be so blatantly forgetful .
this is not absent minded this is almost mindless and he is a professor .
well , this is the case for about the first half of the movie then things begin to settle into what might truly be considered absent minded .
along the way to becoming absent minded from absent of mind the professor stumbles onto flubber .
thankfully or there would be no movie or any amusement for the audience .
the flubber is supposed to be flying rubber , but it seems to have a life of its own .
this is there strictly for the kids .
the properties of the flubber provide some antics for the audience when flubber coated golfballs and bowling balls
assail
two would be thugs .
although amusing this is not original what so ever and brings back haunting memories of home alone .
the poor professor has to save the university where he teaches at , get his fiancee back , finally stop the plotting of an evil millionaire , and do all this in the funniest way possible .
admittedly there are funny moments but
the movie is rather shallow and does not compare very well to the original ( the absent minded professor ) .
the whole scene with the basketball game was just atrocious and totally unbelievable .
the basketball players , stereotypically unqualified for the sport , somehow manage to bounce , fly and dribble their way back to being close to winning ?
this just sounds too bad to be true , the least that could have been done was keep semi close to the original movie to give this film a chance .
as for innovations and new ideas there is but two good ones in this movie .
giving life to the flubber , which is so poorly executed that it 's best forgotten , and prof .
brainard 's flying robot weebo .
giving life to the flubber would have worked beautifully if it was n't for scenes of the sort where you have the flubber dancing around on tables and books for no real reason other than to put in a bit of music and extend the length of the movie .
the life of the flubber had brief and rather whimsical moments where it might have been used well , but it was n't and in the end might have done the movie more harm than good .
now , weebo is a totally different story .
it 's a robot that prof .
brainard created but forgot how and gave something of a life too .
this is a really original idea , well maybe not , but it is an idea that is well executed and in the end makes the poor robot the most developed and real character in the movie .
yes folks the little yellow robot has more emotion and character than the characters .
the film lacks the emotional punch to pull the audience in at all .
the acting by robin williams ( prof .
brainard ) seems to be half hearted for most of the movie and in many cases quite forced .
most of the acting in the movie was so convincing as to fool only the part of the audience that had not quite yet reached the age to 12 .
people when stood up at the altar , do n't usually give third chances .
or for that matter talk to the fiancee afterwards , but what can be expected this is a children 's movie .
flubber , as a movie
does little original and is nothing special in any respect .
with the best character in the movie being something of a prop
i doubt that many people will find it all that great .
it does have its amusing moments and it is a good story in the end , but it does not wash up to the original .
kids should find this movie amusing and fun
and they 'll probably enjoy the whole movie .
as a movie it 's just a kids movie and not the best of ones at that .
Example Output:
N