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: for those of us who were n't yet born when the 1960 's rock ' n ' rolled around , monterey pop affords an affectionate glimpse of the music that influenced our parents to be hippies .
from otis redding to jimi hendrix , janis joplin to the mamas and the papas , and jefferson airplane to the who , this documentary is jam - packed with contagious energy .
but i give fair warning that i will reveal the ending , which does not do the rest of the film the justice it deserves .
shot in 1969 at an outdoor concert that precluded woodstock , the film defies the stereotype of the general population at the time .
sure , some have painted their faces and smoke joints , but d .
a .
pennebaker ( the war room , moon over broadway ) surprisingly chooses to show a broad spectrum of the audience .
no matter who is watching , it all comes back to the talented musicians that stir your soul .
the excitement starts before the music even begins .
a young girl is cleaning thousands of seats and when asked why by an interviewer , she replies that she feels lucky to do so .
there are moments of organized craziness as john phillips , leader of the mamas and the papas and one of the concert organizers , tries to get in touch with dionne warwick .
and when one band is tuning up , a member remarks , " finally , a decent sound system !
"
you can tell just by watching these first few moments that this show is n't about vanity , it 's about playing the music you love to those who have an appreciation for it , a two - way street .
this interaction between audience and performer continues throughout the film and becomes infectious to the audience .
it 's impossible to tear your eyes away from janis joplin as she belts out her ballad about love being a ball and chain .
and while the lyrics to " wild thing " may not be all that complicated , watching jimi hendrix mime having sex with his guitar is as captivating as otis redding singing about love .
even if you do n't recognize every band you see on stage , you can imagine being as enthralled by their work as the public sitting in those seats .
the only drawback to the film is the ending , which unfortunately i must reveal .
all the other bands , big names then and still today , got approximately 7 to 10 minutes of screen time .
in contrast , the last band on camera , a wholly forgettable one , gets an entire 18 minutes of screen time .
for a film that 's only 78 minutes long , that 's too large of a chunk , especially when previous acts are much more stimulating .
all in all , monterey pop is
a precious , rare look at a time period that still holds sway over us .
the variety of music , as well as the beautifully shot performances , are easy to become immersed in .
if there was ever any question as to why most of these bands were so popular , this is quickly dispelled .
it 's almost depressing to think that music this moving does n't get made much anymore .
instead we 're stuck with * nsync , the backstreet boys , and jennifer lopez , all of whom should have stuck with modeling .

Output: P


Input: Consider Input: many people dislike french films for their lack of closure . while possibly shallow , i 've often had a desire for a sense of epiphany , or at least a resolution , in the films which i view .
there is no revelation in un coeur en hiver in the traditional ; however , the film is incredibly successful in its passionate dramatization of a passion - denying protagonist , stephane ( daniel auteuil ) .
stephane ( daniel auteuil ) is a master violin maker .
he is passionless about all that which surrounds him except his craft and the music which his craft is responsible for producing .
even the relationship between he and his boss , maxime ( andre dussollier ) is a controlled , and almost manipulated association , highlighted by the fact that stephane permits maxime to win close squash matches .
in the beginning of the movie , stephane is a closed , solitary individual and the audience is carefully left to wonder about the depth of emotion behind this enigmatic man .
camille kessler ( emmanuelle beart ) is a master violinist and the new love of maximes .
maxime is so much in love with camille that he plans to and does leave his wife .
like stephane , camille is outwardly very controlled and reserved , sacrificing all thought and emotion to her violin and the music which emerges .
when stephane and camille meet , there is a recognition of a bonding by both individuals .
however , whereas camille submits to the wild interplay of emotions which she now feels for stephane , stephane only admits that camille is attracted to him .
stephane ignores his feelings for camille , which the audience can not help but to see is present .
as the movie progresses , the two characters become more and more polarized in their views and emotions for one another .
these two people , with very similar approaches to life initially , react to their new circumstance very differently .
stephane becomes even more rational and controlled , while camille becomes more tempestuous , until she almost borders on suffering a nervous breakdown due to the inability to consummate their relationship .
however , their approach to each other is perhaps not surprising considering their vocation .
the audience is led to believe that stephane may have been a genius as a violinist as well , due to his relationship with a master violin teacher .
however , apparently , he could not be a violinist due to his intolerance for flaws in his playing .
consequently , stephane becomes a precision craftsmen with the instrument and no longer plays .
in contrast , camille had almost given the violin , years earlier .
however , with the aid of her manager , she has progressed to being almost one of the world 's finest , successfully submerging herself to her playing .
during the course of the movie , we see both characters evolve as they struggle to meet the challenge of their new emotions .
stephane attempts to remain unchanged .
however , we do see subtle hints of his transformation .
one of the most obvious is when he defeats maxime in squash .
the development of all of the characters , many of which is not included in this synopsis , is incredible .
american movies , with rare exceptions , have not and i would daresay can not approach foreign films in character development .
in its essence , this movie is about the development and growth of the characters , camille and stephane .
the portrayal of all the other characters in the movie , including a death , is to further the development of camille 's and stepahne 's characters .
i am not sure why berardinelli says , " at times it becomes difficult to determine whether stephane should be pitied or vilified , and it is to auteuil 's credit that he manages to maintain this uncertainty .
"
this movie is not about judging stephane 's actions as being right or wrong , but about viewing their growth and accepting the characters as who they are .
i find the ending appropriate ; unfortunately , i found the last ten minutes which led up to the final scene to be very unfulfilling .
this portion of the film is where the " sense of closure " could have been successfully accomplished .
unfortunately , there is a hurried and almost a soap opera - type surge of emotions from all of the characters .
while ravel may not be quite as accomplished as schubert or mozart , ravel has his day in this film .
the synergism of the tension of ravel 's music and tension on the screen is the best i have ever seen .
the directing in this movie is wonderful .
the actors and actresses are excellent , each playing their part with great sincerity and warmth .
emmanuelle beart 's personality is beautiful .
and needless to say , i must say that emmanuelle beart , herself , is beautiful .
besides the near ending , the only other criticism of the movie which i have is that the movie is almost too cerebral .
i almost left with the sense little happened because almost all the changes which occur in the movie happen in deep in their psyches and little in their personalities or the situations which they end as part of .
the one question which i am left with is while they have accepted their lot , has their attitude towards love changed ?
i have several possibilities which i believe the movie hints at , but i am unsure of which the director is espousing .
in summary , this movie is solely about the character growth of two characters who almost develop a relationship .
in the process , we see their attitude towards life and other people .
in itself , i do not believe un coeur is a complicated movie . where it does become complicated is when we juxtapose the scenes of the movie into the greater walk of life where we , as americans , have preconceived american notions of relationship , love , and people .
i do wonder how the movie translates when viewed within its native french culture .
however , i , bringing my american preconceptions , enjoyed the film .
i would welcome any comments about this movie from any who have seen it .


Output: P