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

Ex Input:
i 'm not really sure what to think about " crash .
" on the surface , it 's a cold , boring , unerotic porn with name starts , a name director , and some cool camerawork .
i mean , it left me completely bored , unsatisfied , and generally kinda weirded out .
but then again , not every film 's supposed to leave you
entertained .
" crash " is structured to play like a porn flick , but with significantly more plot and dialogue .
while we see several extremely taboo scenes of weirdo sex , we also have a skimpy little plot going on ( mostly towards the beginning ) , and maybe just a hair of characterization .
not to mention the acting is generally pretty good , and we do n't really see a lot of the actors completely exposed .
but what makes it supremely different from a porn is the fact that this is not an erotic experience .
this film does not posess the erotic hypnotism of " henry and june " or the just plain horniness of , say , " deep throat " ( not that i 've seen it ) .
if one was to be made completely hot by this film , it would probably mean they were also into the whole " auto eroticism " thing .
the film leaves you cold erotically ( and maybe in many other ways ) , but what it does is present a group of people who live on the edge .
the film opens up on a woman , catherine ( deborah kara ungar , of " the game " ) , pressing her bare breast up against a car in a public air hangar .
suddenly , a man enters the frame and begins to take her from behind ( the film does nt ' show all this though , even if it is nc-17 ) .
the next scene has a film director , james ( james spader ) , having sex with a camera woman ( alice poon ) in an office on the highly - populated set of his movie .
the next scene has the two coming together , revealing to us that they 're husband and wife , and them sharing in one another 's escapades .
while the two are arguably freaky people , we at least know they love to live on the edge .
soon afterwards , james is driving down the road at night , reclessly of course
( he 's reading something ) , when he drifts into the other lane , and then hits another car face on .
james is not killed , but the passenger in the other car flies into his seat ( obviously dying ) , leaving the driver , helen remington ( holly hunter - in a porn ? ) , also alive .
the two go through therapy together , and when getting out , they run into eachother again .
when james gives her a ride home , they almost get into another accident , and immeadiately afterwards , they go to an unbusy parking lot , and have a little quickie , as they were aroused by the accident .
you would n't think there would be many people who shared this same kind of fetish , but they run into a freaky guy named vaughan ( elias kosteas ) and his crutch - carrying girlfriend , gabrielle ( rosanna arquette ) , who are also into it .
vaughan is into living on the edge as they are , but he takes it to another level : he loves to recreate famous car crashes .
in one scene , he and a friend , colin seagrave ( peter macneill ) recreate james dean 's car crash without any padding or safety belts , and suffer some concussions , but nevertheless get a rush ( and the attention of the police ) .
soon , these five are all having sex with one another , be it straight , gay , or lesbian sex .
while this is admittingly all a bit comical ( the film is almost like a black comedy ) , the film does do a pretty awesome portrayal of people who 's main fetish is living on the edge .
i 'm sure somewhere there are people who get aroused by car accidents , but i personally do n't see a connection between car crashes and sex .
the main connection cronenberg shows us that both give a definite rush .
his car crash scenes are quick and exciting mini - masterpieces
: we 're at first not sure if they 'll take place , but everytime it looks like it may occur , we gasp .
then when it happens , we hold our breath .
the same thing happens with sex , although not in the same fashion .
these people are merely taking it to another level .
the only problem with the film is that it 's a tad redundant .
a normal porn lasts from an hour to an hour and a half .
this goes on for about 100 minutes , and it just seems a little too long .
the sex and car crashes are far between one another , and the time between them are a tad on the boring side .
there 's no characterization , although it could definitely be argued , that hey , it 's a porn , and we 're not here to sympathize .
but still , they coulda cut it down a bit .
but the film is saved with its presentation , as well as some other elements .
the atmosphere is very dark and forboding , creating a kind of cool weird feeling .
and there are several scenes
are just amazing .
one scene has catherine and james having sex , while she softly asks him questions about being with a man , which sounds almost erotic the way she says it .
a sequence involving one character 's death is filled with all the edgy disjointment that the film needs .
and the final shot is shot perfectly , creating an image of a car crash , and a couple having sex in front of it , despite the fact that she 's wounded .
the acting is also pretty good , especially for what is almost a porn ( ousting linda lovelace as best actress in a porn ) . while james spader is pretty boring ( he 's usually pretty intense ) , deborah kara ungar is amazing .
she speaks all her words in almost zombie - like hushes , and when she 's having sex , she has a blank look on her face , not showing the viewer whether she 's enjoying it or not .
in one scene , she actually looks dead while someone is having sex with her .
holly hunter , who gets extra credit just for appearing in something like this , is pretty good , and so is rosanna arquette ( who adds a kinda cool kinkiness to her role ) .
but the film is stolen by elias kosteas who plays his character so intensely that he almost upstages everyone .
he often speaks as he is out of breath , showing a definite affinity for his way of life .
he has a great deal of energy in several scenes , especially one scene where he 's taking photographs of a picture , and a later scene where he 's getting a freaky tatoo .
he and spader share sexual chemistry in several scenes , foreshadowing a later scene .
kosteas is a little known actor ( his biggest role was casey jones in " teenage mutant ninja turtles " ) , but here
he shows a deniro - like presence , hinting that he 's capable of bigger roles .
while i hardly enjoyed " crash , " it 's still a pretty intriguing portrayal of a group of people who , if the exist , are some of the strangest and most bizarre people in the world .
these people are able to share a rush between two completely different entities , and the film , which does n't exactly pain them in a negative light , is sucessful in bringing them to light , even if it leaves the viewer unnerved and generally freaked out .
despite the hardcore nature of the film and the subsequent nc-17 rating ( there 's also an r - rated version , but i would n't even go near that thing ) , anyone looking for a quick turn - on should just rent a regular porno .

Ex Output:
P


Ex Input:
as i write the review for the new hanks / ryan romantic comedy you 've got mail , i am acutely aware that i am typing it on a computer and sending it a billion miles away on the internet .
i am also aware that i have just spent the last 2 hours watching the world 's biggest paid commercial for america online .
and i wonder : is that so bad ?
well , the commercial part is .
as for the movie , well , as long as i can watch tom hanks and meg ryan , i think i 'll be okay .
to paraphrase james berardinelli , whose reviews i admire very much , tom hanks and meg ryan can act .
they are both wonderful , but for all of hanks ' glorious work in serious films , such as his magnificent performance in saving private ryan , and his glorious triumph in philadelphia , i like him best when he 's suitably obnoxious .
tom hanks is wonderful
when he is obnoxious in a romantic comedy when he 's going to get the girl : the only question is how ?
meg ryan , america 's high school sweetheart , can act .
she 's had a handful of memorable performances , including the great scene in the diner in when harry met sally ( i must not mention what she does , due to the , well , um , you get the idea , and if you do n't , get the movie-- fantastic ) .
but , i like her best when she 's , well , perky .
she is so adorably perky / cute that together with hanks , they are the most amazing onscreen duo in my short lifetime .
some people have them going back to really old classic romantic couples , but i do n't really know .
all i know is that i just like them both .
they have such wonderfully kinetic chemistry that 's really hard to resist , and i 'm not going to even try .
they 're just really , really cute , sweet , and charming .
hanks and ryan collaborate once again with nora ephron , who directed them in the megahit sleepless in seattle .
here , the setup is a little different .
kathleen kelly ( ryan ) owns a small children 's bookstore which her mother founded 42 years ago and passed down to her .
she is successful , beautiful , and dates a well - known columnist with very radical idea ( kinnear ) .
she is also having an affair , of sorts .
you see , kathleen , with the handle shopgirl , is secretly emailing ny152 .
they have a strictly un - detailed relationship : there are no specifics , and they have no idea who each other is .
ny152 happens to be joe fox ( hanks ) , a multimillionaire bookseller who is the heir to the fortune of the fox chain of mega - bookstores , run by his father ( coleman ) .
fox books has decided to open a store on the west side , right across from a little children 's bookseller named " shop around the corner " , run by a perky girl named kathleen kelly .
every morning , these two email each other silly , and every day , they fight " to the death ! ! " .
it 's a charming premise , and one that works nicely , balancing the immense troubles kathleen is in with the romance she wants to have .
it also has the great sense of being a classic romance : there is
no " let 's have sex tonight " mantra , if you 'll excuse my bluntness .
this is a solid romance built around that vague concept of love .
hmm .
well , the movie goes through twists and turns , having some sad moments and happy ones , until at one moment tom hanks and meg ryan " hook up " , to use modern terminology , and kiss their way into happiness .
you know it 's going to happen , the question is now ?
thankfully , ephron has a wonderful supporting cast with posey , kinnear , chappelle , and a host of others , including a great scene involving brothers , aunts , and two sweet kids .
it 's all cute and wonderful , and for all of the idealism , it makes me feel good .
hanks is as obnoxious as ever on the outside and as warm on the inside as he always is .
he is , i believe , america 's greatest actor .
does he show it here ?
nah .
but he 's still tom hanks , and she 's still meg ryan .
which is what this movie boils down to .
it 's pure confection .
all the bits about the godfather , the jokes , the superb script
, it 's all really sweet .
there are some immense flaws , like pacing .
the last third of the movie really does n't work as well as i would have liked , and for a romantic comedy , it 's slow .
once hanks knows the secret , it gets really slow .
i even looked at my watch a couple times , to make sure ephron was going to deliver the big onscreen kiss i was waiting for , so that i could get home at a reasonable hour .
the other problem is that this movie is shaping up to be really dated .
e - mail ?
when my kids are my age , i do n't know what we 'll be using .
but hanks can do more with one eyeroll than anybody , and meg ryan just loves to dive into a pillow better than anyone in movie history .
they just work together , and it 's nice to see .
it gives you , well , a smile .
the script helps with some great lines that are absolutely hilarious , and that always come at the exact right time to keep the audience awake .
i was arguing with my father on the drive back home on what the purpose of movies was .
i 've always believed that movies are very powerful , very powerful indeed .
you see , mankind has three abilities he needs to survive : the ability to think , entertain , and procreate .
movies can definitely do the first two , and as for the third , well , i 'd rather not think about that .
i always thought films that made you think enlightened you and made you see something from another viewpoint , and that films that entertained you were good , because you forgot about your troubles and thought about something nice for a night .
and i was thinking about how incredible a year tom hanks has had .
hanks was the driving force behind one of the year 's best films in saving private ryan , which is one of those thinking films that truly made someone wonder about the world .
he 's also half of the glue behind the year 's best example of pure entertainment .
tom hanks and meg ryan are magical , as is this movie .
it 's a sweet , lovely affair with a technology twist .
it may be a long commercial , but it gave me a pretty big smile on my face .

Ex Output:
P


Ex Input:
in ` enemy at the gates ' , jude law is a gifted russian sniper made hero by a political officer named danilov ( joseph fiennes ) who uses him in a propaganda newspaper to raise the hopes of the soldiers and people of stalingrad .
it 's world war ii , and the russian - german standoff in town could determine the outcome of things for the motherland .
law 's vassili is the russian 's top pawn to victory .
lots of war stuff happens .
an older , german version of jude 's character played by ed harris shows up halfway into the proceedings .
he 's equally talented , and the two men play a cat and mouse game trying to kill each other .
they constantly switch roles , as the war fades far into the background .
the cast also includes the terrific rachel weisz as a love interest for both vassili and danilov the set - up is decent , and so are the production values . boasting a wide range of grimy locales , greasy hair , and tattered costumes , the art direction prospers .
the actors , however , suffer the problem matt damon had in ` saving private ryan ' .
either their eyes , teeth , skin , or a combination of other features looked too white and clean .
with dirt and blood all around , the blinding teeth or bright eyes of these actors divert attention from the action .
that said ,
the players are mostly good in their roles , although i do n't think ed harris was really trying .
maybe he realized his role struck a difficult chord in one - notedom .
while the film is technically about snipers , there are far too many predictable sniping scenes .
director jean - jacques annaud expects us to view each tense situation with jude and some cohort in a tight spot as edgy and exciting , but after about the sixth time , in which we realize that jude is not going to die , it 's relatively pointless .
we get that he 's talented , okay , let 's move on .
that 's the problem with ` enemy at the gates ' ; it just does n't know when to stop .
witness the wasted seventeen minutes that could have been spent elsewhere . reestablishing his title as the most beautiful ( and often talented ) man on film , jude law carries the movie .
without him , this costly production would have gone into the ground .
the story and acting are of good quality , but there 's never a sense of authenticity or reality .
something about this war movie is undeniably modern , and it loses its feeling .
strange enough , the screenplay is based on the true story of a real russian sniper .

Ex Output:

P