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

Ex Input:
how do you judge a film that is so bad , but intentionally so ?
in spiceworld , the highly popular singing group the spice girls accomplish their major goal : mocking themselves with a purposely cheezy film and having a lot of fun doing it .
if that was their goal , they did a fantastic job .
so is it fair to give it such a low grade when it was n't really meant to be much better than this ?
honestly , i 'd rather see this film before many others i gave higher grades ,
so does that mean i graded it inaccurately ?
truth be known , i do n't really think i can answer this question .
to understand spiceworld , you have to understand the spice girls .
unless you 're very
* very * young , or fairly older , you probably have at least heard of them .
they 're a group of five busty british babes who 've had # 1 hit singles and whose debut album sold millions .
they 're primarily adored by pre - teen girls who hope someday the contents of their training bras might match those of ginger spice 's ( real name : geri haliwell ) wonderbra .
all five of the girls have these " spicy " names for which they are better known than their real names .
there is the aforementioned ginger spice , as well as sporty spice ( melanie chisholm , or mel c . ) , scary spice ( melanie brown , or mel b . ) , baby spice ( emma bunton ) , and posh spice ( victoria addams ) , and
all of them , to some degree or another , resemble their stage names .
the spice girls took the world by storm , and spiceworld is actually a good- humored spoof of all that transpired during their quick rise to fame .
it 's quite nice to see what good sports the girls are ( and not just the one dubbed sporty ) about poking fun at themselves .
they do n't take themselves too seriously , and that 's probably the best thing about them .
it 's also surprising how natural they seem in front of the camera * acting * , and not just singing and dancing .
they 're not flawless by any means , but for the most part , they deliver their lines without feeling staged , and , like them or not , we get the sense the five are very at home within their characters ( which seems reasonable since they portray themselves ) .
what makes the film bad is that extreme fans of the spice girls wo n't get enough of their music , while the rest of us do n't get enough of a movie .
the real point of this is to look at the spice girls for over ninety straight minutes .
most of the film is very blas ? , but several parts are downright boring , and then they have those sporadic moments that actually make us laugh out loud !
if you 're a big fan of the group , you probably wo n't get enough of what you want , and if you 're not a big fan , you get too much time devoted to nothing more than " look at us " moments .
for the right crowd , the " music video " sequences will be the highlights of the film , but for others , they will serve as three - minute lulls in a hectic - but - overall - uneventful storyline .
other key actors include richard e . grant as clifford , the spice girls ' manager , alan cumming as the film - maker piers cutherton - smyth who attempts to make a documentary of the group , george wendt as martin barnfield , a producer who constantly works on pitching a spice girls movie , and roger moore in a small , self - parodizing role .
all provide relatively good performances , keeping in mind once again that this film was n't meant to be acted seriously .
even meat loaf shows up as dennis the bus driver and seems to have fun with it .
while this film is continuously compared to the beatles ' a hard day 's night , i think that is an unjust comparison .
it is supposedly the movie studio that first mad the comparison by way of press kits , but i do n't think drector bob spiers , nor the spice girls , intended it to be so .
i think the studios were just trying to boost hype and interest in the film , and have instead , come off rather pretentious
.
i do n't think this film is trying to be anything more than a fun , satirical look at a group that got so big , a movie seemed the next likely step .
and what could 've been better than a self - indulged yet self- mocking approach ?
probably nothing , and so it is .
spiceworld is a movie i thought would be embarrassing to enjoy , but now instead , i find myself wanting to defend a movie i did n't even give a good review .
it 's bad , but it succeeds in every way it intended .
it gives the spice girls a chance to play while allowing all those obsessive fans out there to indulge in every brainless moment .
perhaps the group is nothing more than a gimmick .
if that 's the case , the movie 's gimmick is that it * is * such a gimmick !
you might be saying , " a spice girls movie ? come on ! "
,
but when it comes down to it , i think that 's the point .

Ex Output:
N


Ex Input:
ingredients :
neophyte lawyer , legal situations , corrupt insurance company , synopsis : rudy baylor ( matt damon ) is an ethical kid fresh out of law school who must juggle three legal situations at the same time .
rudy 's girlfriend is attacked by her violent husband ; rudy 's elderly landlady wants to arrange her will so that her children are excluded , and ; the family of rudy 's friend with leukemia is suing the corrupt insurance company that would n't pay for a bone marrow transplant .
rudy is new to being a lawyer and is thoroughly outgunned , but luckily he is aided by a sleazy ambulance chaser ( danny devito ) who has failed the bar exam six times as well as by the kindly presiding judge ( danny glover ) .
jon voight plays leo
f .
drummond , the intimidating and arrogant leader of the all - powerful insurance company 's team of lawyers who will do anything to oppose justice .
will rudy defeat leo ?
will he enjoy being a lawyer ?
opinion :
the good news is that this movie has a happy ending , and it features a guy trying to do the right thing .
director francis ford coppola does this film a little differently than the stereotypical law movie .
in the typical lawyer movie there 's one big case and the movie focuses on solving it , and somewhere along the line surprise witnesses and motives turn up before the good guy wins ( after lots of gripping courtroom drama ) .
however , coppola 's movie is deliberately more low key . ' the rainmaker ' plays out like a personality sketch of young rudy as he gets emotionally involved with and tries to save various little quirky side characters .
in the background rudy 's voice narrates his feelings and makes half - cynical jokes about the legal profession in general .
two factors combine to make this movie less heavy than it can be .
first , rudy 's time is split juggling three cases , rather than concentrating on a single high - stakes case .
also , rudy 's use of voice narration in place of acting makes the film lose some of its dramatic edge .
the end result is an entertaining low key law movie where the good guys win , and rudy narrates his way into coming of age .

Ex Output:
P


Ex Input:
" snake eyes " is the most aggravating kind of movie : the kind that shows so much potential then becomes unbelievably disappointing .
it 's not just because this is a brian depalma film , and since he 's a great director and one who 's films are always greeted with at least some fanfare .
and it 's not
even because this was a film starring nicolas cage and since he gives a brauvara performance , this film is hardly worth his talents .
it 's worse than that .
it 's aggravating for the sole reason that its story could be so much more , could be totally intelligent , and it opens up with absolutely no subtlety that it will be handled complexly and intensely . .
.
then at one point in the movie makes on wrong turn that leads it to the hall of fame of half - assedness . or more deservedly ,
the hall of fame of the eighth - assedness .
in certain circles , " snake eyes " was being advertised as a kind of modern day version of kurosawa 's classic " rashomon , " where a crime is told from the four different ( and i mean different ) perspectives , and it looks as though it may actually be just like this with the opening , which , i might add , is superb .
in one very very very long steadicam shot , we meet the protagonist , crooked atlantic city detective , rick santoro ( cage ) , and follow him before a boxing match as he talks on his cell phone with his wife , interupts a pay - per - view event on tv , chases down a gambler , enters the arena all pumped up for the fight , sits down and talks with his bud , kevin dunne ( gary sinise , who 's character should not be confused with that of actor kevin dunn , who 's also in this ) , and watches as it happens .
there 's a big name in the crowd , and that 's the secretary of defense , charles kirkland ( joel fabiani ) , who 's sitting behind rick , and who gets shot a second after the heavyweight champion , lincoln tyler ( stan shaw ) , is knocked out .
this all happens in the opening shot , and it creates so many red herrings and possibilities of what happened that it opens this scene up for close examination and total deconstruction .
what really happened , this film asks , and it sets this film up extremely well for when rick begins to question people and get different perspectives on the scene . . .
and discovers
there 's a very good possibility it was a conspiracy .
as we follow rick trying to learn of more information , we also meet a woman who was talking to kirkland before he was shot ( carla gugino ) , and who flees the scene in a panic , and tries to hide from the cops in the arena and the adjacent casino / hotel since the cops have blocked off the doors so they can get witness ' takes on what happened .
this is all going pretty fine and dandy , and it 's extremely interesting to watch . .
.
then it takes one wrong step .
we follow the wrong character , and we learn of the answer to the mystery too early on , and way before rick can find it out .
but that 's not the worst part of it
: it 's that it 's the one person you did n't think it would be because he was too obviously supposed to be the red herring , the one you did n't think did it because it would be stupid and cliched of that person to be behind it .
it only gets worse : the film turns into a chase film about half way through the film , and since we already know what happened , we ca n't rely on rick 's investigation to be all that interesting .
it 's as if the film ran out of the guts to be really complex and original about a third of the way in , and decided to just fall back on an easy way out , and that just happens to mean that it has to become less and less credible
.
events become more and more proposterous , and by the end , the film has decided to rely on the worst offender in mysteries like this : the deux ex machina .
that 's where some outside intereference brings the film to a sudden conclusion and makes everything okay .
this time , it 's a hurricane , an out - of - control police car , and a big round ball that adorned the arena .
what went wrong ?
depalma and the screenwriter , david koepp , are extremely credible people in their respective fields , and have been known for bringing life and complexity to mysteries such as this .
depalma , who idolizes hitchcock to death , has done many a film like this , such as his masterpiece , " blow out , " where a movie soundman uses movie elements to uncover a conspiracy piece by piece .
but granted , depalma at least makes it intriguing to watch , what with his over - the - top shot set - ups , notably the beginning and a sequence where the camera pans over top of a bunch of rooms in the hotel , forgetting anything about boundaries .
at least his direction makes up partly for it .
then there 's koepp , who showed such great ability at making a character 's flaws come to life like he did in depalma 's earlier " carlito 's way , " a film that dove right into the life and past of its character and examined him extremely well .
he can write a flawed character , but his rick santoro seems to be just a half - assed effort .
he 's flawed , and we can see redemption if the story was n't so formulaic .
a scene towards the end where he has to make a fatal decision is cheapened by the fact that his answer has no emotional buildup .
he may as well have said the opposite of what he says ; it would have at least gone with what the character was like .
this is the most disappointing kind of film because it promises intelligence and complexity , because it promises disection of a flawed character and perhaps even redemption , then pulls the rug from under us just as we were about to be convinced it would be able to go all the way .
as i was watching the first half hour , i could n't wait to see how the mystery would be unearthed , how many different perspectives he 'd be given , and perhaps he 'd have to make a choice between who 's he has to believe .
now there 's a film .
unfortunately , the film has two major deux ex machinas : one in the disasterous ending ; the other , about a half hour in when the film goes into autopilot and becomes a stale and recycled piece of crap
we 've seen all too much before , but never from someone like depalma .

Ex Output:

N