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

Example Input: absolute power , the new film produced and directed by clint eastwood , attempts to be a thriller set in the world of hypocritical presidents and their murderous political staff .
it is about as thrilling as a lecture on the mating habits of the south american grasshopper .
one can only wonder how an utterly absurd script like the one written by william goldman could have ever interested eastwood .
not only is the plot unbelievable and contrived , but even the writing itself lacks any consistency or intelligence .
continually underestimating the audience , the film gives us information we already know or do nt even need .
details essential to the story are so improbably convenient they are annoying
( like why would two unprepared secret service men carry two night - vision goggles in their car ? ) .
oddly enough , the initial setup for absolute power offers interesting possibilities .
a masterful jewel - thief ( played by clint eastwood ) witnesses the murder of the wife of a powerful millionaire ( played by e. g. marshall ) .
while robbing one of marshalls mansions , he is forced to hide in the bedrooms vault .
there , through a two - way mirror , he sees the wife and another man engage in passionate foreplay .
their game of love quickly turns into a violent struggle as the man starts beating the woman . in self defense , the woman grabs a letter - opener and stabs the man in the elbow .
she raises her arm to stab again when she is fatally shot by two secret service men .
the man ?
he is the president of the united states of america .
where does the film go wrong ?
it can not be the acting .
clint eastwood , ed harris and gene hackman as the president give type - cast , but decent performances .
the cinematography is sufficient ; wild and erratic during action sequences , dark and mysterious during psychologically suspenseful scenes , and calm and warm during dramatic dialogue .
even the music is not as bombastic as it usually tends to be in the thriller / suspense genre .
the fault clearly lies in the screenplay , and the screenplay alone .
while setting up a story about misuse of power , about the true possessors of that power , and about intrigue and double - crossing , it does not resolve it .
not one buildup of suspense is resolved by an exciting climax . rather , the tense situations are left dangling at the end , giving the viewer an uneasy sense of incompleteness .
an example of this is a very promising and tense buildup of a scene : in an attempt to arrest clint eastwood , the police have set up a trap at a small restaurant .
police officers are everywhere , incognito of course .
at the same time , not one but two hit men are preparing to kill clint eastwood when he arrives .
all three parties are unaware of each others presence .
this scene is tremendously exciting and the audience is wondering how clint eastwood , who might suspect this is a trap , will get himself out of this difficult position .
he will probably have a brilliant plan , involving ingenious preparations .
however , when he arrives at the trap , both hit men miss ( how convenient )
and in the confusion eastwood simply walks away .
the buildup of this scene took about ten minutes .
ten minutes of close ups of the hit men loading their weapons intercut with the police preparing for the trap .
the scene was resolved in less than 20 seconds .
.. parallel to the story line of catching the real killer is a cliche emotional tale about the estranged relationship between father eastwood and his daughter .
the daughter blames her father for never being there for her , because he was either in jail or robbing a house somewhere .
of course their relationship takes a turn for the better during the adventure and they end up a happy family .
again , it is commendable that absolute power tries to deviate from the mainstream suspense film by giving room for a dramatic subplot . however , trying is simply not enough !
the second story line should be subtle , original and preferably unpredictable .
.. everything this film is not .
how could a screenplay like absolute power ever get the funding to be produced ?
how could eastwood , who has successfully produced and directed many outstanding films such as the brilliant unforgiven , ever believe in a project like this one ?
i am sad to say that my respect for the actor / director / producer has diminished substantially due to this film .
director quentin tarantino once said : " i can make a good movie out of any bad script .
" director clint eastwood obviously can not .
Example Output: N

Example Input: jerry springer has got nothing on " wild things .
"
john mcnaughton 's new thriller tackles more tawdry themes in less than two hours than springer 's notoriously sleazy talk show broadcasts in two weeks -- bisexuality
, threesomes , poolside catfights , slutty rich bimbos , even redneck gator - wrestling , they 're all part of the movie 's raucous , complex storyline .
but even trash
tv topicality ca n't drag " wild things " down -- this crazy campfest
plays like something you 'd find late - night on the usa network , only infinitely more palatable and with a solid ensemble cast .
despite a smattering of needless scenes ( most of them sexual in nature ) , there 's wicked fun to be had here .
" wild things " would be a guilty pleasure , only there 's no guilty feeling involved in having a good time with it .
high school guidance counselor sam lombardo ( matt dillon ) is well - liked in the town of blue bay , especially by pretty , popular kelly van ryan ( denise richards ) , whose family name is among the florida yachting enclave 's most financially prominent .
hoping to take her crush to a physical level , kelly seductively slinks into lombardo 's house after washing his jeep for a fundraiser , but , the very next day , tearfully admits to her trollop mother ( theresa russell ) that she was raped .
before long , blue bay detectives ray duquette ( kevin bacon ) and gloria perez ( daphne rubin - vega ) are listening to similar allegations from kelly 's rebel classmate suzie toller ( neve campbell ) .
lombardo , who maintains his innocence , hires neck brace - sporting , opportunistic lawyer ken
bowden ( bill murray ) to defend him in court .
the previews give away the following revelations , so if you have n't seen any of the movie 's spots on the television or in the theater , you might want to skip to the next paragraph .
while cross - examining suzie on the witness stand , bowden gets her to break down and admit that the alleged rapes never took place -- that kelly had concocted this entire scheme because she was angry that lombardo was sleeping with her mother and not with her .
to pay lombardo for the damages , kelly 's mother breaks her daughter 's trust fund and gives him $ 8 . 5 million .
but lombardo , kelly and suzie are actually all working together , and plan to take the money and run as fast as they can .
duquette and perez , however , begin to suspect that there 's more afoot to the case than just false accusations .
if there 's a major drawback to " wild things , " it 's that it 's oversexed to a fault .
the much - talked - about hotel room menage - a - trois between dillon , campbell and richards is a turn - off .
it 's also cut short ( sorry , guys ) , and should have been cut shorter -- the movie grinds to a halt for pure titillation once too often .
what we do n't see is far more effective than what we do .
another example of this is kevin bacon needlessly going the full monty in a shower scene .
er , no thanks .
also , bacon 's duquette feels simultaneously underdeveloped and overwritten .
daphne rubin - vega , from broadway 's " rent , " tries to compensate for a superfluous character .
theresa russell is just plain wooden .
and when , in the end , all is out in the open , ask yourself if certain scenes involving these three were really necessary .
but what keeps the movie from being
throwaway junk is an engaging chain of surprises
( some predictable , some not ) that never seems to end .
" wild things " has more twists than a crate full of corkscrews , and most are so gleefully , over - the - top nasty that you ca n't help but be charmed by their absurd showmanship .
a great deal of amusement also comes from watching bill murray in a supporting part that appears to have been written for his sly comedic talent ;
murray 's a stitch , especially when pulling up beside the van ryan limo after winning lombardo 's case and flipping them off .
and do n't leave when the closing credits hit the screen , or you 'll miss the film 's best part -- four bonus flashbacks that smooth over plot holes while offering a few more tiny turns , plus a final scene that caps everything off with a great stunner of a bombshell .
speaking of bombshells , denise richards , who plays almost every scene in a blue bikini top , does the teen tease thing with a malicious allure that she was never allowed to flaunt in " starship troopers .
"
matt dillon flexes
his sleepy - voiced sex appeal , and pulls off personality changes with chameleonic precision .
neve campbell ,
lovely as ever except when sporting a blond wig , gives suzie a vengeful vulnerability that makes her the most interesting member of the conspiring trio .
re - edited and toned down a bit , the dynamics between these three actors could have carried the film to greater lengths .
but what we 're given works well enough .
" wild things " is highly entertaining and , indeed , very wild .
Example Output: P

Example Input: everyone knows that old rule , ' never work with children and animals . ' in this latest horror flick mimic case , it 's ' never work with children and genetically enhanced killer animals ' instead , as mimic features both of these and succeeds in doing nothing except mildly engaging the audience .
the film begins in new york , where we see children dying from a mysterious disease , which is being carried by cockroaches .
dr .
susan tyler ( sorvino ) creates a genetically enhanced bug ( the ' judas ' breed ) , however , which is designed to kill all cockroaches .
the bug
does it 's job , the cockroaches all die , and the terror is gone . ' three years later ' appears on the screen , and we discover that the judas breed is back , bigger than ever , and ready to kill .
the spin on this bug , however , is that it can mimic it 's predator , and in this case . . . .
it 's humans .
that should teach us for squishing all those bugs .
what should be a roller coaster ride with bugs everywhere , tons of gory deaths and some massive set pieces instead turns out to be a rather subdued , almost boring movie which plods along at a very slow pace .
perhaps the movie was trying to be thought provoking , and trying to avoid the ' predator ' type movie it could easily have become .
if it is , then the director and writers have made the wrong move , because this is perfectly suited to be an all out action fest .
the director , who bought us cronos , a far superior film , directs the film in a calm , and frankly dull movie .
there are few exciting sequences , instead just a lot of people talking .
if the dialogue was intelligent , then it would be all right , but it 's sadly babbling nonsense
.
in fact , the script is embarrsingly weak , and the characterizations not much better .
sorvino and company are as 2d as characters come , with the script not bothering to develop them .
there is some action in this film , but it 's directed in such an annoying way , it 's just infuriating to watch .
the camera cuts all over the place , disoreitating the audience , and instead of involving the audience in the action , it merely alienates them .
the peformances are o .
k , if slightly below average .
sorvino is o .
k , although she 's not very good at conveying terror , or anything emotion really .
the supporting cast are all sterotypes , with characters such as a big black security guard with a foul mouth , a geeky scientist with spectacles , and what could be the most stereotypical mexican ' old timer ' ever .
their reasonable good fun , however .
mimic , then , may fail with it 's story , pacing and characters , but the film does look good .
like dark city , mimic is a definite case of style of content .
it may be a bit too gloomy for
it 's own good ,
but the sets look nice , and parts of the film are directed well .
but looks are n't good enough to save mimic from the depths of mediocre , somewhere where it should n't really belong .
a good opportunity , then , wasted .
a shame .
overall rating= review by david wilcock ?
1998
Example Output:
N