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

Example Input: this film is based on the campy tv show from the 1960 's under the same appellation .
mind you , most people ( including yours truly ) who will see this movie will not have seen any episodes from the original series .
the movie is really a stand alone in that regard .
the family robinson .
. .
lost in space .
plot : set in the year 2058 , the family robinson is chosen to sail out into space in search of other planets that might contain the natural resources earth needs in order to survive its future .
a colonization process , if you will .
they are joined by able pilot west ( leblanc ) , and evil uninvited stowaway ( oldman ) , who does not want to see the trip conclude on a successful tip .
eventually , their trek goes awry , and all are " lost in space " .
"
how do get back to earth ?
" is the question that infests the rest of this sci - fi epic .
critique : this film reminded me a lot of the fifth element ( 6 . 5/10 ) from the summer of 1997 .
it 's a film with a lot of flash , but very little actual substance .
admittedly , there is n't an annoying character like chris tucker from the other film , but this film does run a little too long , and did lose me in regards to its complex time - travel / multi - dimensional story line .
having said that , the special effects in this movie were amazing , and the overall look and feel were also way above average .
you really felt like you were in the future , and riding through space with these poor souls .
unfortunately for this chosen family , their 10-year old son is the smartest one in the group , and the father is too wrapped up in his work to notice the rest of his family ( ever heard that one before ?
yawn ! ) .
the acting is ok , and i was especially surprised at the solid performance by tv friend 's matt leblanc who shows us all that he 's definitely more than just a pretty face .
on the down side , the family riff - raff that cuts through most of the picture is lame and time - consuming ( even though
we got ta give them credit for " trying " to develop characters in a sci - fi pic ) , the story line is hard to follow , the evil character in the movie actually tells people that he 's " evil " , and the movie goes on for about 20 minutes too long .
on the slick side , many of the special effects are really cool
( the sequence in which the family is " paralyzed " during the hyper - drive is awesome , and the animated monkey that joins the family halfway through the flic is mucho cool ) , the credit presentation at the end of the film is slamming , and
the adventures that they fall into are somewhat thrilling
( i will also admit that " somehow " they got me to semi - tear up near the conclusion of this picture . . . .
very odd . . . . . ) .
overall , if you 're a big sci - fi fan , check this movie out for the special effects and challenging narrative , and if you 're not , i would still suggest seeing this movie , but then you could probably wait until it comes out on video so that you forward past some of the boring parts .
little known facts : this film will always be remembered as the movie that knocked titanic ( 7/10 ) out of the top spot at the box - office after 15 straight weeks at number one .
garry oldman is british , and was once married to uma thurman for about six months .
mimi rogers was tom cruise 's first wife .
Example Output: P

Example Input: much ballyhoo has been made over this new version of " lolita , " made in a time when one would think that a faithful adaptation of the infamous novel could be made , over its use of pedophilia , and as such , it 's important to address it straight - forwardly , before any other ideals such as goodness and themes can be discussed , as this film has been in film limbo for a number of years , lying around in vaults san a distributor , and having critics waiting to either hail it
a masterpiece or call it anticlimactic horseshit .
when seeing this film , after all the hoopla , keeping in mind that there are people , namely me , who are fans of the novel , who have been eagerly awaiting this flick since its creation . . .
well , you just have to wonder why no one really picked it up for distribution .
what 's even worse is that seeing this " lolita , " especially the first time and if you 're familiar with anything " lolita , " is admittingly very anticlimactic .
this is a real pity because when you really sit down to watch this film , ignoring all the crap that has preceeded it , it 's really quite a film , perhaps the best film by director adrian lyne ( although , really , look at its competition : " flashdance , " " fatal attraction , " and " indecent proposal " ) , at least besides " jacob 's ladder .
"
i 've seen this " lolita " twice : the first time , i was n't so blown away .
it seemed overly dramatic and surprisingly unaffecting .
the second time , not really thinking about how i 've waited for what seems like forever to see it and how i 'm seeing it on a tv set on a premium cable channel and not a giant movie theatre ,
it really affected me emotionally .
the story itself is a surprisingly heartbreaking one , which is why it 's such a good novel , and why this is such a good film .
the story of a pedophile obsessed with a young 14-year old girl named dolores a .
k .
a . lolita is great because it 's not trash for the perverted
but because it 's about human obsession with things that are out of one 's reach .
its protagonist , the comically - named humbert humbert , is not your average pedophile , but a seriously wounded human being who embodies how we are all destroyed by our sick obsessions and idosyncrasies .
the character of lolita is almost a symbol of the forbidden apple in christian mythology , something that will destroy us but that we ca n't live without .
these ideas are all worked into this film nicely , but done in a way that is not heavy - handed at all , but instead lyrical and emotionally devastating .
the focus of this film , and the reason for making it , it seems , was to really penetrate the emotional depths of the novel and bring them to life on the screen in beautifully dramatic images , and scenes which are blatantly over - stylized .
the tone of the book is a comical one , but it 's also a tragic one , and humbert , telling the story from his perspective , blows every single thing out of perspective .
humbert exists in a fantsy world of his obsessions and desires , and this reflects the way the entire film has been designed .
we get a sense that perhaps it 's by doing this that humbert has really trapped himself into a fate that will ultimately leave him haggard and destroyed .
he weeps uncontrollably and never lets himself get over his original 14-year - old love , and allows himself to embody her as lolita .
he lets his feelings for her navigate all his decisions , and by the end , he has nothing but overly - dramatic feelings for her .
the story recognizes the extreme of this , almost out of a test , seeing if the readers will really sympathize with someone who is socially deemed a pervert , and one almost wonders while reading the book if the author , vladimir nabokov , wrote the book as a means to bring into focus his own sick obsessions , and perhaps bring them to peace .
the weirdest thing about this film is that by the end , when humbert has reached the finale of his obsessional journey , we can easily sympathize and even identify with him .
the opening and final images of the film are the same , and who has n't done a similar action , that is wandering about without any sense of reality or anything else but a deep sadness in us ?
this is the second time the novel has been adapted for the screen , the first time being filmed in - shock - 1962 , by stanley kubrick , who could n't possibly have brought the novel to the screen with as much faithfulness as lyne has been able to do , but did the next best thing : he economized for everything and came up with a droll black comedy about obsession in general .
in that film , he used the traps of society as benefits .
the studio demanded the final scene , that of a heinous murder , come first in the film so to portray humbert first as a murderer and second as a pedophile . . .
and when you see it , it gives the film depth of a man trapped by obsession .
the censors would n't allow anymore than a couple glances and subtle dialogue to show the , um , relationship between humbert and lolita , so kubrick decided to play it as comedy , but still allow the tragedy to seep through . looking at these two versions , especially after reading the novel ( and we all know that when we 've read a novel and see a film adaptation , we are bound to be angered by any size differences ) , it 's really impossible to compare them .
they both go for different things , and one has a lot more room to be as sexually frank as the novel was .
and although it 's true that several scenes are similar , and are thus up for comparison , overall it 's unfair to say which one is better and which one is worse .
i have never been one for saying the level of greatness of a film adaptation of a novel is deemed by how faithful it is , and i wo n't say that here . however ,
this film is pretty amazing , mostly because hey , i loved the book , and this film nearly reminded me of it .
it does n't have nearly as much wit ( a couple comical scenes , and even a lot of good chuckles , but just not totally witty ) , but it does have the same emotional toll that the novel had .
some of that is in the casting of the two leads .
jeremy irons , with his deep , soft british voice and gentle look , is an amazing humbert .
he 's droll in a very unique way , and , well , no one can look distraught the way he does .
he brings a wonderful sympathy to the role that goes beyond pathos and really comes up as being easy to identify with the audience .
and when he looks at lolita with love , and she looks at him with lust , you know that he 's her prisoner for as long as he lives .
and dominique swain , who plays the title character , is rather incredible .
she pulls off the tough role even better than sue lyon did in the original , wonderfully balancing the qualities of seduction , bratiness , and self - centeredness that marks the character .
it 's easy to see why she surrenders to humbert : she loves the attention , and knows that she can have her way with him at any time .
when he denies her something , she blackmails him effortlessly ( a scene involving a rocking chair and a little foot action is damn near classic ) , and when he stands up to her , she weeps and runs away , leaving humbert to follow her .
there are two other minor characters in the film , one who 's a road block in the beginning , and the other who 's a reappearing threat to the relationship .
the former is charlotte , lolita 's mother , played by melanie griffith .
in the book , charlotte is a monster of a woman : overbearing , constantly scolding her child , overly - religious , and ultimately selfish .
and she 's the one obstacle humbert
has to overcome to obtain his goal , at least in the beginning .
as played by shelly winters in the original , she represented all these qualities ; as played by griffith here , she 's about half of them .
it 's annoying to watch a film and play a game where you try to see who could have done the role way better than the one on screen without mentioning the actor who played them first .
and even though griffith is not really bad , persay , she 's nothing more .
the other is clare quilty , the writer who is also trying to seduce lolita , and succeeds , but at a price .
langella takes a totally different direction than the one peter sellars took in the original .
quilty was a comic character in the original :
a threat in the form of many forms , popping in states of rambling , german , proning , and eventually drunk .
langella takes the other route , allowing all of the creepiness to be unearthed , and the result is a character who exists in shadows and low shots , and who meets a wonderfully ironic ending , the exact opposite of what we thought of him .
as you can see , most of these are not improvements or mistakes done on the part of lyne and his screenwriter , stephen schiff , but just parts of a whole new look at the novel , at least cinema - wise .
this version is beautiful , and perpetually saddening .
the camera movements are stylized , and each shot is breathtakingly rich .
the acting is for the most part wonderful , and when we watch it , we really get a sense that for humbert , who is telling the story , the only two people on earth most of the time were humbert and lolita .
more importantly , it takes us right up the brink of emotion , then jumps right over it .
by the end , with humbert sadly driving recklessly in his car , following what he says is the only part of his life he does n't regret , we feel that we all lose to something we can never have .
Example Output: P

Example Input: probably the most popular and praised film of all time , turned out to be a primitive and predictable costume drama with a dose of social criticism .
everyone knows about the greatest and most famous shipping disaster of all time .
and the actual catastrophe is masterfully crafted by director james cameron , combining visual -and sound effects , he re - creates the frightening atmosphere of the sinking ship in the middle of nowhere .
i liked very much
the emotional and brutal contrast between the first and the third classes .
while their cabin is slowly filling up with water , a mother is telling her children a fairytail -- " .
.
and they lived happily ever after . .
"
.
and then the ship goes down
and the few survivors are left alone under the stars and the chilling air .
however , the actual disaster is happening almost at the end of the movie , while the first two hours are just beautiful sets and bad dialogues .
in the present day , the rms titanic is explored by brock lovett ( bill paxton ) , a treasure seeker looking for the coeur de la mer diamond , lost during the sinking .
somewhere inside the ship , lovett 's crew discover a sketchbook of an artist long dead .
here , in the shape of a nude young lady , is a window into the distant age of 1912 .
lovett is extremely surprised when he get 's a phone call from rose dawson , claiming that she is a model .
she is immediately helicoptered onto the vessel , and she gets the first glimpse of the fated ship in 80 years .
as the memories come flooding back , she once again becomes rose dewitt buketer ( kate winslet ) , the fianc ?
e of wealthy cal hockley ( billy zane ) and daughter of ruth dewitt bukater ( frances fisher ) .
on board there are rich and poor , everyone trust in the ship 's designer ( jonathan hyde ) and her master , captain e .
j .
smith ( bernard hill ) .
on board the ship , rose , unhappy and restless meets jack ( leonardo dicaprio ) - a young american artist , poor , brave and attractive .
a love story slowly emerges and the two lovers must not only experience the difference between the social classes , but also face the greatest power on earth - death .
cameron could as well have called his picture " the never ending love " or " love at first sight " , as he concentrates all his energy on the young couple , and not on the disaster itself .
the plot is anything but original and the dialogues sometimes resemble a television soap - opera .
the director does n't even try to overcome his empty script . because of its primitive and predictable plot , titanic is totally depending on the visuals that truly are breathtaking .
russel carpenter 's rich , majestic and incredibly detailed cinematography is certainly award - worthy .
everything from art direction to visual and sound effects are a top notch .
but it does n't help much when the costumes are more convincing than the actors who wear them .
the actors are not to blame , because their characters are more like caricatures , in other words - fake .
jack is a man with many talents : he is a talented artist , handsome , brave , honest , strong , funny . . .
you name it .
he does n't have any dark side , he does n't make any mistakes , that for a second would make him human .
jack is perfect , but he is - poor .
on the other hand we have cal .
he is a bastard that treats rose as an odalisque and not as his wife - to - be .
he lacks everything jack possesses , but he is -- rich .
this childish contrast between the social classes is one of those things that makes titanic nothing more than a mediocre picture .
cameron knows precisely what we want to see .
his film therefore contains certain minimums to draw an audience - attractive actors , a " tragic love story " , beautiful visuals ( including expensive special effects ) , a dose of social criticism , a fascinating historical event ( we love true stories ) and last , but not least - an incredible media support , which proclaimed an average picture the " greatest film of all time " .
on the outside titanic looks perfect , but behind that sparkling curtain of incredible visuals - is emptiness - nothing to think about .
the main weakness of this film , which ironically became its success , is simplicity .
cameron enables our basic and if you wish - primitive emotions : love , hate , fear and helplessness .
everyone understands the power of love and the threat to our beautiful couple is likewise imaginable - a sinking ship .
titanic is a typical hollywood production , totally and completely dependent on visual perfection to hide its primitive plot .
it 's a good picture , but absolutely not a masterpiece .
it 's among hundreds and thousands good films released every year , not better or worse than the average american film .
Example Output:
P