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

Ex Input:
when i first heard about scream in 1996 , i was told that it was a spoof of horror movies .
from the master of the horror himself , wes craven , it ridiculed the cliches of the genre by overemphasizing them , by making the teenagers do what they know they 're not supposed to do when a serial killer is stalking them ( do n't run up the stairs when you can easily go out the front door , never say " i 'll be right back , " etc . ) .
when i first heard this description , i figured that it was an easy way out of making a bad movie .
how hard is it to make an extremely terrible film but claim it is actually a mockery of other bad movies .
was this wes craven 's remedy from making " real " bad movies such as vampires in brooklyn ?
it just seemed cheap to me .
then i actually saw the movie and the first twenty minutes , involving drew barrymore and a nail - bitingly intense phone conversation , completely changed my attitude .
scream is not only a clever parody of your standard horror flick , it 's also a pretty scary movie .
if you 've seen a million of these kinds of films , you know exactly what is going to happen .
this is part of the fun of watching scream .
the movie reminds avid horror fans how similar and repetitive the genre is and it also reminds them how great a guilty pleasure it can be to watch pointless and predictable violence to innocent , attractive teenagers . to those who rarely see these types of movies , scream is a thrilling unpredictable ride that could be mistaken as a serious slasher film .
there 's nothing wrong with that misjudgment though .
i have witnessed viewers from both sides of the audience , the newbies to horror and the fanatics .
their opinions on the film were so different but
both very positive .
from these varied reviews , i am convinced that scream has not only revived the teen horror movie and the normal teen romance movies but also the hilarious parodies of these and other categories .
films that both deride and celebrate genres like galaxy quest and the big hit would not have existed , in my opinion , if it was not for the outstanding success of scream .
the low - budget 1996 gem may , alongside pulp fiction , be the most influential film of the 1990 's .
this influence may exist to the chagrin of some moviegoers who despise movies like teaching mrs .
tingle or television programs such as dawson 's creek but to others such as myself , we congratulate the movie that has opened new doors for excellent young actors , screenwriters , and directors .
scream is also an extremely funny movie thanks to its quickly - paced script by kevin williamson .
within the film are characters who tell other characters , as well as the audience , the basic rules and cliches of a horror movie .
mainly from the rants of randy ( jamie kennedy ) and stu ( matthew lillard ) , we are reminded not only of the obvious and hilarious rules but also some of the more subtle stereotypes that when thought over are mostly true as well ( the virgin always survives ; have sex and you 're dead meat ) .
not only are we treated these rules on a plate but also the rules are referenced to a number of different films and actors .
the script feels like an obsessive essay from a college film geek who has nothing better to do but find every little blunder from every little film for his own self - satisfaction .
in this case , williamson finds these errors for the audience 's satisfaction and amusement .
i hear there is a new movie coming out called scary movie which is a spoof of scream , which is a spoof of scary movies .
i will certainly see the film
but i have the feeling that this parody will be more obviously ridiculing the genre rather than scream 's perfect subtlety .
however my last gut feeling about this stuff , scream , was dead wrong .
.
. so who knows .

Ex Output:
P


Ex Input:
the haunting , a film so confusing that it forgets the true meaning of a horror film : to scare us .
if you 've ever seen a movie , which you probably have considering you are on this website , you should know about all of the trivia they post before a movie .
they have things like illustrations and you have to guess the movie or facts about the film .
but , the one i always like are the & quot ;
other name&quot ; joke that try and rename a particular film .
for instance , the one playing before the haunting had different titles for the film , small soldiers .
they had titles like little infantry and can i get those fatigues in a smaller size ?
well , after seeing the haunting , i had a few particular names for it as well .
unfortunately , i can only post one of them , otherwise , i 'd be getting some pretty angry e - mails from overprotective mothers .
that title would be the confusing .
ok , that is a pretty bad title , but it fits this film perfectly .
it basically serves up no purpose , and
combined with dry dialogue and a boring and confusing plot , it completes the formula for a cinematic bomb .
liam neeson once again gets wrapped up in a film without any depth , but at least the phantom menace was exciting and had some depth .
the haunting is nothing but trash , but unfortunately , will still make a boatload of money .
before i rant and rave about how bad this film is , let me point out the few , and i stress the word few , bright spots in this film .
first , the house is great- looking .
it looks beautiful , but this is also a dark spot .
it looks so great that it is hard to be frightened by it .
this is something that rears its ugly head at all points of the film .
things look so great , that you are looking on in awe instead of being scared straight .
haunted house films have to contain one element to even be slightly successful and that is being eerie .
the hill house is not eerie .
it is beautiful , but not the least bit frightening .
ever heard of lili taylor ?
before this film i did not , but i am glad that i do now .
she gives the only satisfactory performance in the film . despite the dry dialogue and boring / confusing concept
, she manages to light up the screen every time she appears , but unfortunately , her co - stars are usually following right behind .
owen wilson , who plays luke , is the only other cast member even close to giving an admirable performance , other then taylor .
he is basically there for the comic relief , and his character development is poor in all other areas .
all of the characters are desperately underdeveloped .
wilson had potential as luke , but it seems they just needed him to add a few laughs .
liam neeson and catherine zeta - jones suffer from the dialogue and plot and should not have been in this film .
their characters must suffer from wicked mood swings because in each scene they turn from ruthless to compassionate to scared to brave and whatnot .
they just are not believable and this is the final nail in the haunting 's coffin .
the plot is terrible .
the opening scene of the film is very important , but the director makes it too obvious by getting close - ups of all the things that will play a major role in the end of the film .
as i sat through the film , i kept wondering what this film was trying to accomplish .
nell , lili taylor 's character , goes from the hunted to the savior .
it makes no sense and the director gives the audience no reasoning for the ridiculous changes that take place in the film .
he forces the viewer to make various assumptions and does not give any in - depth information .
for instance , the beginning of the film gives us a sense of why nell is getting involved in the program .
but , we get zilch for the other four .
plus , two of them get wiped out in the first ten minutes .
and the worst part :
most horror films have killings .
for some reason , they kill off luke at the end of the film .
no reason whatsoever , just off with his head , literally .
overall , the haunting is the epitome of a bad movie
. bad plot , confusing storyline and a waste of good talent .
hopefully , liam neeson can rebound and get into a good film and be used to his full potential .
hopefully , lili taylor will be recognized for doing such a great job in such a bad film .
and hopefully , other horror films , such as the blair witch project and the haunting of hill house , will not be as bad as this one .

Ex Output:
N


Ex Input:
john sayles ' " men with guns " is about what happens to a society when brute force and constant threat of violence are the only means of gaining and maintaining power .
the film takes place in an unnamed central american country , where the men with guns are the rulers .
most of the country is divided into tiny segments - some are controlled by guerrillas with guns , some are controlled by army soldiers with guns , and all the spaces in - between are controlled by thieves , bandits , and terrorists .
all people not fitting one of those descriptions are defined only by their powerlessness .
however , like so many central american countries , this one also features modernity .
there is an unnamed capital city that bears all the hallmarks of contemporary civilization : skyscrapers , hospitals , televisions , highways , etc .
but , it might as well be in another country because those who live in the comforts of the city have either decided to ignore the violence ravaging the rest of the land , or else they are simply ignorant of it .
the film 's main character , dr .
fuentes ( federico luppi ) falls into the latter category .
one of his patients , an army general , describes him as the most educated man he has ever met , and also the most naive .
fuentes is a true liberal , a caring man who thinks he can cure the ills of his country by fighting bacteria and ignorance among the indigenous indians .
with government assistance , he has trained a large group of eager young medical students and sent them into the rainforest to cure and educate .
this program was to be his legacy , and he repeats over and over that it was a good idea .
however , when he ventures into that same rainforest to visit his prot ?
g
? s , he finds that things have not turned out as he has envisioned .
as he travels deeper into the forest , going from village to village , the story is always the same : the doctors were all killed by either the guerrillas or the army soldiers , usually for helping the other .
when dr .
fuentes asks a village woman why the army killed one of the doctors , she replies simply , " because they had guns , and we did n't . " rational science and all its attempts to cure have been wiped out by the men with guns , because others ' sickness and ignorance helps them maintain power .
dr .
fuentes picks up several companions during his journey , all of whom are characterized by their loss .
first , there is a young boy named conejo ( dan rivera gonz ?
lez ) , who has neither a mother nor a father .
next , fuentes crosses paths with a thief named domingo ( dami ? n delgado ) , who deserted the army because he was tired of being jeered into committing murderous atrocities .
through his ordeal in the army , domingo has lost most of his self - respect , and defines himself only by his pistol .
along the way , the group also picks up padre portillo ( dami ?
n
alc ?
zar ) , a priest who has lost his faith .
as domingo is running from the army , so is portillo - he has been labeled a guerrilla sympathizer , and ran away from the village in which he was preaching .
last , the group takes on a mute girl named graciela ( tania cruz ) , who has n't spoken since she was raped two years earlier , her innocence and even her will to live forcefully taken from her .
sayles two major strengths as a director - characters and setting - are abundantly evident in " men with guns .
"
( like many of his films , sayles might have tightened this one somewhat in the editing room , but a longer - than - necessary running time is a sin almost always committed when the director is also the editor . )
he creates fascinating , complex characters , especially dr .
fuentes and domingo .
their uneasy relationship is also somewhat humorous in context of the film 's overarching theme of violence as power - domingo 's attempts to control fuentes with his revolver are constantly undermined by fuentes ' belief that the revolver is unloaded ( at first it is , but later is is n't ) .
the setting is also as thick with detail as the rainforest itself .
sayles knows how to bring a location to life , whether it be an early twentieth - century coal mining town in " matewan " ( 1987 ) or a contemporary texas / mexico bordertown in " lone star " ( 1996 ) .
sayles is not a particularly inventive director - he likes to let his actors do most of the work - but he and cinematographer slavomir idziak ( " gattaca " ) successfully evoke both the beauty and the danger of the central american terrain .
sayles also maintains a strong sense of authenticity by filming everything on location in mexico , using all latin american actors , and having all the dialogue spoken in either spanish or native indian dialects .
the one exception is a couple of bumbling american tourists who work not only as comic relief , but as evidence of just how clueless the united states is about what is going on a few hundred miles south of the texas border .
it would not be a stretch to say that " men with guns " is a depressing film .
in fact , the two feelings it evokes most are hopelessness and failure .
in addition to loss , the main characters are also failures at something , whether that be dr .
fuentes failure to change anything through medicine , or padre portillo 's inability to stand up and be the martyr he always dreamed of being .
nevertheless , it is bleak material sayles has chosen , and he deals with it accordingly .
the last shot of the film does offer a hint of hope , even in a world where , as one character puts it , " nobody refuses the men with guns .
"

Ex Output:

P