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

Example Input: fact that charles bronson represents one of the most important movie icons of the 1980s represents one of the biggest and almost tragic ironies of that decade .
tragedy lies in the fact that the icon status was earned less by quality of his work in movies , but the quantity .
most of those movies were produced by cannon group , company led by israeli producers menahem golan and yoram globus .
those two men probably thought that they could be the next roger corman ,
b-
movie mentors of future hollywood legends .
unfortunately , that did n't happened , and when cannon finally went bankrupt at the end of the decade , behind it stood the huge pile of cinematic garbage , that would require at least few centuries before it reaches the camp appeal .
sadly for bronson , that garbage also contained numerous movies in which that capable character actor and action hero of the 1970s tried to raise their worth simply by being the main lead , and lowering his own reputation in process .
on the other hand , bronson could take comfort in a fact that those movies were extremely popular , especially among the audience 3 or 4 times younger than bronson himself .
one of such movies that seriously marred bronson 's reputation is death wish 3 , third sequel in the series which began with death wish in 1974 .
in the original movie , bronson played paul kersey , mild - mannered new york architect who turns into deadly street vigilante after his family fell victim to urban violence .
that movie was far from masterpiece ; yet , in it the director michael winner was skillfully offering the cinematic remedy for very real disease of growing crime rates of the time ( on the same lines like siegel in dirty harry ) .
unfortunately , six years later cannon group got rights to the character of paul kersey and
began destroying it by pumping out sequels ; even the presence of its original director did n't stop the rapid decline of the quality .
death wish 3 begins when kersey comes to visit an old friend , living in the urban wasteland of east new york , populated by young criminals and people too old or too poor to move out .
before the reunion , kersey 's friend falls victim to the street gang led by evil fraker ( played by gavan o'herlihy , probably the only noteworthy role in the film ) .
kersey decides to avenge his death and slowly prepares for his crusade , while the police inspector shriker ( ed lauter ) , ants to use him as a secret weapon in his losing war against the urban crime .
bronson , the main asset in this movie , plays the character who is nothing more than an efficient killing machine .
although bronson 's charisma does help in overcoming some implausibilities
( single man in his 60s and armed with a single pistol manages to wipe out dozens of opponents with superior firepower ) , the lack of emotions or bronson 's own commitment could be seen in a very few lines spoken in a film .
the movie authors were somewhat aware of that emotional shallowness , so they added romantic interest for their hero - public defender played by deborah raffin and conveniently terminated in order to give some more motives for kersey 's crusade .
on the other hand , emotions are much better played by confronting law - abiding , yet ethnically stereotyped citizens with their daily nemesis of street punks - ruthless enough to exercise their reign of terror on the entire city blocks , and stupid enough to be killed in droves by kersey .
unfortunately , michael winner does n't know how to work out the plot , and after torturing the viewers with mostly uninteresting characters and cliched and formulaic situations , ends this movie with a bang .
the big showdown at the end - that turns east new york into the sarajevo - like battle zone - is probably the worst part of the movie , because of the poor editing and the cheap sets and props that give away the low budget .
in short , this movie could be recommended only to the most fanatical charles bronson fans or for the people who are already desperate for 1980s nostalgia .
( special note for trekkies : marina sirtis , the actress who played counsellor deanna troi in star trek : the next generation could be spotted in a small role of portorican wife ) .
Example Output: N

Example Input: the most amazing thing about paul cox 's innocence is how unlike a movie it is .
i mean that as the highest compliment .
if most studios were to profile an elderly couple who rekindle a 40-year - old romance , i 'd want to run and hide .
the sex scenes would be handled as a farce , producers would shed 20 years off the characters ' ages ( so susan sarandon and harrison ford could star ) and true love would shine through any obstacle without explanation and consequence . along with a charming romantic story , the australian / belgian innocence shows how an increasing sense of mortality combined with revisiting the past while being entrenched in the present can make something that seems so right seem downright questionable .
the romance gets started when former musician andreas ( charles " bud " tingwell ) , learns that his true love , claire ( julia blake ) , lives nearby .
they decide to catch up on old times , but soon find themselves in a reinvigorating affair .
complicating matters is andreas ' frail health , and claire 's longtime husband ( terry norris ) , who ca n't understand why he 's suddenly become obsolete .
in my mind , the movie is less about the relationship between andreas and claire , than the feelings of everyone involved .
john , claire 's husband , endlessly questions what he did wrong .
claire initially insists she 's a grown - up , but admittedly behaves like a child , a prospect that thrills and disappoints her .
andreas , an agnostic , begins to question his fate , a message cox delivers in a memorable dream sequence .
cox litters the movie with flashbacks , including the repeated vision of a roaring train .
it 's a reminder of andreas and claire 's past love ( as young lovers , they met by train ) , but as it recurs , we get the feeling that the past and the present have clashed .
a pall is cast on the whole affair .
a master of the understated , cox strings together a series of memorable moments .
in andreas ' dream sequence , amidst the roar of the train and conversations , we get the whole picture of andreas and claire 's love .
we also get glimpses into john and claire 's relationship .
during a silent candlelit dinner shortly afterward , claire admits to john about her indiscretion , telling more than any monologue could .
all that 's heard is the scraping of forks against plates .
the characters are unlike anything i 've seen
-- they 're people .
so many times , movies and especially television portray senior citizens as gratingly spunky .
or they 're reduced to comedic buffoons .
ordinary people with a pile of emotions , claire and andreas are n't sure what the next step is .
they do want to be happy , which consists of an entirely different set of conditions than what they 've known throughout their adult lives .
bravo to cox , who wrote the script , for not making john a monster , so that claire 's affair is automatically justified .
norris is so effective
as john that he makes andreas and claire 's love difficult to accept .
we feel for him .
he 's a decent man .
sure , he may have become complacent , but he never expected this , especially now .
with so much presented to the audience , it 's only expected that the material gets a little drawn out and repetitive , which it does .
however , in bringing up tough questions and not offering easy answers , cox displays a skill and ?
lan is n't likely to be surpassed by anyone anytime soon .
Example Output: P

Example Input: " american pie " alums jason biggs and mena suvari star in this summer 's attempt to capitalize on the youth market looking for a comedy about young people they can relate to that combines generic hollywood cute couple - ness and zany comedy .
it 's about an a+ student ( biggs as " paul " ) who gets a scholarship to some college in new york city who sticks out like a sore thumb and falls for dora ( suvari ) a ditzy heroin - chic goth chick who has no ambition or self - respect whatsoever and allows herself to be pushed around just like " hick - boy " paul is .
so we 've got a fish - out - water formula mixed with meet - cute romantic comedy which ideally should make for a good movie .
unfortunately the atrocious screenplay and boring direction by " clueless " auteur amy heckerling successfully manages to screw up everything about the film .
these characters are totally unrealistic and unbelievable
- it 's as if everyone under age 30 is a stoned raver .
there 's no background or details to anyone or anything , it 's just a bunch of cartoon characters running into each other
.
not to mention the story itself which is virtually non - existant and contains so many plotholes
it 's like swiss cheese .
even the basic editing is bad .
if you 're looking for a romantic comedy stay far away from this one because it is neither romantic nor funny .
i saw this in a packed cinema on opening night and the audience barely laughed at all .
if you 've seen the commericials you 've seen all the " funny " parts ( which are all from the first five minutes ) .
Example Output:
N