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

Example Input: sometimes , when i decide to write a short story or a poem , i think of a title first , and then think of a subject to go with it .
it seems that the makers of disturbing behavior had a similar train of thought when it came to the title sequence .
i would n't be surprised if a couple of guys got together and created the opening credits , and then someone saw it and made up a story to go along with it .
the title sequence is so good , so ominous and original , that it had me engrossed before the picture even began .
of course , my attention dwindled shortly into the film .
disturbing behavior , like so many thrillers , starts off interesting and ends up
laughably ridiculous .
it 's a teen horror film with no interesting violence or sex .
it 's a suspense film with no suspense .
it 's an evil small town story with no story to speak of .
it 's a disaster , a listless and uninspired disaster , that just barely misses one - stardom because of a few good sequences , a mercifully short running time , and one terrific set of opening credits .
our main man is a fellow named steve clark , blandly played by jimmy marsden .
he moves to a small town with his family after , tragically , his brother shoots himself .
steve is very upset about the untimely death of his brother ; we learn this through strange home - video like nightmares that he has occasionally .
the big trial for steve is , of course , to fit in at school and make new friends .
marsden looks like your stereotypical jock down to the last detail , so he seems a poor casting choice for a social reject .
as a social reject , he falls in with some pretentious dope - smoking philosophers , gavin ( nick stahl ) and rachel ( katie holmes ) .
gavin informs steve that the local group of jocks , known as the blue ribboners , are actually a bunch of zombies , assimilating new members into their group , while sporadically killing innocent people .
so , it 's up to our group of mismatched protagonists to 1 ) solve the mystery , and
2 ) do something about it .
by the end of it all , something has happened and things have been explained , but the film still does n't make any sense .
disturbing behavior was written by scott rosenberg .
i 've seen his name around recently ( he was one of the toucher - uppers on the armageddon script ) , and i imagine that , for the most part , he knows what he 's doing when it comes to screenwriting .
he did , however , have a complete lapse in judgement when he got the idea for this film , and then decided to actually take the time to write it out .
evil small town films are pretty common ( the last one , phantoms , is also a dismal failure ) , but it takes a lot of skill to make the formula work .
rosenberg 's script is a complete mess , lacking in even the most basic attempts at characterization .
and it makes no sense , nor is their any purpose when things are finally " explained .
"
there is supposed to be an element of surprise when we see what is happening to the jocks , but the film never explains exactly what * is * happening .
they get strapped to chairs , a microchip is inserted into their eyes , and -- poof -- they become sex - crazed , superviolent , machine - like creatures .
the doctor responsible for all this , dr .
caldicott ( bruce greenwood ) , must be pretty nuts for thinking that this kind of behavior is a step up from the way high school jocks actually behave ( or , perhaps , this is the only realistic element in the film ) .
much of the writing is simply bad , and rosenberg has no intuition when it comes to the way high school kids act . in one terrible scene , gavin explains to steve all of the high school cliques , while pointing them out in the cafeteria .
up front , i should say that , in four years of high school , i did not eat in the cafeteria even once .
that aside , the various social groups he points out are general , uninteresting , and poorly - shown .
for instance , he points to the " nerds , " who are all wearing glasses and playing with their laptops .
it 's such an obvious cliche that i ca n't believe rosenberg even bothered .
most of the dialogue is forced ( no one says , " bite me !
" anymore ) , and none of the scenes have any degree of wit .
this picture is not inspired , and most scenes flop from one to the other , with no sense of momentum or energy .
the blame for this can be placed on director david nutter , who apparently likes his films dry .
horror films should at least exploit violence , but this one is shockingly timid .
there are a few good scenes , though , such as an interesting trip through an insane asylum ( this is , however , the most forced scene in the film , for how our heroes get there or why they bother are things we never learn ) .
i also liked the school janitor character , played by william sadler .
he has a few lines that are surprisingly thought - provoking .
the acting is largely a waste of talent .
marsden is , as i said , bland ( thought not particularly bad ) .
bruce greenwood is shamelessly wasted .
stahl and holmes both show they have talent , but the direction is n't good enough to hone in on their skills
( stahl 's performance seems more like a parody of high school potheads ) .
none of these characters expand beyond their one dimension , and , frankly , watching cardboard cut - outs of human beings run down hallways while screaming just is n't all that cool .
disturbing behavior is a wreck of a film , and it started out a wreck before shooting even began .
i 'm surprised there were producers who read this script and thought that it would make a good film , or that it would make a lot of money at the box office .
it 's not boring , or even blatantly awful , but
it 's an uninspired lump of a film .
it sure starts off nicely , but the regression into total absurdity is so consistent that the very last scene is outright laughable
.
so , if you go to see this film , take my advice : appreciate the credit sequence , and pray it never ends .
Example Output: N

Example Input: well , i know that stallone is 50 years old now , but in daylight he does n't look it !
daylight is a great disaster movie . if you 've seen cliffhanger , you 'll know stallone 's character already .
a guy with a bad past , but is in the right place at the wrong time .
a tunnel connecting new york and new jersey has both sides collapses when a group of robbers collide with a truck carrying * very * flammable toxic waste .
a dozen or so people survive the collapses and the incinerating fireball ( and what a fire ball it was ! )
stallone , a former emergency medical service man , is chauffeuring a rich couple around , when they reach the outside of the tunnel , before the explosion .
then , 30 minutes into the movie , boom !
>
from here on , the plot takes a back seat , and we are treated to some of the best camera work and action staged .
most all the action is plausible and will hold you at the edge of your seat .
there are a few melodramatic parts here , but , they tend to work out well .
there is no general antagonist in this film , but the action and suspense makes you forget all about that .
daylight is a great film
, i saw a non - matinee showing of it , and i thought it was worth every penny .
the characterizations are mostly flat , one dimesional , but they have enough in them to get you to care for some of the characters .
rob cohen ( dragonheart )
does a great job with this film .
Example Output: P

Example Input: it 's been hours since i returned from the much anticipated sci - fi opus ` mission to mars ' , and i can still detect the reek of moldy cheddar .
why ?
the movie is a shoddy cheesefest full of digital eye candy , stapled carelessly onto a flimsy screenplay which somehow manages to leapfrog the great promise of a space opera , instead shooting for the angle of a feel - good science fiction drama more akin to ` 2001 : a space odyssey ' .
i got the feeling that most of my fellow movie - going patrons were expecting another ` armageddon ' .
but no , ` mission to mars ' certainly is n't one large action sequence about colossal disaster .
this is a supposedly thoughtful , family - friendly space flick in which the apocalyptic excitement takes a back seat to visual elegance and uplifting drivel .
you have been warned .
of course , crafting a tightly claustrophobic space drama is not impossible ( see ` apollo 13 ' for an excellent example ) , but few directors possess the skill and craftsmanship to pull it off without seriously scarring their reputation .
brian de palma has enough directorial expertise and visual wizardry up his sleeve to pull it off .
when he gets his hands on an intelligent , systematically practical script like ` the untouchables ' or ` mission : impossible ' , the director has the ability to create a sound technical achievement ( although his overly indulgent style becomes bothersome more than occasionally ) .
of course , there 's also the inexcusable string of crap that has carried his name ( including ` snake eyes ' and the notorious bomb ` the bonfire of the vanities ' ) . . . .
all of which makes me want to call de palma the most talented hack in hollywood .
that term may be too harsh , but if i were judging him solely on the perpetual waste of talent that is ` mission to mars ' , my choice of words would have been slightly less lenient .
if i were gary sinise , i would n't touch de palma with a 10-foot pole .
sinise is a wonderful , wonderful actor , but after appearing in ` snake eyes ' and this vomit - inducing sham , i 'm sure he would n't want to risk the embarrassment of a third collaboration .
the academy award - winner plays nasa astronaut jim mcconnell , a man who recently lost his wife ( kim delaney ) and is apparently psychologically unfit for an upcoming space shuttle mission to mars ( oops , forgot to mention the year - 2020 ) .
after a barbecue get - together for the astronauts , we cut to luc goddard ( don cheadle )
and his team , who are already taking measurements and calculations on the red planet .
suddenly , a towering formation of rocks and soil - probably best dubbed a ` sand tornado ' - appears and creates a whirlwind of suction .
for some reason , the astronauts just stand there calmly to admire this , as if it were a lovely piece of art .
the team is killed within seconds , expect for luc , who was able to send one final transmission and may still be alive .
immediately , a second mission - consisting of astronauts mcconnell , husband and wife woody and terri blake ( tim robbins and connie nielsen ) and phil ohlmyer ( jerry o'connell ) - are dispatched to rescue luc and discover the mysterious secret of planet mars .
let 's put the ` secret ' on hold for now , and discuss the trip there .
it is explained , whether scientifically accurate or not ( probably not ) , that a trip to mars takes roughly six months .
i 'm not sure why the quartet of screenwriters behind ` m2 m ' did n't capitalize on this juicy opportunity of creating tension and claustrophobia .
instead , we join the team during their final days aboard the ship .
what happened during the five months prior to this ?
did they just play cards and tell dirty jokes ?
still , there are few nicely tense moments ( maybe the only in the movie ) during the time - frame involving a fuel leak .
depalma 's direction is quite good in these scenes , although the score by ennio morricone is largely inconsistent
( organ music in space ?
c'mon ) .
there 's a few good , imaginative ideas in the landslide of cheese , a sad realization that causes me to sigh out loud .
it 's a colossal bummer that ` mission to mars ' is poorly assembled and laughably written , with a dubious and supremely silly finale that will only satisfy dedicated optimists .
as mentioned before , anyone looking for some disaster - movie carnage is going to feel savagely disappointed . . .
maybe even cheated .
after the unbelievably hokey final shot ( with the words ?
the end ' somehow adding insult to injury ) , a few audience members made the effort to boo and hiss at the screen .
others muttered obscenities , shaking their heads in disbelief while mumbling ` jeez , that sucked . '
okay , it did suck .
but you have to show the actors some sympathetic mercy .
. .
after all , they do pretty well .
sinise is sincere and effective in many of his scenes , robbins and nielsen wholeheartedly convince as a loving nasa couple , and funnyman o'connell - well
, he has a couple lines are actually amusing ( and intentionally so ) .
the digital effects accompanying the sand tornado sequence are quite impressive .
so , by golly , where did this ` mission ' go wrong ?
looking back on the appalling experience , i would say in practically every conduit and crevasse it could have .
while watching ` mission to mars ' , my suggestion would be to immediately abort , or better yet , do n't even strap yourself in for lift - off .
Example Output:
N