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

Input: Consider Input: plot : a separated , glamorous , hollywood couple must pretend to reunite for a press junket of the last movie that they ever shot together .
kewl . . .
now
i only wish that i could pretend never to have seen this movie . . .
critique : trite , unfunny , boring and a waste of everyone 's talent .
how a premise with such zest and bite can turn into a movie that does n't feature any chemistry , any real laughs , any surprises or any spice is beyond me .
how julia roberts is used solely as a " puppy dog " character , puttering around in the background while we endure the complete bitchiness of zeta - jones ' character , who is not one bit funny or romantic
( two ideal ingredients in a " romantic comedy " ) , is also beyond me .
and why they chose john cusack , a great , quirky actor in his own right , to play
the most bland , uninteresting and unfetching character ( with zero chemistry with either of his leads ) is further more , beyond me .
and to anybody who decided that this project was " funny " enough to greenlight featuring the talents mentioned above , along with billy crystal , christopher walker , seth green and stanley tucci .
. .
well , what can i say .
. .
i just do n't have the words .
so is this the worst movie that i 've seen all year ?
no .
but it definitely sucks
and it 's basically because . . .
well , it 's just not funny .
and for the record , allow me to state a few more problems with it .
it starts off slow , it 's got no energy , it does n't engage you with any of its characters
( julia barely gets somewhat interesting in the film , everyone else . . .
lame ! ) , it utilizes way too many flashbacks to move the story forward , it 's utterly predictable , standard , routine , see - through and uninteresting as a plot and it just sits there on the screen , big and ugly , waiting . . .
waiting for you to laugh or find something in it that is amusing .
and then hank azaria shows up . . .
aaaaaah , the film 's savior ( mind you , some might be offended by his exaggeration of a stereotype , but that 's another story altogether ) .
but when an experienced " voice " actor upstages all of the main stars in a summer " blockbuster " romantic comedy with an over - the - top antonio banderas accent , damn dude . . .
your film 's in trouble ! ! rent this movie on video just to see what went wrong yourself .
the references to ricky ricardo and senor wences
( huh ! ? ) , the idio - plot points like when one of the characters goes on the roof to stretch his arms out and relax , but everyone believes that he 's going to kill himself ( hardy - har - har ) and the cheap way of getting the audience to leave the theater laughing by bringing back a ball - sniffing dog that has no place being in the location at the end of the movie , well .
. .
i could go on .
but i wo n't because i do still respect all of the actors in this film and actually did laugh at azaria , green and tucci 's antics from time to time ( ironic , eh .
. .
what about the leads , dammit ! )
and liked the premise behind the film ( before i saw the finished product , of course ) .
a dud all the way around .
btw , all the talk about this film was that julia roberts was to be in a fat suit for one scene
( her character is supposed to have lost 60 pounds ) , so when the scene finally came , i did get a little excited about what it might look like and then . . .
well , it basically just looked like julia roberts in a fat suit ! ugh .
i think i 'm gon na start drinking again after this lame - ass movie .
c'mon hollywood , enough with the crud !
where 's joblo coming from ?
beautiful ( 1/10 ) - my best friend 's wedding ( 7/10 ) - notting hill ( 5/10 ) - pretty woman ( 7/10 ) -runaway bride ( 5/10 ) - someone like you ( 4/10 ) - wedding planner ( 3/10 ) - when harry met sally ( 10/10 )
- you 've got mail ( 4/10 )

Output: N


Input: Consider Input: in the company of men made a splash at the sundance film festival because , in a year plagued by brothers mcmullen - style , earnestly shallow gen - x angst pictures , it seemed to be actually about something .
it angered people , started arguments outside the theater , riled things up .
it ignited a spark of excitement in what otherwise has been a disappointing year for independent film .
having endured my share of the hype , i waited calmly for men to reach the hinterlands wherein i reside , and then checked in to see what all the fuss was about .
does men live up to its press ?
well , yes it does .
and it may make you think twice before you consider dating anyone your office .
for the uninitiated , newcomers aaron eckhart and matt malloy play chad and howard , two corporate drones who are dispatched by their nameless company to a remote branch office for a six week assignment .
chad and howard are archetypes , examples of which you can no doubt find in your own place of business .
chad is the blond golden boy , genetically engineered for success , the natural charmer who seems to glide effortlessly up the corporate ladder .
howard is chad 's boss , but he is weaker of will , the clumsy practitioner of office politics who has achieved his position through dogged persistence rather than raw talent .
we first meet them awaiting their flight in a drab airport lounge .
there chad suggests a scheme worthy of a shakespearean villain : he and howard will find a vulnerable single woman at the branch office , woo her simultaneously , win her love , and then dump her .
the reason ?
both men have recently been dumped themselves , and chad sees an easy route to revenge against the fairer sex .
"
it 'll restore a little dignity to our lives , " he says .
howard , helpless against the force of chad 's will , agrees to the plan .
they quickly spot their prey in the form of christine ( stacy edwards ) , a fragile deaf woman working as a temp .
chad moves in for the kill , flashing his golden boy smile , plying christine with lunch , then flowers , then dinner .
howard follows suit , though his efforts are in contrast ham - handed and desperate .
flattered to have the attention of two eligible men , christine dates them both .
you can guess which one she falls for .
soon a tragic lovers ' triangle develops : christine loves chad , chad loves himself , and howard loves christine on the grounds that , since she 's handicapped and shy , she just might be wretched and lonely enough to settle for him .
adult social interaction never really progresses beyond the level of junior high , does it ?
in chad , writer / director labute and actor eckhart have created one of the most chilling monsters ever committed to film - hannibal lector may eat human flesh , but chad is an eater of souls .
his evil is as subtle as a viper 's , and as easy as his smile .
we watch in stunned disbelief as he back - stabs coworkers , humiliates his subordinates , and works his deadly venom into christine 's heart .
his character would be a joke if he was n't so chillingly real-
all of us have worked with a chad , and some of us may be him .
he 's the guy who takes your job and then laughs at you for your weakness .
if one of his co - workers should happen to go postal and walk into the office with a bag full of handguns , he had best have his escape route clearly in mind .
politics is his game , and the modern cubicle - filled office is his playground .
men wears the guise of a black comedy , but it functions best as allegory .
the most controversial moment in the film happens when chad humiliates a black temp by asking him how badly he wants to succeed in the company , then forces him to prove it in a manner i wo n't describe .
the scene is charged with racism and fraught with peril .
could it happen in the real world ?
probably not .
taken as allegory , however , it is representative of the treatment of the meek by the powerful in all facets of society .
maybe it 's just the english major in me , but chad , in his motiveless cruelty towards christine and his careful manipulation of howard , can be seen as a symbol of unbridled capitalism , of greed without conscience .
the entire film is a metaphor for social darwinism- only the strong will survive .
the marvel of labute 's multi - layered script is that it can disturb each member of its audience in an entirely different way .
but does the film work as entertainment ?
its darned funny in spots , particularly in the men 's room scenes , which demonstrate the lengths to which guys will go to hold a conversation while engaged in the most basic of bodily functions .
it works less well as drama , since by necessity the characters in an allegory tend to be flat ciphers .
stacy edwards gives a measured dignity to christine , and succeeds in making us care for her
, but by the end of the film we still know nothing about her .
likewise , chad and howard are simply the sum of their actions .
by the end of the film you 'll feel as if you 've met a genuine monster in chad ; perhaps we can also classify men as a horror film .
certainly those expecting a conventional hollywood resolution to the story will walk away disappointed . but the picture is often mesmerizing , and the script is a work of fine craftsmanship , which makes it well worth your time .
like all good films , it offers a myriad of parallels to the outside world .
while watching chad in his moment of triumph , i could n't help but think that bill gates must have felt the same sort of cold , merciless satisfaction when he finally stuck it to steve jobs .
there may be a little bit of chad in all of us , but some of us have taken chad - ness to the level of art .

Output: P


Input: Consider Input: it is always refreshing to see a superstar actor who gets paid more than enough to forget about working for a living to want to take a chance and play a less - than - savoury character as mel gibson does in payback .
of course , if i was being paid $ 25 million for one month 's work , i 'd probably be willing to take risks as well , but that 's neither here nor there .
payback is based on a novel by richard stark ( apparently actually donald e. westlake , author of the grifters , itself a fine crime film ) which was also filmed in the 1960s as point blank starring one of the toughest of tough guys , lee marvin .
the film opens with gibson having recovered from being shot several times in the back , by whom we do n't know yet .
all we know is that gibson , as porter , is n't a happy chappy and is hellbent on getting the money stolen from him back , and getting even in the process , no matter what the consequences .
it turns out that the man he 's after is val ( gregg henry ) , his sometime partner with whom he stole a briefcase full of cash from a gang of chinese mobsters .
obviously not having much of a crisis of the soul , val figures porter is dead and goes about using his share of the money to pay off a debt to his employers .
porter , however , is the sort of man who holds a grudge and once on his feet , goes about exacting revenge on the double - crossing val .
gibson gives a terrific performance in the sort of role which he was born to play , that of a slightly unhinged guy who does n't mind beating up or shooting people to get what he wants .
you probably would n't see other actors in his salary range take such an offbeat , out - of - character role such as porter ( jim carrey wo n't be doing anything like this in a hurry after what happened the last time he tried - the cable guy , anyone ? ) .
harrison ford 's idea of playing an unsympathetic character is presumed innocent ; the last time schwarzenegger played a villain was batman and robin , which we wo n't mention further ; and has stallone ever really played a villain at all ?
this is not to say that porter is a villain , per se .
while he is n't the sort of character you would n't want to get on the wrong side of , he 's nothing compared to some of the ones we are forced to watch in countless bad thrillers and action films where they kill innocent people in the blink of an eye or execute their right - hand men just to prove how mean they are .
porter is only trying to get back what is not - so - rightfully his , which in a way is almost understandable .
payback is an enjoyable dramatic black comedy - thriller which wo n't be remembered as being among gibson 's most important work , but is still one of the finer films he 's done .
the only real problem with it is that , while everything seems to work out in the end , i was left feeling something was lacking ; was that all ?
the ending looks as if it was tacked on at the last minute , and the final voice - over does n't ring true , even though it was used to good effect elsewhere in the film - noir style the rest of the film embodies .
the film just ends far too suddenly , after a huge build - up in the penultimate scenes .
a fine film , even though it needs just a little something more to be the kind of a film that can be recommended without hesitation .
just be ready for a possible letdown of an ending .


Output: P