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

Example Input: any remake of an alfred hitchcock film is at best an uncertain project , as a perfect murder illustrates .
frankly , dial m for murder is not one of the master director 's greatest efforts , so there is ample room for improvement .
unfortunately , instead of updating the script , ironing out some of the faults , and speeding up the pace a little , a perfect murder has inexplicably managed to eliminate almost everything that was worthwhile about dial m for murder , leaving behind the nearly- unwatchable wreckage of a would - be ' 90s thriller .
almost all suspense films are loaded with plot implausibilities .
the best thrillers keep viewers involved enough in what 's going on so that these flaws in logic do n't become apparent until long after the final credits have rolled .
unfortunately , in a perfect murder , the faults are often so overt that we become aware of them as they 're happening .
this is a very bad sign .
not only do such occurrences shatter any suspension of disbelief , but they have the astute viewer looking for the next such blunder .
of course , in the case of a perfect murder , at least that gives an audience member something to do besides concentrating on the inane plot and the lifeless , cardboard characters .
a perfect murder is n't a strict remake of dial m for murder , but it does borrow heavily from frederick knott 's play ( which was also the source material for hitchcock 's version , as well as a 1981 made - for - tv retelling ) .
emily hayes ( gwyneth paltrow ) is the wealthy wife of powerful wall street mover - and - shaker steven hayes ( michael douglas ) .
their marriage is n't going well -- emily resents steven 's controlling instincts , and , as a form of rebellion , she is having an affair with a penniless painter , david shaw ( viggo mortensen ) .
when steven learns of the relationship , he decides to confront david , but his approach is n't that of a typical cuckolded husband .
instead of yelling or threatening , steven offers david a proposal that 's too good to resist : for $ 500 , 000 in cash ( $ 100 , 000 before , the rest after ) , he is to break into steven 's new york apartment and kill emily .
( of course , after getting the first payment , david never bothers to ask how he 's supposed to get the rest . )
ultimately , i 'm not sure which of the three main characters we 're supposed to be sympathetic to : the cold - hearted husband , who wants his wife dead so he can get his hands on her fortune ; her mercenary lover , who is willing to do the deed for half - a - million ; or the woman , who is happily carrying on an extramarital affair .
not only are these individuals all profoundly dislikable , but they 're not interesting .
( it 's possible to make a good movie with detestable characters -- see reservoir dogs -- but there has to be something compelling about them , which , in this case , there is n't . )
steven , emily , and david are all lifted directly from the screenwriting 101 text book on stereotypes .
the actors in this film are obviously just on hand to get their paychecks .
michael douglas is playing the kind of heartless tycoon that he can do in his sleep -- he 's gordon gekko with an unfaithful wife .
gwyneth paltrow , who was recently delightful and appealing in sliding doors , is simply awful here .
she now has the dubious distinction of have starred in two of 1998 's worst thrillers ( the other being hush ) .
at least viggo mortensen ( g .
i .
jane ) has a little fun with his part , but then he usually does interesting things even in bad movies .
the thin supporting cast includes david suchet , the star of " poirot , " as a police inspector , and sarita choudhury ( kama sutra ) as emily 's best friend .
a perfect murder is a plodding production that generates almost no suspense from beginning to end .
there are n't many twists and turns in the unexpectedly linear script , which makes the ending inevitable almost from the start .
it 's surprising to see director andrew davis , the man behind the fugitive , involved in this mess
, but , like his stars , he too needs to earn a living .
it 's just that remaking hitchcock , and doing it so badly
, hardly seems to be an honorable way to go about getting the dough .
Example Output: N

Example Input: a common complaint amongst film critics is " why are n't there more literate scripts available ?
" quiz show gives signs of hope that the art of writing is n't dead in hollywood and that we need not only look to independent films for thoughtful content .
paul attanasio 's script takes what could have been a tepid thriller ( the quiz show scandals of the late 50s ) and delivers a telling parable about the emptiness of the post war american dream and the golden bubble that surrounds and protects tv networks and their sponsors .
the film is riddled with telling symbols
( e . g .
a ' 58 chrysler , a radio announcement of sputnik ) but is never heavy handed . deft direction by robert redford and keen performances by ralph fiennes , john turturro and rob morrow
dovetail perfectly with the carefully honed script .
redford departs from the usually overlight , " cable tv quality " sets and camera work so common in recent 20th century period pieces .
quiz show
perfectly captures the colors and textures of the eisenhower years .
although i was only 4 years old when the " twenty one " scandal broke , enough of the 50s icons survived throughout my childhood for me to recognize the authenticity of redford 's almost tangible palette .
from plastic covered furniture to carefully coifed contestants , the images ring true from that era of rampant consumerism , of a generation that had gone through 15 years of depression and world war without " disposable income , " before the manifestation of its american dream .
the film deftly weaves several themes together , from assimilation and exclusion of jews from " the good life , " to the lengths that a scion of a literary family will go to to match his father 's fame .
though the 50s audience that is " rocked " by this scandal may initially seem naive to us , they should appear all too familiar , with our current national passion for the rise and fall of icons like michael jackson or tonya harding .
charles van doren and herbie stemple were the overnight mega celebrities of their day .
the tv audience is almost a fourth main character , always at the center of the decisions being made on their behalf .
at the film 's end , the credits roll past slow motion footage of that same 50s tv audience , mindlessly laughing at some piece of fluff .
like the distorted mirror that captured a blurred swastika at the end of cabaret , this " mirror " may reflect an image we 're not all that comfortable with .
Example Output: P

Example Input: a suave , cool , collected , rich , uptight bad guy = cliche .
a clumsy criminal oaf to add to the laughs = cliche .
a bad guy who owns a wild animal = cliche .
a crooked , chauvinistic law enforcer type = cliche .
at an intense moment , our main character tries to get away , but the car has trouble starting = cliche .
complaining about cliches = cliche .
ok , ok .
so we always hear about cliches .
but if there was ever to be a prime example , the real mccoy is it ! not one uttered word , not one frame of film , not one character in this whole movie is n't a cut and paste example of everything we 've ever seen .
they might as well use this as a training film : " how to make a bank robbery film in the 90 's " .
karen mccoy ( kim basinger ) is a bank robber who just got out on parole after a six - year stay at the state prison .
she wants to make things right and go straight , especially with the fact that she has a six - year old son out there who does n't even know she 's alive .
aware of mccoy 's bank robbing expertise , sniveling bad guy jack schmidt ( terence stamp ) uses the same six - year old to coerce mccoy into returning to her past .
he wants mccoy to pull off an elaborate heist of 18 + million dollars at the same bank she got caught trying to rob six years earlier , which , by the way , is somehow due to schmidt .
and if she refuses ? who knows what he 'll do to the kid .
( cue sinister laughter )
this movie is so pathetically pitiful
that it 's hard to know where to begin .
the aforementioned cliches are brutally abundant .
i ca n't stress enough how every single element , whether it be a character , the dialogue , a plot " twist " , etc . , is so damn generic that you 'll wonder if * anyone * is working behind the scenes , let alone in front of the camera .
basinger is absolutely vacant .
and where do they get off trying to make us emotionally attached to her ?
here 's someone that spent their time robbing banks , and now as she heads onto the street , we 're supposed to feel sorry for her .
as she confronts her son , who does n't even know who she is , are we supposed to break into tears ? ?
especially when neither basinger nor zach english , who plays the kid , has any depth or emotional - radiance whatsoever .
i suppose i should mention val kilmer .
yeah ,
that 's right
- he 's in it !
quite sadly too , seeing as how i can discuss everything about the movie and never mention his name .
and he got second billing !
to be fair , i will admit that kilmer had potential in his role as the bumbling criminal wannabe j .
t . barker .
unfortunately the script does n't allow much room for improvement , and when his character is used like bookends ( he never shows up in the middle of the film ! ) , we have no time to appreciate what he might have brought to this project .
the real mccoy
just ca n't keep it
's head above water
,
and soon , * very * soon , sinks into a cliched mess of movie .
the actors are like dummies being moved about by an unenthusiastic puppeteer , and the dialogue , particularly schmidt 's trite dialogue , falls like the niagra .
this is definitely one to avoid , folks .
the real mccoy is anything but !
Example Output:
N