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

Input: Consider Input: whether or not i would be considered a trekker probably depends on whom you would ask .
i have been a fan of both the original series and its recently retired follow - up , as well as the even- numbered entries in the film series .
however , i have never been one of those folks who store away trek minutiae and get into debates over the relative merits of spock vs .
data .
somewhere along the line , the " star trek " film series began to seem more and more directed at those in the latter category , and star trek :
generations may be the natural conclusion of this direction .
its production values may be high , but the writing is frequently appalling , and instead of a script has a collection of references , in - jokes and ill - defined characters .
generations opens in the late 23rd century , where members of the original enterprise crew , including captain james t .
kirk ( william shatner ) , are present for the christening of the latest ship to bear that name .
no sooner is it out on its maiden voyage than a distress signal brings them to the nexus , a mysterious ribbon of energy .
among those rescued from the nexus is long - lived alien
dr .
soran ( malcolm mcdowell ) , but he is none - too - pleased at being back in the real world .
seventy - eight years later , soran is still trying to get back to the nexus , and again encounters an enterprise ,
this one led by captain jean - luc picard ( patrick stewart ) .
soran 's plan involves destroying a star with an inhabited planet , and the only hope for saving 230 million people is the historic meeting of two enterprise captains .
i do n't think it is an insult to fans of " star trek " to suggest that to a certain extent , the particulars of a plot are not really the most important elements in a " trek " film .
it 's about a chance to visit with old friends , and if they are involved in a truly interesting story it can be considered gravy .
but even that interpretation assumes that characterization has to be consistent , and in generations that just does n't happen .
data ( brent spiner ) is particularly victimized by this sloppy writing .
in the film 's major sub - plot , data decides to use a chip which will give him human emotions , a chip he has had in his possession for over a year .
what is his motivation for taking this drastic and perhaps dangerous step ?
he does n't get a joke .
once the chip is in place , spiner gets to have a lot of fun with data 's new emotions , but the point is that he 's no longer the data we know .
if the rest of the " next generation " cast fares any better , it 's only because they 're on the screen
so little that they 're simply window dressing .
but then again , this story is n't really about the new crew .
it 's about kirk and picard , the cowboy and the politician , sharing the screen .
the huge surprise is that william shatner blows patrick stewart away .
perhaps because he knows this is his last go - round in the part that made him a legend , shatner looks like he 's having the time of his life ; stewart , on the other hand ,
borders on the deferrential , and is saddled with the same lackluster motivations as everyone else in the cast .
stewart 's edginess is indicative of what may be a very bad sign for paramount 's hopes to turn the new cast into the same kind of franchise the original cast was : these are clearly the not ready for big screen players .
by contrast , the prologue which features scotty ( james doohan ) and chekhov ( walter koenig ) is the highlight of the film .
these characters have become part of the popular mythology , and when they take over the enterprise in a moment of distress , it 's a moment of high energy .
only thirty years of history can create a moment like that , and that 's time this new crew does n't have .
it certainly does n't help that the plot they are stuck in is so convoluted and badly constructed that you need to leave a trail of bread crumbs to find your way out again .
it 's also loaded with little gags all aimed at those who are familiar enough with the series to turn to all their friends in a shared nudge of recognition .
i wonder whether anyone who is coming in cold to the " trek " universe at this point would be anything but
baffled and bored
by what is going on .
and what a waste of malcolm mcdowell , who could have been a great monomanical villain but should have been given a much more compelling reason for his obsession .
there are plenty of details both scientific and of continuity to pick at , but to do so would be to ignore generations ' major flaws .
however , i would like to make one recommendation : seatbelts .
not just for the enterprise crew , although you 'd think by the 24th century space travel would n't involve rolling around on the floor during a battle .
no , i think the audience might need them more .
this journey is one bumpy ride .

Output: N


Input: Consider Input: plot outline - wendy ( samantha press ) , a jazz singer , loves mack ( hugo race ) a criminal and wanna be rock singer who 's planning a bank heist .
mack is also being tailed by a couple of cops , one an inexperienced rookie ( dominic sweeney ) , the other ( john flaus ) a worn out veteran who frequents wendy 's jazz club .
they 're tailing mack , because he has an audiotape that may show evidence of governmental corruption .
meanwhile wendy 's sexually awakener , fifteen year old sister ( rebecca elmaloglou ) has moved in with her , and is secretly watching mack and wendy 's late night love trysts ?
much zaniness ensues the review :
main problem first - about 2 % of rood rock star to actor conversions in filmdom ever really work .
unfortunately , trying to cast hugo race as a violent , sexy criminal falls into the " what the hell where they thinking " category
that takes up 98 % of the rest .
but , hell , it 's not as if he 's the only problem in this well - intentioned but ultimately below average aussie thriller .
leads , race and samantha press are wooden and dull , hampered by some unfortunate attempts at sexy dialogue early on .
though they do manage some heat later in their love scenes , helped , no doubt by them keeping their mouths shut .
the film suffers every time the story shifts back to these two . which is unfortunately , the other main story is n't any great shakes either .
the second part , concerning two cops , political corruption and that elusive tape is incredibly muddled .
at many points during the movie i had no idea what was going on , a situation that did n't improve on repeated viewing .
there is no doubt that this film 's achilles heel is its script .
as for the rest of the cast , it 's a mixed bag .
john flaus , one of australia 's most criminally underused actors , is in top form as the withering , alcoholic jazz fan cop , who may or may not have sold out to the highest bidder .
although he falters at one point , when the script calls for him to get up on stage and deliver a drunken beat sermon , but believe me , they way it was written , no one could have pulled it off .
dominic sweeney is fine , though he seems to be uneasy in front of the lens but he really is n't given a whole lot to do .
pre home and away elmaloglou is pretty good as the inquisitive jojo , but her character seems extraneous to the story , well , at least until the final scenes .
i must admit , in too deep does have some impressive qualities , not the least of which is it visual element .
cinematographers mark gilfedder & peter zakharov have achieved the almost impossible by making melbourne look like a sweat drenched tropic city , which is akin to turning london into san paolo .
the bar is an oppressive red , like all of it 's patrons are being baked while they drink , outside it hazy orange by day and cool blue by night .
if only deborah parson 's script could have supported this idea better .
having two director 's ( colin south & john tatoulis ) does n't help either , the most glaring example of which is the final retribution / fight scene , where for some reason the camera pulls away from the onscreen action , and more importantly it does n't pull away to anything else .
it just stays static as the fight happens in the distance .
it has no reason to it ; it 's just bad direction .
and , ultimately , that is what sums up in too deep
, it 's tries to be good , and you want it to work , but , it 's just lacking the talent behind it , that it needs to succeed .

Output: N


Input: Consider Input: for " original sin , " the road to the screen has been rocky .
initially slated for release last november , the film was bumped twice , finally landing in the dog days of summer 2001 .
advance screenings of the film were denied to all but a few critics , generally a sign that the studio realizes it has a dud on its hands .
so is " original sin " really all that bad ?
yes it is , but the melodrama does offer some rewards .
the location settings are gorgeous and there is a healthy sprinkling of t&a ( with angelina jolie providing the " t " and antonio banderas the " a " ) .
more importantly , the movie is entertainingly bad .
veteran readers know that , as a rule , i do n't encourage people to patronize lousy films .
most of the time , there are plenty of quality offerings on the marketplace that are more deserving of our money and besides , the " let 's go laugh at the failings of others " mindset reflects an elitism that makes me uncomfortable .
but things are different this summer .
quality films , to put it mildly , have been few and far between , so as far as i 'm concerned , it 's fair to find our kicks where we may .
"
original sin " will never join such treasures as " valley of the dolls , " " road house " and " showgirls " in the bad movie hall of fame , but it 'll do until something worse comes along .
the film , adapted by director michael cristofer from the cornell woolrich novel , " waltz into darkness " ( which was also the source for the 1969 francois truffaut film , " mississippi mermaid " ) , opens in a turn - of - the - century prison , as jolie 's character , slated for a dawn execution , tells her lurid tale to a priest who appears desperately horny .
the freshman writing class tone is quickly established when she says things like , " this is not a love story , it is a story about love .
" wary of local gold - diggers , cuban coffee dealer luis antonio vargas ( banderas ) makes arrangements to secure a mail order bride from america , listing himself as a mere clerk to dissuade foreign gold - diggers .
a practical man , luis chooses a frumpy looking lady , hoping she will be a loyal mate able to provide him with children .
imagine his surprise when his fianc ?
e , julia russell ( jolie ) , turns out to be infinitely more attractive than the woman in the photo .
julia explains that she sent a different woman 's image because she did n't want to be selected solely for her pretty face .
luis then confesses his deception , leading julie to state , with great significance , " we have something in common , we are both not to trusted .
" after their wedding , luis and julia retire for a glorious night of carefully choreographed lovemaking , with their bodies positioned to display her breasts and his bottom as erotically as possible .
jolie and banderas are attractive people and watching them naked is fun , although the filmmakers ' insistence on using one of banderas ' legs to cover jolie 's crotch makes it look like he 's trying to climb her .
luis , the stupidest man who ever lived , immediately instructs the bank to make his personal and business accounts available to julia , despite the fact that she seems nothing like the woman with whom he corresponded .
his blissful ignorance continues as the warning signs mount up .
luis must force julia to write to her sister emily , who is frantic over her lack of communication .
shortly after julia complains about the chirping of a pet bird , it is found on the floor of its cage with a broken neck .
finally , when she cleans out his accounts and disappears , luis begins to suspect that something might be wrong .
incidentally , if you 're afraid i 'm giving too much away , rest assured that all of this happens in the first 30 minutes of the movie , leaving plenty of time for numerous dopey plot twists , a great deal of operatic acting and more footage of her tits and his ass .
along the way , private detective walter downs ( played by thomas jane , who was terrific as mickey mantle in the hbo movie " 61 * " ) turns up , hired by the frumpy woman 's sister to find out what happened to the real julia .
luis is also eager for the detective to track down the con artist , having decided that if he ca n't have her , he will kill her .
oh , the pathos of it all .
the cast appears to recognize the trashiness of the story , adjusting their performances accordingly .
banderas is suitably impassioned , while jolie alternates between vamping and pouting ( and with those lips , she can really pout ) .
as for thomas jane , he starts off acting suspicious and cagey , then accelerates to a snidely whiplash level of nastiness .
his most startling moment comes
when , to prove his power to humiliate , he forces luis against a wall , verbally taunts him while rubbing his cheeks against those of luis and then finishes establishing his dominance with a full - on kiss .
if anyone ever questions the difference between sex and rape , show them this chilling scene .
and if anyone ever questions the difference between real drama and a laughable potboiler , show them " original sin .
"


Output: N