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

Example Input: when i ponder childhood memories past , one of the things that always springs immediately to mind is watching the " inspector gadget " tv show with my older brother .
truth be told , we were rabid fanatics ; our version of cowboys and indians was chasing each other around our coffee table to the theme tune , alternating who would get to be gadget and who would be stuck playing the part of dr .
claw , the inspector 's arch nemesis .
i was never a biggie on nostalgia , but you just ca n't help but have fond memories of something like that .
sometimes i even find myself up at 4 am watching re - runs of my favorite episodes , trying to recapture some of that sense of wonder i felt as a kid .
at the very least , i was expecting the new film version of the classic television series to have at least some kind of similar effect on me .
despite how horrid a film may be , the simple task of rekindling even a slight feeling of nostalgia is pretty tough to screw up .
so back i sat , with minimum expectations of what the movie would deliver ( let 's face it ; exactly how good can a live - action disney film really be ? ) .
i was wise enough to steer clear from the likes of mr .
magoo and george of the jungle ( two previous disney adaptations ) ,
and i wish to god that i had been sharp enough to skip gadget as well
.
rarely has a movie left me with such an utter feeling of emptiness .
as everyone else was getting up to exit the screening room after the movie had completed its assault on mankind , i was left sitting there , absolutely speechless and totally dumbfounded at what i had just seen
.
can something this awful
truly exist in such an evolved world ?
right from the beginning , i knew i was in trouble .
in the opening scenes , each character is introduced as if their sole purpose is to just be , to simply serve as real - life duplicates of their cartoon clones .
when referring to them , people almost yell in fear that the audience will not catch on as to who a certain character is supposed to be ( " oh , hi penny !
is brain with you ? " ) . creating one - dimensional replicas is one thing ; having mere names take the place of them is quite another .
the " plot " , shall we call it , stays fairly in tune with the original series .
matthew broderick stars as john brown ( how creative is that ? ) , a security guard who is horribly injured by a pack of ruthless businessmen headed by scolex ( why , rupert everett ,
for the love of god
why ? ? ? ! ! !
) , who himself is transformed into claw by an unfortunate chain of events .
brown is then rescued and used as a prototype for a new law - enforcement technology wherein he 's joined with various machine parts and some nifty gadgets to form ( drumroll , please ) . . .
inspector gadget !
> from here on out
, the movie becomes a hodgepodge of stupid dialog and confusing situations
( although , to be fair , my confusion could have been caused by the virtual concussion the film was inflicting upon my fragile mind ) .
there 's something about an evil gadget taking over the city ( his first crime must have been swiping matt dillon 's dentures from there 's something about mary ) and it all ends with ( what else ? )
a bunch of post - credit nonsense and a cameo by don adams himself .
to be honest , i was n't much paying attention to these " treats " .
i was just glad that it was over .
Example Output: N

Example Input: i like movies with albert brooks , and i really like movies directed and written by albert brooks .
lost in america and defending your life are two of my favorite comedies .
his humor is of a kind that is not very prevalent in movies today , inundated as we are with films which revel in their aim toward the lowest common denominator .
you will rarely see any slapstick in an albert brooks film , while the dialog will not be as oppressive as in some of the independent " talk films " which are finding their way into theaters .
the situations in which his characters find themselves are ones we can often identify with , but even if we ca n't , brooks has the talent to make them comfortable , and therefore we laugh .
teenagers and jim carrey fans probably wo n't find an albert brooks movie very funny , but people who look for more than what we could find on television probably will .
put simply , brooks ' comedy is intelligent .
mother is albert brooks ' latest film , and it does not disappoint .
brooks plays john henderson ,
a middle - aged science fiction writer just coming off his second divorce .
he makes an attempt at dating , but fails miserably .
he then has dinner with his brother jeff ( rob morrow ) , a successful sports agent who seems to live the ideal life .
jeff has a good job , a loving family , and most of all , a warm relationship with their mother beatrice ( debbie reynolds ) .
after dinner , john witnesses a telephone conversation between jeff and beatrice , and is at the same time amazed and sickened by how hunky - dory the dialog is .
in comparison , beatrice always hints at a fault in john and his career every time she talks with him , and john gives it right back to her .
at the end of one of their conversations where beatrice has just picked apart john 's life , she says , " i love you , " and john replies with , " i know you think you do .
"
the thing is , beatrice is not overt with her criticisms , but instead gives them in that mothering way which is tantamount to nit - picking and guilt loading .
it 's the kind that goes something like , "
yes , dear , i think you do that wonderfully , but .
.. .
"
it seems as though nothing he does makes her happy .
there 's always the big
but .
john believes that his mother is somehow connected to his failed relationships with women , either because of his flawed self - esteem caused by his need for validation , or perhaps because he tends to unconsciously seek out women who remind him of his mother in an oedipal manner .
he comes to the conclusion that since his problems are rooted in his boyhood home , he should move back in with his mother for a while just to see what kinds of feelings come out , and by that be able to sort out why his life is the way it is .
"
a great experiment " , he calls it .
brooks ' own brand of humor really shines in this film , especially in the interaction john has with his mother .
there 's a scene where john has just arrived at his mother 's house , and after having driven from los angeles to sausalito , and having explained to his mother about the " great experiment " , beatrice asks , " now explain to me again why you do n't want to stay at a hotel .
"
she still does n't get it , and it is absolutely hilarious .
in the same scene , we get little glances at the life his mother leads when she tries to feed him food that is no longer fresh .
she apparently buys in great quantities and refrigerates it until the lettuce is wilted and the sherbet is iced over .
when john points out the ice on the sherbet , beatrice tells him not to worry about the protective glaze .
"
you 've named the ice ? " asks john .
he 's also surprised at the variety of items
beatrice keeps in the refrigerator , such as a twenty - pound block of cheese .
"
the freezer was a good invention , " says john , " but it 's not supposed to be used for everything .
that 's why it 's smaller than the refrigerator .
"
it 's something most of us find strangely familiar .
brooks is also a master at employing the non sequitur .
for example , in defending your life , his and meryl streep 's characters are in a comedy club having a discussion .
when they 're finished and walk out , brooks cuts to the comic on stage who is just at the point of delivering his punch line , " and so the moral is , if you have to fart , go outside !
"
you do n't know what the joke was because you could n't hear him during the entire scene , but i must have laughed for the next five minutes , it seemed so out of context .
in this film , brooks uses the same trick a couple of times to open or close a scene .
i do n't want to give them away , but suffice it to
say they work just as well as they have in the past .
john 's purpose for staying with his mother is to learn , and we as the audience learn right along with him .
his mother is not the fascinating type to begin with , but as john spends more time with her , we learn things about her personality and her lifestyle that give her depth .
watching the character of beatrice unfold is every bit as enjoyable as the humor that accompanies it each step of the way .
on screen , brooks does an excellent job playing this kind of character
: you get the feeling he often believes he is the only sane person in an insane world .
in a way , he 's very much like yosarian of catch-22 , expect with something of an attitude .
casting debbie reynolds as beatrice is perfect .
she assumes the part with ease , even moving and speaking a little slowly , and is just so adorable it 's hard to get mad at her character .
this only helps the audience to share the frustration john feels when dealing with her .
as his first choice , brooks originally wanted to lure nancy reagan out from her acting retirement to play beatrice , but the former actress and first lady could not leave her husband , who was beginning to show symptoms of alzheimer 's disease .
that may be just as well , since reynolds lends a softness to the character which enhances it immensely .
rob morrow also does a good job at playing the younger brother who has always been mother 's favorite and , for all his success in his job and family , is slowly exposed as a mama 's boy .
the only things that hold this movie back from being better are a couple of plot holes .
a solid connection is not really made between john 's troubles and his reasons for living with his mother .
additionally , the end results of the experiment do not necessarily jibe with the stated goals , and although this may have been sloppy screenwriting , how can you be mad at the guy who also wrote this ?
: beatrice : you must think i 'm some kind of moron .
john
: no , i think your someone who thinks i 'm a moron .
beatrice : well , it takes one to know one .
Example Output: P

Example Input: the most absurd remake of 1998 ?
it 's a toss up between gus van sant 's psycho and mighty joe young , the new disney picture based on the old rko picture .
( i knew i was in trouble when a polished , computer - generated version of that famous rko logo appeared before the head credits . )
there is no great demand for another giant ape movie - make that ape movie , period .
( witness the quick deaths of buddy , born to be wild and congo . )
and while this latest entry is inoffensive and watchable , it 's also an assembly line product through and through , lacking the charm and unpredictability of the jungle serials that partly inspired it .
theron is jill young : as a young girl in the wilds of africa , she befriended a baby gorilla after both their mothers were slain by poachers .
that baby gorilla ( nicknamed joe ) grows to immense proportions , and adult jill basically bides her time looking after him , playing hide and seek with him and guarding him against poachers .
enter conservationist greg ( paxton ) , who convinces jill to move with joe to california , where they can protect him better in a controlled environment .
joe is restless at first ; no sooner does he finally settle in to the new place than those nasty poachers show up in l . a . , plotting joe 's demise .
suffice it to say , the movie could have been called " joe : ape in the city .
" theron ( so good in devil 's advocate ) and paxton ( so good in the recent a simple plan ) are fine actors , but not fine enough to transcend the material , a paint - by - numbers script from the hack writers of superman iv and mercury rising .
the plot arguably borrows more from steven spielberg 's the lost world than the 1949 original , with the computer - generated t - rex - i mean , joe - wreaking havoc on the busy streets for an encore ; the storytelling becomes especially lazy during this final third , with jill shouting , " look , joe 's headed for the movie theatre ! " followed by a shot of joe scaling mann 's chinese theater ; a moment later , jill shouts again something like " look , joe 's headed for an amusement park ! " and what do you know , there 's joe at the pallisades carnival , scaring the bejesus out of innocent thrillseekers .
the seams of last - minute edits to mighty joe young show - unrelated scenes are patched together with quick dissolves .
the movie sure feels uneven , regardless : act two is underdeveloped , while a little of joe smashing cars in act three goes a long , long way .
underwood ( tremors , speechless ) was perhaps not the director for the job ; even the plentiful , untamed landscape looks dull in his hands .
( capturing the beauty of nature requires more than his point and shoot style . )
i did enjoy certain sequences , especially the demoliton of a black - tie dinner sequence ; and the prologue , however implausible , is touching .
( as a tyke , joe acts just like e .
t . )
rick baker 's make - up effects and puppetry are outstanding , the real star of the show - yet , for all its technical flawlessness , the creature remains too grumpy and homicidal to love .
( his facial expressions are variations on a scowl . ) to be fair , i saw mighty joe young in a cinema packed with wailing children - it 's a wonder i was able to decipher the dialogue .
it 's certainly not a film for very young kids - intense fighting scenes may scare them , while any time joe 's not on camera may bore them to tears .
( note : older boys are more likely to be dazzled by theron 's colourful array of tank tops . )
i suspect bland mighty joe young is passable entertainment for a family outing , but they sure do n't make ?
em like they used to .
Example Output:
N