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

Input: Consider Input: no , it is not a bad film , in fact
it is so good in achieving its purpose
, i actually wished for the film to end itself quickly .
event horizon is not your run - of - the - mill sci - fi film , i 'm sure many who have watched this will agree with me .
it is not even original in that sense , and it does borrow heavily from films like alien , hellraiser and even blade runner .
the magic of this film lies in its unorthodox setting and methodical build - up that makes it wonderfully horrifying .
the story brings us to the year 2050 , where space travel have since enormously progressed .
the event horizon is actually a ship built for a secret experimental purpose ; it has the ability to fold time and space thus making it possible for travelling distances not reachable in a man 's lifetime .
the ship disappeared as soon as it went into operation but after 7 years , it reappeared again within the orbit of neptune .
a search and rescue team led by miller ( fishburne ) is given the task to check for survivors of the event horizon .
the designer of the ship , dr .
weir ( neill ) follows along to satisfy his curiosity on what actually happened to his otherwise technologically impressive ship .
event horizon is a sci - fi horror film , much truer to the word than say , alien would ever be .
while in alien , the crew has to cope with a ferocious creature while encased within tight spaces , in event horizon , the forces which goes against the crew is undefined but yet so powerful and horrifying .
the story unfolds itself slowly and the suspense buildup is superb , up till the point where i really felt like saying out loud ` enough !
i ca n't stand this anymore ! ' .
there are more than enough jolts to send your adrenalin pumping overtime .
the story in itself is not exactly something very exciting and also , the acting is only at most , average by most commercial standards .
even so , the essence of horror is carried out very well in this film , thanks to its well - paced storytelling , disturbing set designs and some really gory sequences ( which incidentally , has been quite generously removed by our censorship board ) .
director paul anderson ( who did mortal kombat ) and his team of ` atmosphere ' creators have done well in keeping event horizon within the bounds of the term ` horror ' .
this picture did not do very well in the us box - office most probably for the dread - factor impact it has on most audiences ; people will not see it again and not many would recommend their friend to watch this .
although on the face of it , event horizon is mostly molded for mass - entertainment ; many thrills , spills and suspense to keep audiences in focus .
however , the offbeat horror element which it ultimately convey audiences is very disturbing .
my friend and i could not say a word to each other for quite a while after going through the ` experience ' of event horizon .
i guess it was just the immense feeling of dread which the film had cast upon us .
be forewarned , this film is not for the faint - hearted nor for pure entertainment . be prepared to be disturbed if you should decide to watch this film !
event horizon is highly recommended ? ?
but at your own risk !
it has been a long time since good - horror embraced the big screen , and event horizon is one .

Output: P


Input: Consider Input: you know , i never really wondered what the tarzan films would have been like had tarzan been an old man .
while watching instinct , i could n't help but acknowledge the way the film carelessly rehashes the well - explored themes of those earlier movies .
even beside the tarzan comparison , instinct just is n't a very good film .
it 's painfully idealistic , manipulative , and silly .
i did n't hate it -- it 's simply impossible for me to hate any film starring anthony hopkins ; furthermore , most of the acting is quite good .
but i can recognize instinct for what it is beyond my subjective admiration for the actors involved .
i can also recognize reasons for wanting to make instinct , and it 's pretty clear that this could have been a good film with a massive script overhaul and a director less interested in imitating movies like patch adams .
things start off in the predictable way , as director jon turtletaub introduces us to our hero , theo caulder ( cuba gooding , jr . ) , an ambitious , young psychiatrist under the supervision of an experienced , old psychiatrist ( donald sutherland ) .
caulder soon finds himself involved in the case of his life , the one he thinks will make him famous .
the subject is ethan powell ( hopkins ) , an anthropologist who has been living among gorillas in africa for the past two years .
powell has been charged with the brutal murders of several men in africa , and it 's now caulder 's job to find out of he 's mentally competent enough to stand trial .
through a series of short sessions , caulder tries to put together the complex psyche of powell .
even though it really is an old man version of tarzan , much of this central idea is rather interesting .
as i said , hopkins is captivating for every second he 's on screen ; he has a way of convincing us that he 's not acting , that he 's actually a man who has just spent two years of his life living with a family of wild gorillas .
the character himself is n't very interesting -- he 's just an anthropologist who really likes gorillas -- but hopkins makes him interesting with subtleties both in speech and action .
gooding jr .
does strong work opposite hopkins , playing caulder as an intelligent and flawed individual .
the screenplay , written by gerald di pego and " suggested by " a novel by daniel quinn , gives us no background information on caulder , but that seems to be the point
( he has no time for friends because he 's obsessed with his work ) .
nonetheless , these two actors are essentially the entire list of things that are good about instinct .
unfortunately , filmmaking this inept can mangle the effect of even the best acting .
turtletaub and di pego are both guilty of instinct 's artistic failure , for they work together to make the dumbest , most cliche - ridden environment in which their characters are to live , and they do so by means of brainless subplots .
first , we have the prison warden subplot .
the prison warden is evil and wants to stop caulder 's progress at any cost ; if this means taking caulder off the powell case , then that 's fine .
there 's also the prison guard subplot .
the prison guard is played by john ashton ; the prison guard seems to enjoy mercilessly beating upon the psychotics under his supervision , and he 's instrumental in helping the story along to its obvious conclusion .
then there 's the daughter subplot , in which maura tierney ( playing the daughter ) must look very upset a lot of the time ; after all , she is the daughter of a deranged man .
if some of this stuff sounds familiar , that 's because they 're all devices that have been used and reused in countless other films .
the evil doctor in patch adams is not unlike the evil warden here .
the offensive caricatures of mental patients lack the depth that the similar portrayals in one flew over the cuckoo 's nest had .
ashton 's evil prison guard pales in comparison to clancy brown 's in the shawshank redemption .
hopkins ' performance will undoubtedly remind audiences of his turn in the silence of the lambs .
and then there 's the whole tarzan thing , which is more than a little bit obvious through the entire film .
perhaps what irritates me most about instinct is the half - hearted attempt at philosophical depth .
the message powell brings back from the wild is not a subtle one : he thinks that humans are " takers , " that they expand and kill and that we should all just live like gorillas .
i can sympathize with that , but only when it 's in a compelling film .
this is the kind of stupid movie -- just like patch adams -- in which a big group of characters ( psychotic inmates , in this case ) rise against the evil forces oppressing them by tearing up playing cards .
what does any of this have to do with a man who has just spent two years of his life with gorillas ?
if all the subplots of instinct had been left on the cutting room floor , we would have had a thirty - minute movie far superior to the two - hour one that i watched today .
if the central idea had been developed beyond the old man tarzan premise , then we would really have had something interesting -- a movie that does n't rely on the strength of its actors .

Output: N


Input: Consider Input: one way of telling if a film is good or not is by the length .
if a film is only 90 minutes , but feels like 300 minutes , then it 's crap .
but if a film last 2 1/2 hours , and feels like 90 minutes , then it 's excellent .
boogie nights falls into the latter catagory .
the director , anderson , delivers a funny , hip , yet sometimes violent film , which flies along .
mark whalberg , a .
k .
a marky mark , plays eddie adams , a seventeen year old with a certain ' gift ' in the midriff area .
jack horner ( reynolds ) is a adult film director , who decides that eddie would be great in the adult movie business .
after running away from home , eddie joins jack , changes his name to dirk diggler , and starts making erotic movies .
in the movie business , dirk meets a whole load of characters ( which the film introduces very quickly and slickly ) such as scotty ( phillip seymour hoffman ) , rollergirl ( graham ) amber ( moore ) and floyd ( phillip baker hall ) , and little bill ( william h . macy )
all the characters are well written , well played , and the audience gets to know them pretty well , thanks to the excellent script .
we learn about ambers grief about not being able to see her child due to a divorce , rollergirls hard time at school , and little bills wife , who sleeps with everyone except her husband .
but the best thing about the excellent boogie nights is paul andersons direction and writing .
the direction is fast , thrilling , and never holds up .
there are some great shots , some lovely steadiocam and handheld camera sequences , and lots of other neat directional touches .
the writing is fabulous , with some intelligent dialogue , some funny dialogue , but none of the dialogue is crap , like most hollywood films ( such as the lost world : jurassic park ( 1997 ) , or tommorow never dies ( 1997 ) . )
boogie nights really is a spectacular feat of direction and writing , on par ( and sometimes betters ) quentin tarantino 's films resevoir dogs ( 1992 ) and pulp fiction ( 1994 ) the soundtrack is also excellent
.
like american graffiti ( 1973 ) , the film features some great old songs on the soundtrack , which heightens the atmosphere , and gives the film an extra lift . also ,
the costumes are great .
the clothes really do look like what people wore in the seventies and eighties .
the film , although excellent , does have some flaws .
firstly , wahlberg , although excellent , can not do highly scenes which require him to be angry .
in both scenes where he has to act angry , his acting is so ' off ' , the scenes tension and anger is lost .
but the rest of the cast are excellent .
burt reynolds is brilliant , julianne moore shows real emotion , and william h .
macy is great aswell ( but he always is . )
another flaw with the film , though , is that the ending seems a bit tacked on .
it seems anderson saw the film was going on a bit , and needed to wrap up quickly .
it 's a shame , really , as the rest of the film is perfectly paced .
but they 're small niggles really .
boogie nights is an excellent film . superb directing , writing , acting and music , all combine to make one spectacular film .
whatever you do , do not miss out on boogie nights .


Output: P