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

Example 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 .
Example Output: N

Example Input: well , i 'll admit when i first heard about this film ( which was before dante 's peak ) i could just smell what ' twister ' had started .
so now it seems that we 're in a full fledged return to the ' 70 's disaster film era .
with ' twister ' , ' dante 's peak ' , ' volcano ' and soon ' flood ' and james cameron 's extremly expensive ' titanic ' i 'll say first off
i enjoyed ' volcano ' much more than i did ' dantes peak ' .
part of that is just being biased as
i usually enjoy anything that tommy lee jones appears in .
i 've been reading a lot about the movie being ' cheezy ' or ' hokey ' and really did n't see or think that once during the entire film .
i get bored easily and this film did n't bore me for a minute .
another thing , and boy am i bitching today !
, that bothers me is when critics and such go on about
" well that s not really possible .
"
you know what ?
i could n't give a bloody damn if it 's possible or not , really i could n't .
it 's a freaking movie and i do n't want reality thrown in my face .
i want to be able to see the impossible , the all might " what if " to many reviewers have seen one to many movies !
the special effects are the second star to this feature .
they are so amazing that i found it hard sometimes to believe they were indeed fx
and la was was not burning to the ground .
they did an incredible job and come oscar time ( if they remember ) some notice better be thrown there way .
Example Output: P

Example Input: i 've noticed something lately that i 've never thought of before .
pseudo- substance - hollywood faking deep meanings in their films .
have you ever seen a movie that you really enjoyed , then when you look back , you realize there was something missing ?
more and more , filmmakers seem to be putting out well rehearsed , melodramatic films that evoke strong connotations of being a great film , but if you step aside and reflect on your movie going experience , you may just discover nothing more than elegantly presented fluff .
i 'm not trying to say city of angels is that bad .
it had a lot going for it , but somewhere along the way , it faltered .
somehow , underneath the seemingly poetic beauty of it all , there was a gigantic hole somebody covered with iridescent performances and glossy cinematography .
the predictable ending that shattered our hopes ( even though we saw it coming ) only added to the disappointment .
but for over an hour , city of angels is well worth the time .
nicolas cage is seth , a guardian angel who , like hundreds ( likely thousands or even millions ) of other angels , spends eternity watching over the citizens of mortality ; humans never aware of how much celestial intervention occurs in their life .
meg ryan , in her most subdued performance yet , plays maggie , a doctor who begins to ponder exactly who it is we 're fighting against when we fight to keep someone alive .
after losing a patient on the surgery table , these questions envelope maggie , and seth , the angel who was there to oversee the patient 's transition into the afterlife , is immediately captivated by the doctor .
he begins following and observing maggie , falling more and more in love with her everyday .
angels , who we quickly learn are not and never were humans , can not experience human sensations such as taste and touch , but they do have the ability to make themselves seen to anyone they desire .
seth 's adoration is too much to resist , and eventually he does appear to maggie , quite regularly , although such a thing seems taboo among the angelic community .
the angels are interestingly presented , all of them dressed in black and more reminiscent of hitmen than traditional glowing white entities , but it 's a nice touch that never seems like a mere attempt at uniqueness .
cage is a wonderfully versatile actor ( think face / off , raising arizona , and it could happen to you - what a combo ! ) who slips into the role of a heavenly agent quite nicely but threatens sappiness more than once .
it 's nice to see ryan pick up roles like this and the one in courage under fire .
the two are n't very comparable to each other , but they both deviate from her usual " intelligently ditzy " romantic comedy roles , and it 's an impressive side of ryan movie goers rarely have the chance to enjoy .
but even though the two leads do an impressive job
, it is dennis franz who grabs us with his interpretation of a hospital patient who knows more than meets the eye .
it 's a shame that with so much going for it , city of angels falters so much in its final stages , leaving us with the realization that an emotionally incredible movie was out there , they just did n't know quite how to get to it .
they struggle for an impacting conclusion and wind up with painful thud rather than an exhilarating high .
filmmakers should know your final impression will be the one you linger on , remember , and convey to others thru word of mouth , so after telling us for 60 + minutes that this film is a glorious masterpiece , they sure leave us with a disheartening taste of mediocrity in our mouths .
based on the german film wings of desire ( that being the english title , of course ) , city of angels is ninety percent success , enough to make most people forgive its shortcomings , even the devastatingly disappointing ending .
most movie goers , the non - cynics anyway , will be too wrapped up in the surreal atmosphere to give criticism to that which needs to be criticized .
nonetheless , city of angels is beautifully captivating , which is probably enough to satisfy those poetic viewers who will appreciate a delve into rich emotional territories .
Example Output:
P