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

Example Input: gregg araki 's the doom generation was
possibly the very worst film ever made .
so why did i see his latest teen bisexual angst opus ?
first of all , some of the reviews were fairly positive .
also , the cast , consisting of cameos from dozens of washed up
ex
tv stars ( including christopher knight , eve plumb , shannen doherty , and david leisure ) was promising .
last of all , i wanted to give arraki one more chance .
i mean , the guy ca n't be that untalented , can he ?
the answer to that question is three letters long .
nowhere follows the character dark on his wild and odd journey through los angeles .
since arraki does n't know how to make anything coherent , it 's hard to describe the plot .
let 's just say that dark spends the bulk of the movie whining that his girlfriend wo n't make a commitment to him and jealous because she sleeps around with other guys and girls .
the only remotely compelling storyline involves sarah lassez as a teen who has a chance encounter with a famous tv star .
he turns out to be a nice guy who does n't care for fame and wishes he could walk down the street without being mobbed by fans .
this story has a shocking twist and a tragic end that i did not see coming .
it is the first time i ever felt any compassion for a character created by arraki , and this can be attributed to the appealing performance of lassez .
i thought maybe arraki was improving in his craft .
he works better with the camera this time around , especially in the early scenes .
halfway through the film , i did n't necessarily find myself enjoying the film , but it seemed like a considerable improvement on the doom generation .
then as the movie went on , arraki loses all sensibility and introduces us to exploding heads , twisted sex games , and alien abductions .
it 's sad , because he almost actually had some decent material here , but he ruined it with his usual in your face
" i 'm such a renegade maverick filmmaker , look what i can do " attitude .
the performances are generally better than in the doom generation , which is n't saying much .
at least we do n't have to suffer jonathan
" i am the most hideous man in america " schaech .
we are , however treated to another round of james " i 'm more wooden than keanu " duval .
sarah lassez gives the best performance in the film , and kathleen robertson ( formerly of 90210 and now arraki 's wife ) and rachel true are talented actresses caught up in this mess . of the tv star cameos , john ritter is the most interesting as a deranged right wing tv evangelist .
if i prefer nowhere to the doom generation , it is only in the way that i would prefer being assassinated than receive constant physical torture .
maybe greg arraki does n't want you to like his characters .
maybe he wants to laugh and make fun of those of us who try to care about them .
maybe he just wanted to piss me off .
if so , he was successful .
Example Output: N

Example Input: pre - review note : seeing as the only concern of body shots is " sex " , i will be forced to refer to that particular act innumerable times throughout the duration of this review .
because of this , i will try to vary word descriptions of " sex " ( meaning if you are offended by pejorative terms , and \ or your name is jerry falwell , you are kindly invited to hit the x up on the left corner of your screen ) , so if there happens to be a word you come across and can not comprehend , fret not , it 's most likely just another way of referring to " sex " .
i think we 'd all agree that any word used incessantly becomes a bit monotonous
so i hope you appreciate my attempt to liven up what could potentially be a very boring review .
though not as boring as the movie which makes steve forbes flat tax plan seem as lively as watching a naked mathew mconaughy play the bongos while high on god knows what .
body shots is a film so frightened of coitus that scenes of copulation are filmed ominously , in the way you 'd normally expect to see a violent attack .
it 's about people who think about screwing , seek it out , and talk about it .
these are things we all do , sometimes .
the characters in this film spend every waking moment pondering the simplicities of sexual acts .
their lives center around the next sexual encounter , but they seemed depressed .
it 's as if fucking is all they have to look forward to after a busy workweek .
at its core body shots is a message movie , the kind of thing i could picture really progressive church groups showing to middle schoolers in order to turn them off coition .
michael cristoffer ( who directed gia , another film that treated bumping uglies as if it where evil ) is a moralist with nothing new to say .
his characters do n't communicate anything of interest to each other , so cristoffer gives them an opportunity to let out their inner thoughts by speaking directly into the camera .
they voice simplistic platitudes like " i like to come " or " sex without love equals violence " .
huh ?
and yes that is as complex as this movie 's observations get .
the characters are stupid and shallow , with not one registering as anything more .
the plot concerns vapid over sexed twentysomethings on an all night hunt for carnal pleasure , then the after math ( the morning after ) of such events .
we meet the characters as they speak directly to us , confiding in us with their idiotic ruminations on intimacy .
i would normally go into the characters and the actors who play them , giving you the pros and cons , but for this film i can not .
i 'm not trying to be clever or witty , but i honestly hardly remember anything that would set them apart from the others .
with the exception of trent ( played by ron livingston as a bargain basement patrick bateman ) , the rest fade into each other-- a patchwork of fake breasts , defined abs , pearly white teeth , and creamy , flawless skin .
i vaguely recall brad rowe as the sensitive one , only because his character gets the worst lines ( " sex without love equals violence " ) .
in between all the confessionals , cristoffer films everything like a headache commercial , with blurry slo mos and dramatic head turning .
the fact that this director at one point won a pulitzer prize completely baffles me .
this film is made without one iota of intelligence or insight into the generation that its tag line claims to be defining .
if body shots is meant to say that all twentysometyhings are idiotic and f * * k - obsessed , fine , i do n't have any problem with a film that tries to persuade me to think a certain way , but cristoffer only gives us one side .
additionally that one side is n't even entertaining ; the characters indulge in buggery without an ounce of sexiness . or realism .
one sexual encounter takes place outside a club on a chain link fence between the two most sensitive characters .
they suddenly have vigorous intercourse with each other for no apparent reason ( other than that they both happen to be standing next to each other ? ? ?
alas , if it could only be that easy ? ? ?
kidding of course ) , then , not only is n't it erotic , it is n't real .
it does n't feel like an authentic sexual encounter .
every f
*
* k scene in this film ( and there are many ) is treated in the same unsexy manner .
body shots makes fornication dirtier than the most scummy porno film .
it shows us none of the pleasure that should go along with it , and most of all , it fails to show us why its characters love making it so much if they seem to hate the act of actually doing it .
the resulting search for nookie ( and you can take that cookie ? ? ? )
over one night leaves us with several tedious plot lines to follow .
the main concern is much ado over a rape that may or may not have occurred .
the film shows us two separate versions of the possible rape ( one where it is consensual the other where it is not ) and in both versions the young actress playing the possible victim gets her shirt torn off .
this is a topic that could be interestingly explored if done intelligently , and if memory serves me i ca n't think of one film that has done so , and yes i saw the accused which may be one of the most overrated movies of the 80 's next to wall street .
unfortunately nobody gives us reason to care , not the writer , the director or the actors nearly all of whom seem to have wandered off the set of a noxious 90210 spin off .
paul thomas anderson approached boogie nights in a manner similar to what cristoffer does here , though boogie nights succeeded .
it was similarly moralistic , but it gave us two different viewpoints ; it showed us how the lifestyle of porn enticed its characters , and it showed us the possible fall - out of such a decision .
the characters in boogie nights were as idiotic as the characters are here , but anderson seemed to care about them .
he gave them heart .
cristoffer gives them nothing but raging hormones .
he preaches to us , by using his characters to preach to us .
this is not the way to get any message across .
why not just direct a public service announcement on the perils of hittin ' skins ?
cristofer kind of does that , though
without an ounce of insight , and with a helping of leering exploitation .
Example Output: N

Example Input: deep rising is one of " those " movies .
the kind of movie which serves no purpose except to entertain us .
it does not ask us to think about important questions like life on other planets or the possibility that there is no god . . .
screw that , it says boldly , let 's see some computer generated monsters rip into , decapitate and generally cause irreparable booboos to a bunch of little known actors .
heh !
them wacky monsters , got ta love 'em .
of course , since we can rent about a thousand b movies with the same kind of story , hollywood must give that little extra " oumph " to get people in theaters .
that is where deep rising fails , which is a good thing
.
confused ? let me explain : despite all them flashy effects and big explosions , deep rising is still , at heart , a good ' ol b movie .
luckily , it 's a very good b movie .
the worst cliches in movie history are a b movie 's bread and butter .
therefore , things that would destroy a serious movie actually help us have a good time while watching a movie of lower calibre .
of course we know there 's a big slimy creature behind that door , that one person will wander off to be picked off by said monster and we always know which persons or person will make it out alive .
we just do n't know when or how horrible it will be .
i went to see deep rising with my expections low and my tolerance for bad dialogue high .
imagine my surprise when i discover that deep rising is actually , well ,
pretty darn funny at times .
a funny b movie ?
well , that 's new .
these flicks are not supposed to make us laugh .
( except for a few unintended laughs once a while . ) and before you know it , treat williams , wes studi and famke jansen appear on the big screen .
hey !
i know them guys ( and gal ) from a couple of other movies .
cool .
familiar faces .
so far so good .
our man treat is the hero , he 'll live .
wes is a staple of b movies , he is the token victim .
we know he 'll buy the farm
but he will take a few creeps with him on the way out .
famke is the babe , 'nuff said .
there is also a guy with glasses ( the guy with glasses always dies ) a black person ( b movie buffs know that the black guy always dies , never fails ) and a very funny , nerdy guy .
( ah ! comic relief .
how can we possibly explain having to kill him . . .
let him live . )
after the first fifteen minutes i felt right at home .
i know who to root for and who i need to boo too and a gum to chew .
( please kill me . )
suffice it to say that for the next hour and a half i jumped out of my seat a few times , went " ewwww " about a dozen times and nearly had an orgasm over all the explosions and firepower our heroes were packing .
i 'm a man , we nottice these things .
all in all , i 'd recommend deep rising if you are looking for a good time and care to leave your brain at the door . . . but bring your sense of humor and excitement in with you .
the acting is decent , the effects top rate . how to best describe it ?
put together the jet ski scene from hard rain , the bug attacks from starship troopers , a couple of james bond like stunts and all those scenes from friday the thirteenth and freddy where you keep screaming " do n't go there , he 's behind you " and you end up with deep rising .
for creepy crawly goodness , tight t - shirts , major firepower and the need to go to the bathroom every fifteen minutes from seing all that water .
Example Output:
P