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

Example Input: watching the movie , i vowed to subtract half a star from the review because the filmmakers included a saccharine syrup , cute ' n
cuddly , computer - generated monkey .
if the monkey died , the movie got an extra half star .
alas , the monkey showed up at the end , unharmed , to the wet sickly sound of gagging and rolling eyeballs .
what that means is that lost in space
actually deserved 2 stars .
that 's pretty generous , considering the movie 's camp lacked any hint of tongue in cheek
.
when will robinson ( jack johnson ) teaches his pet robot about friendship , you are actually supposed to buy it .
so why such a seemingly high rating ?
there are a few reasons that made me unable to throw away the experience with the garbage .
first , we saw the movie on opening night of the first day of operation of a brand new theater .
the sound and screen kicked ass .
nobody in the country enjoyed the movie as much as my audience did ( and i do n't necessarily mean that in a good way ) .
also , there were more than zero scenes where i found myself rooting for the robinsons , or getting caught up in the movie 's tension .
i even liked the computer - generated settings .
i usually prefer to see models or sets , but the cg was more detailed than i 've seen in a lot of movies ; it looks like someone spent a little overtime to render some of the futuristic cities .
also , gary oldman is never a bad actor , even though he is typecast as a villain .
william hurt is n't too bad either .
neither actor had a great role , but their performances were watchable .
and perhaps i should n't admit this , but something about the tone and outlook of the movie brought me back to my childhood .
there is very little swearing or blood ; there is a strong moral message , saccharine though it is ; there is a bit of romance ( whose culmination after 2 hours is a " real " kiss -- no sex ) .
it felt like one of those disney movies that i so looked forward to when i was six .
those movies were probably as bad as lost in space , but at the time , they were manna from heaven .
that type of moviemaking is a lost art .
now for the bad news .
worst and most unforgivable was the incredibly bad dialogue .
it 's squeaky - clean , family fun , trying hard to be as hip as pulp fiction .
"
you better hold on to your joystick , " is one such line .
and when a robinson is called upon to deliver a line about warp conduit thingamajigs , they inevitably stumble badly enough to embarrass even the lowliest star trek ensign .
second worst , and closely related , is the screenplay .
the story 's exposition takes place at a press conference , which allows the writers to explain what 's happening with the least amount of creativity , effort , or interest .
once the story gets going , i do concede a momentary burst of interest once in a while , but on the whole , the situations that arise are silly and contrived .
when gary oldman easily reprograms will 's pet robot to kill the robinsons , my friend summed it up perfectly : " he flipped the switch to ' evil . '
" then there 's the tone of the movie .
the colorado daily said the film would have been more interesting if the central character was will robinson and not his father john robinson .
then it could be an adventure movie .
they 're mostly right , except that johnson ( will ) was n't a good enough actor to carry it off .
still , that the film has the robinson patriarch as our hero shows a lack of imagination .
just because a movie is tame enough for kids does n't mean that we have to bow to a " promise keepers " notion of who 's the center of a family .
many quality family films have been made with a non - traditional family structure ( fly away home comes to mind ) to much better effect .
and the politics of the time seem a bit conservative and regressive for a futuristic movie .
in star wars , the rebels were the good guys .
we were rooting for those who were fighting against the system .
in lost in space , the rebels are the bad guys , a terrorist force that must be killed , crushed and silenced so that our children may live free .
that ominous excuse for violence almost makes me sympathize with the terrorists .
finally , a few specific details deserve criticism .
the movie tells us that the setting is the year 2056 .
why ?
why bother saying what year this is .
just tell us it 's the future .
i bring it up because the tv series was supposed to take place in 1997 .
setting a specific date only dates the movie and guarantees that it wo n't be timeless ( not that this movie was really in the running anyway . ) .
then there is a scene that shows john robinson checking one of his controls on a chair that rises about fifteen feet on a pole .
this silly waste of money reminded me of bugs bunny 's barber chair , and only shows that the future is a time when spaceship designers have n't learned a thing about ergonomics .
one vaguely redeeming quality is that the end credits succeed where the rest of the film failed : it made lost in space look cool .
the strong techno beat sampled the cheesiest dialogue and , out of context , made it sound hip .
this is overlaid on a cool jumpy credit sequence with interesting distorted clips from the movie .
but if that 's the best part of the movie , i ca n't in good conscience recommend it .
still , if you get stuck seeing it , as we did , you might be able to appreciate it if you keep your distance , think of liking bad movies as a child , and bring along your " bad movie bingo " cards .
Example Output: N

Example Input: carla gugino graduates from high school and instead of staying in her small farming town , she goes to college in california .
there she meets the residential advisor pauly shore , who is a city boy .
when gugino goes back home for thanksgiving , she brings shore with her , and her parents ( lane smith and cindy pickett ) are less than thrilled .
dan gauthier , gugino 's boyfriend from high school , proposes to gugino .
gugino is n't ready for anything like this
so she makes up the story that she is engaged to shore .
she and shore have to make it look like they are engaged while her parents try to make it end .
forget jurassic park , cliffhanger , the firm and last action hero , son - in - law is the film to see this summer .
son - in - law is a great romantic comedy that should please the viewers , especially fans of the wiez .
when son - in - law is long gone and forgotten , the blockbuster summer films will still be playing and you will have a chance to see them then .
this film could also make great video fare for those that are leery of spending seven dollars on it .
nothing will be lost by watching it on a television screen .
although the basic story line has been done many , many times before , the film is still fun to watch .
the laughs are plentiful , especially when the wiez is around .
the way some of the jokes are done are new , even though some of the jokes are old .
there are also several new jokes that , at least , i have n't seen before .
still , when presented right , even old material can be funny still .
this film is just basically a light comedy that is great to see if you are in the right mood that does n't contain much violence or any nudity that is definitely worth full ticket price .
the cast for this film does an excellent job .
pauly shore ( encino man ) is the star attraction of this film .
he is great , and knows how to entertain the audience .
pauly shore just seems to take over the entire screen when he is on with expressions and comments that are hilarious .
this film would definitely not have been as good with anyone else in this role .
carla gugino
does a very good job as the farm girl gone city girl .
she makes her character believable , on some levels , yet interesting at the same time .
the person who played the grandfather ( mason adams , i believe ) also does a great job .
the way he delivered his lines kept me laughing throughout the time that he was on the screen .
patrick renna , who played gugino 's little brother , was a little annoying , but no where as near as macaulay culkin , and for only part of the time , so i can forgive him .
tiffani - amber thiessen ( a killer among friends , " saved by the bell " ) does a reasonably good job for the time that she is on screen .
she shows that she may have a potential in movies if she can get out of the corny young adults programming on television .
she was n't given overly much to do in the film , but what she had ,
she does a good job with .
Example Output: P

Example Input: one of my brother 's favorite movies is h .
b .
halicki 's 1974 cult flick " gone is sixty seconds , " one of the best products of the car - chase genre that provided drive - in fare during the 1970 's .
chase pics had more tire squeals than dialogue , but they had a strong visceral appeal .
although it boasts a bigger budget and familiar stars , the remake of " gone in sixty seconds " is relatively weak and dull .
randall " memphis " raines ( nicolas cage ) is a retired car thief who runs a go - cart track .
he got out of crime so that his younger brother kip ( giovanni ribisi ) would not take up boosting cars .
however , kip became a thief anyway , and now he 's in big trouble .
kip promised to deliver fifty luxury and sports cars to gangster raymond calitri ( christopher eccleston ) by the end of the week .
calitri expects memphis to fulfill kip 's bargain ; if he does n't come through , kip dies .
memphis gathers his old crew ( angelina jolie , robert duvall , will patton , chi mcbride , and vinnie jones ) , and kip brings his boys ( t .
j .
cross , william lee scott , scott caan , and james duval ) .
as if calitri breathing down their necks was n't bad enough , the team is pursued by a cop ( delroy lindo ) who 's still ticked off that he never busted memphis and by a rival gangster ( rap star master p ) who wants to take over calitri 's clients .
watching " gone , " i discovered that stealing fifty cars is not any more interesting than stealing one .
maybe that 's why the first forty - nine are fairly easy , and the thrills are saved for " eleanor , " a 1967 shelby gto , a model that has always eluded memphis .
but the big chase does n't live up to the long wait .
i had high hopes for " gone " because it is director dominic sena 's second film .
" kalifornia ,
" his 1993 debut , was a brilliant study in the relationship between violence and its audience .
in that movie sena took a simple thriller plot ( a couple gives a serial killer a ride ) and successfully endowed it with deeper significance .
in " gone " he seems to be aiming for a drama about two brothers who ca n't communicate with each other , but that goal just does n't mesh with this plot .
" gone " either takes itself too seriously or not seriously enough .
it 's not light enough to be fun , or mean enough to be intense .
this chaser has more dialogue than tire squeals but
is none the better for it .
the lack of action is a waste of the premise , which should have challenged the filmmakers to create the most spectacular car chases ever .
the weak script is a waste of a talented cast .
in a " newsweek " interview last year , sean penn blasted his old pal nic cage for making bad movies .
much as i like cage , for every good picture he does ( " leaving las vegas , " " bringing out the dead " ) , there are two major stinkers ( " snake eyes , " " con air , " " 8 mm , " " city of angels " ) .
that ratio is probably better than what a lot of his peers can boast , but cage has real talent .
it 's a shame to waste it in glitzy , superficial tripe
like " gone in 60 seconds . "
Example Output:
N