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

Input: Consider Input: go 's is a gloriously slick hip machine .
director liman ( who also photographed go ) and screenwriter august celebrate the drug / rave scene in l .
a .
, preferring to take ( comedic ) snapshots of troubled youth rather than critique them .
after more than ninety minutes of pill - popping , tantric sex , car chases , and attempted murder , go even has a happy ending .
this is the sort of film that gives members of the dove foundation splitting headaches ; as go wound down , i anticipated an anti - pill - popping - casual - tantric - sex - car - chase - attempted - murder sermon that ( blessedly ) did n't arrive .
a la tarantino 's pulp fiction , go is comprised of three separate but related stories .
the basics are as follows :
ronna ( polley ) is a bitter grocery store clerk facing eviction who turns to drug dealing for extra dough .
her co - worker , simon ( the improbably named askew ) , is a clubber from britain ecstatic about his first trip to vegas .
zack ( mohr ) and adam ( wolf ) are soap opera stars escaping a career - threatening conviction by assisting a peculiar cop ( fichtner ) in a drug bust .
perhaps because the innovative structure of tarantino 's non - linear masterwork is by now old hat , the id - fueled go delighted me but rarely surprised me ( with the exception of that mind - reading cat ! ) ; pulp fiction zigzagged down roads unforeseen , but we see go 's wheels turning from its first flash frame to the last .
torontonian polley ( of the sweet hereafter ) refused to do publicity for this picture on the basis that she was " not pleased with " her turn as the ill - fated cashier .
in go , she delivers , hands - down , her best performance to date .
here 's an ( overrated ) actress who agreed to appear on the poster , but not support her team at the junket or in interviews ; this sort of arrogance is commonplace for ms .
polley , as anyone who has read of her political agenda in the canadian press will tell you .
if she does n't want to be the ingenue of the moment , she should have said " no , " not go .
but i digress .
go is a fun film , so chipperly depraved one ca n't help but turn off his moral judgment for its duration and enjoy the ride .
in that sense , it 's a departure from liman 's last film , swingers , which at least lectured against self - absorption in the form of vince vaughan 's trent and his subtle comeuppance in the story 's clever epilogue ( which has been aped by mcdonald 's for their latest commercial ) .
i wish i cared more about go 's characters : like the techno music they listen to , the bands of anarchists on display here are at once absorbing and vacuous .
when the lights came up and stung my eyes , it was difficult to recall what about it entertained me . yet
entertain me it did
.
go is light and frothy , featuring compelling if not endearing work by polley , timothy olyphant ( scream 2 ) , and especially fichtner , whose homoerotic behavior is milked for effective laughs .
fichtner is a character actor best known for playing backstabbers ( in heat , armageddon , and others ) ; his previously untapped comic abilities shine in go .
unlike much of the film , fichtner is unpredictable .

Output: P


Input: Consider 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 .

Output: N


Input: Consider Input: well i 'll be damned , what a most excellent surprise .
not to be confused with the campy and far inferior 1988 remake starring ex - porn star traci lords , this more recent attempt at remaking the 1950 's drive - in schlockfest not of this earth is a real gem and was quite possibly the best sci - fi flick of 1995 .
once again , b - movie king roger corman is behind this effort ( he directed the original ) but this time he appears only in the role of executive producer .
the rest of the crew and cast are relative unknowns .
it seems criminal that the film was released direct to video in most countries , because it 's an absolute must - see for sci - fi fans and a treat for anyone who enjoys decently acted and written thrillers with a kooky bent .
the plot in brief .
paul johnson ( michael york ) is an alien posing as an eccentric millionaire who , though needing to kill people to live , is visiting earth for far from selfish reasons .
his race is dying of a mysterious blood disease and he desperately is trying to find a cure , the key of which lies in the blood of humans .
he visits and soon puts under his spell the respected blood physician dr .
rochelle , whom he hypnotises into doing secret research on his behalf .
he also has the doctor convince smart and sexy nurse amanda ( elizabeth barondes ) to move in with johnson as his private nurse so as to give him the blood transfusions which he constantly requires .
but before long , amanda and johnson 's sleazy chauffeur release that johnson is a lot more than just eccentric .
i must admit , my first glimpse of the video cover for not of this earth was not encouraging .
british actor michael york has appeared in some real stinkers in past few decades , a far cry from the quality fare of his younger days such as caberat ( 1972 ) .
but his performance here as an alien in human disguise is nothing short of outstanding .
the weird twitches and bizarre modes of speech , the dapper clothes and cool spectacles , the unexpected pathos which he invests in his character .
york is by turns hilarious , menacing and tragic .
this is a tour - de - force and quite simply the best performance i 've seen from him .
and while obviously made on a modest budget , the film boasts enormous strengths .
the casting is spot on , the acting is terrific and the script is intelligent , witty and consistently engaging , cleverly updating the original .
the balance of horror and humour is just about perfect , a marked contrast to the earlier remake from 1988 .
the film does n't drag for a second of its 90 minute running time thanks to tight editing and the sure hand of little - known director terrance h . winkless .
and it does n't matter one bit that the special effects are cheesy - this is schlock after all , even if it is high class schlock .
in fact my only criticism of the film is that things get a tad weak towards the end .
tighter direction could have given the climax more urgency and a few of the characters act rather illogically given their life - threatening situation .
but these are minor complaints .
just see it .
not of this earth is one of the biggest sci - fi surprises in years .
and michael york : in one cool swoop you 've made yourself a b - movie legend , dude .


Output: P