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

Input: Consider Input: i 've never written a review for a movie i have n't watched all the way through , but i had to make an exception with powder .
i was about forty - five minutes into this one at a friend 's house when he and his brother got into a huge shouting match that would have ended in violence
had we not left the house .
so i never got to finish the movie
and i 'm sure as hell not going to pay three more bucks to watch half of a bad movie .
but i can at least get a partial review out of it , because i saw enough to know this one was n't worth finishing in the first place .
the movie centers around a freaky teenager who 's spent his entire life living in the cellar of his grandparents ' house .
when grandpa dies ( taking his department store down with him ) , social worker mary steenburgen has to take powder ( first and middle names ?
gold bond ) to a state home , where we find out he 's a different from the other kids .
actually , we find out he 's different when we first see him , because he 's the most pale individual we 've ever seen and moreover he has no body hair whatsoever .
when powder is born in the opening minutes of the movie , the father takes one look at him and says " he 's not my son . " obviously .
all i want to know is where the pillsbury dough boy was nine months ago .
so the white - faced freak leaves his neverland ranch for the state home and faces the ridicule of other kids .
that is , until they try to haze him during his first cafeteria lunch by making him " wear " his spoon ( " you can either wear it on your nose or up your ass .
" decisions , decisions . . . )
and he uses telepathic powers to draw all the silverware in the room into a giant pile in the middle of the table .
so if his father is the pillsbury dough boy , his mother must be sissy spacek 's carrie character .
and you have to factor in two more things from the subsequent scenes , as we find out powder
has some sort of
super - intelligence ( " your i .
q .
test went straight off the chart ! " ) and attracts electrical power .
this first shows up as powder visits the world of high school ( if he 's such a genius already , why would he need a high school education ? ) and sits through a demonstration in jeff goldblum 's science class .
goldblum plugs in a " jacob 's ladder " device that shows current running up two wires and immediately the current flows across the room and into powder 's chest .
but goldblum just stands there for about thirty seconds watching , instead of just unplugging the damn thing .
i guess he was too busy contemplating why he was appearing in his third bad movie in a row
( following hideaway and nine months ) .
that 's about all i saw before the big fight began and , let me tell you , that was twice as interesting as the movie itself .
but like i said , i saw enough to know this would be one of those terrible melodramas about the isolation of people who have superior abilities and how hard it is for those people to assimilate themselves into mainstream civilization .
none of these movies ever handle the subject properly , instead introducing the feeble beauty and the beast copout of having a beautiful woman fall in love with the guy 's personality , overlooking his personal appearance .
i already had the female character picked out ( the girl who was sitting next to him in the back of the room during the electrocution scene ) , but i guess i 'll never know for sure what happened .
from noraruth@aol .
com mon jun 10 15 : 04
: 03 edt 1996 article : 3654 of rec .
arts .
movies .
reviews path :
nntphub .
cb .
att .
com !
not - for - mail from :
noraruth@aol .
com ( andrew hicks )
newsgroups :
rec .
arts .
movies .
reviews , rec .
arts .
sf .
reviews subject : review : powder ( 1995 ) followup - to :
rec .
arts .
movies .
current - films , rec .
arts .
sf .
movies date : 10 jun 1996 18 : 16 : 03 gmt organization : university of missouri - columbia lines :
70 sender :
ecl@mtcts1 .
att .
com ( evelyn c . leeper )
approved :
ecl@mtcts1 .
att .
com
message - id : " > reply - to :
noraruth@aol .
com ( andrew hicks )
nntp - posting - host : mtcts2 .
mt .
lucent .
com summary : r .
a .
m .
r .
# 05425 keywords :
author = hicks originator :
ecl@mtcts2 xref : nntphub .
cb .
att .
com rec .
arts .
movies .
reviews : 3654 rec .
arts .
sf .
reviews :
710 status : ro powder a film review by andrew hicks
copyright 1996 andrew hicks / fatboy productions .

Output: N


Input: Consider Input: dr dolittle ( 20th century fox ) running time : 1 hour 25 minutes starring eddie murphy directed by betty thomas riding high on the success of the nutty professor ( 1996 ) , murphy returns in this abysmal comedy .
he plays doctor john dolittle , who as a child had the ability to understand animals .
however , after being ' exorcised ' he loses this ability , and we fast forward to see dolittle in a crummy job surrounding by crummy people ( most notably dr mark weller , played by oliver platt . ) however , with a bonk on the head his ability to understand animals returns , and ' comedy ' is ready and waiting to happen .
except comedy never does happen .
doctor dolittle , even with the excellent premise , rarely manages to raise a laugh .
poor old murphy looks bored stiff throughout the whole movie , and his performance suffers .
the manic murphy we saw in the 80 's is gone , his more mature ( and more boring ) twin appears to be getting all the work in the 90 's .
the voices of the animals , which include albert brooks , chris rock ( the ' new ' eddie murphy ) and norm mcdonald as ' lucky ' the dog are marginally better , and at least they put enthusiasm in the movie .
sadly , most of their lines are pretty dumb .
and they 're not ' funny ' dumb , like dumb & dumber ( 1994 ) , but just boring dumb .
the film even succumbs to fart jokes halfway through , in a desperate attempt to raise some laughs .
there are a few good jokes in the script , but they are few and far between .
if i had to choose a favourite performance , it would probably be albert brooks tiger , who has a certain charm about him .
sadly , he 's barely in the movie , and rock 's really annoying hamster is given far too much screen time .
joke wise
, we are thankfully , spared the mocking and insulting type of jokes that featured heavily in the nutty professor .
the director , betty thomas , has , well , done better films .
she bought us private parts ( 1997 ) and the brady bunch movie ( 1995 ) which were , sadly , much better than this .
the scenes lack any charm
, she just gets the job done .
the animals themselves , are reasonable realistic , although most of them are obviously puppets .
there 's an impressive looking tiger , however , and the lip sync is pretty good .
you 'd have no problem guessing that most of the close up 's are puppets , however , with their jilted movement .
i was hoping jim hensons workshop , who created the furry friends , would have done a better job .
doctor dolittle , in the end , is a disappointment for everyone involved .
murphy has done much better movies
( i .
e trading places )
the director has seen better days , and even the creatures are n't that good .
the target audience , aged between 7 - 13 , who are undemanding , will probably like it however , thanks to it 's dumbed down humour .
everyone else , however , should give doctor dolittle a miss .

Output: N


Input: Consider Input: depending on your degree of cinematic acumen , last man standing is either a ) a prohibition - era remake of akira kurosawa 's 1961 classic yojimbo ; b ) a prohibition - era remake of sergio leone 's 1964 classic a fistful of dollars ; c ) a prohibition - era action drama with a completely original story - line .
new line is certainly counting on the fact that there are far more potential viewers in category ( c ) than in the other two combined , much as the recent remakes of diabolique and the vanishing counted on avoiding such comparisons .
the fact is that there is yet another way of looking at last man standing , which is as the first film version of the story which nods to the _ real _ source material ,
the dashiell hammett novel _ red harvest _ .
it also shows that kurosawa and leone knew better what to do with that material than hammett himself .
this time around , the man with no name is played by bruce willis , a fellow with a shady history of an undefined nature who rolls into the texas border town of jericho one day on his way to mexico .
by all appearances , jericho is well on its way to becoming a ghost town , with the few remaining inhabitants generally belonging to one of two bootlegging operations fighting for control of liquor coming over the border .
one is headed by an irishman named doyle ( david patrick kelly ) ; the other is run by chicago - connected italian mobster strozzi ( ned eisenberg ) . calling himself john smith , the man decides that there is money to be made from the conflict , and hires himself out as an enforcer to doyle 's side .
but smith 's allegiance is as uncertain as his name , and he begins to play the two sides against each other while trying to stay one step ahead of both of them .
viewers familiar with both previous incarnations of this story will find virtually nothing radically changed from a plotting standpoint , and that alone should make last man standing somewhat more respectable than other recent hollywood remakes - cum - bastardizations .
there is the happily ineffectual lawman ( bruce dern ) , the unhappily detained object of one of the bosses ' affections ( karina lombard ) , the barkeep who becomes our anti - hero 's only friend ( william sanderson ) , suspicious lieutenants ( christopher walken and michael imperioli ) to question the bosses ' trust in smith , a brutal beating , and a big fire .
director walter hill gives the proceedings his usual injection of steroids , including a pair of guns for willis which have the ability to propel an assailant backward with sufficient thrust to achieve escape velocity , but at least he does n't try to turn the story into a slasher film or a buddy picture .
what he _ does _ do is nearly as big a mistake , and that is to provide a running voice - over narration by willis which rings of the standard hard - boiled style of pulp detective fiction .
yes ,
that narration is full of cliches , but those are are not particularly troubling .
the problem is that both yojimbo and a fistful of dollars succeeded largely on the inscrutability of their lead characters .
they were a mystery , to the other characters in the film and to the audience , their motives never entirely clear even after they have acted , and that quality contributed to their almost mythical status .
with john smith 's voice chattering on in the background and allowing us into his every thought , he becomes more mundane , just another tough guy trying to stay alive .
it feels like a hammett novel , all right , and hill can plead faithfulness to his text for his choice , but
it simply does n't work .
the narration allows the man with no name to take us into his confidence , and the man with no name takes _ no one _ into his confidence .
even if you walk into last man standing as a blank slate , i ca n't imagine it being much more than a heavily armed minor distraction .
willis tones down his macho swagger as the taciturn smith , but there is still a level on which he always seems like he is counting on being tougher than everyone else rather than smarter than everyone else .
christopher walken plays doyle 's brutal henchman as a slight variation on his gallery of soft - spoken psychos , and
there is n't another single character whom makes even the slightest impression .
with no compelling antagonist for smith , there is no build - up towards the expected showdown , and when it does come , that showdown is over so quickly
you wonder what all the fuss was about .
cinematographer lloyd ahern ( who also did the only noteworthy work on hill 's 1995 flop wild bill ) creates some nifty sunburned vistas , but his work is only to keep the eye distracted between the spurts of gunfire and the next bit of counter - productive narration .
sometimes when someone sees a lackluster remake of a revered original , they 'll wonder what all the talk was about .
in the case of last man standing , it is those who know the originals who will wonder what all that talking was about .


Output: N