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

Example 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 .
Example Output: P

Example Input: the job of the film critic is to see a movie and write a review of it that tells you what it 's about and why it 's good or bad .
i feel kind of embarrassed to admit this , but i after having seen " get carter
" i really ca n't tell you what it 's about although i could go on and on about how and why it 's a bad movie .
" get carter " falls into that category of ?
movies that continue to be made for reasons unknown to anyone outside of a hollywood executive board room .
you might call them the " steven seagal / mickey rourke / jean - claude van damme / wesley snipes school of mediocre action / crime thrillers .
"
you know - the potboilers that are heavy on fistfights , shoot - outs and car chases but really light on plot and character development .
they have stories where the so - called hero just keeps running into characters who have some connection to one of the other characters who are all antagonists without a reason for being in the movie other than to give the protagonist someone to fight , chase or shoot at .
sylvester stallone stars as jack carter , a las vegas - based mob enforcer who returns home
* for his brother 's funeral .
he believes his brother ?
richie was " taken out " and did n't die from a dwi accident .
carter 's one of the most cliche bad - asses ever captured on celluloid .
his face alone is pretty intimidating and there 's quite a few scenes in which he leans on both regular citizens and criminal lowlives simply by staring them down and speaking with confidence in his " rambo - on - testosterone - therapy " voice .
stallone 's performance in this movie is so forced and unnatural
he does n't realize he 's mocking himself .
the actual story involves carter 's investigation into his brother richie 's death .
he 's in a town that 's not his
but somehow the local top dogs know him very well .
mickey rourke co - stars as one of these characters , a sort of crime boss who has something to do with running a porno web site and blackmailing a young internet tycoon
( played by alan cummings looking and acting a lot like pee wee herman ) .
there 's also another plot involving richie 's mistress , a secret cd - rom with some convicting and disturbing evidence on it and something terrible involving one of carter 's still - living relatives .
i 'm rolling my eyes
just thinking about trying to critique all this in a way that could be remotely comprehendible .
i could just rip the screenplay to shreds , plus the direction or the editing or the production values but that would require discussion of nearly every scene in order to explain it all .
i do n't like to put spoliers in my reviews either intentionally or accidentally .
yes , " get carter " is just that complicated and complex .
and what 's worse is that it 's not this intricate to make it seem smart like " the usual suspects " for example - just the opposite .
you get the feeling whoever wrote this script
did it in short intervals spaced far apart
and they probably did n't remember what had already happened and did n't figure out how each scene would lead in to the next one or how the major plot points would work towards the climax .
all you really need to know is that most of the film is just scenes of carter tracking down one scumbag or supposed witness after another , asking them what they know , getting information and then realizing that if he was n't a complete idiot he could have figured it out in the first five minutes .
although the supporting characters are equally stupid themselves since they tell him everything which comes back to haunt them in one violent way or another .
making a movie entirely about criminals does n't necessarily mean they have to be unlikable and cliche cutout characters .
mel gibson starred in " payback " a few years ago
that had a story not unlike this one but had such a good screenplay you could n't help
but like him even though he was just as bad a guy as jack carter .
so ultimately " get
carter " fails for pretty much every selling point it has
. carter is not a likable character and you really do n't care if he gets revenge or not .
the action sequences are not at all exciting or original .
the enemies and their massive conspiracy are not threatening at all ( c'mon , you know who 's going to win every brawl and shoot - out and car chase ) .
in the end you do n't feel nearly satisfied with the results .
the filmmakers did a good job in doing everything as unoriginal as possible .
*
the city is never mentioned by name
but i assume it 's seattle since all the cars have washington license plates
and it 's always raining .
Example Output: N

Example Input: [ note that followups are directed to rec .
arts .
movies .
current - films and rec .
arts .
movies .
startrek .
current only , not to rec .
arts .
sf .
movies .
-moderator
] star trek : first contact a film review by michael
dequina copyright 1996 michael dequina star trek :
first contact ( pg-13 ) anyone familiar with the series of star trek movies knows of the " even - odd pattern " --the even - numbered installments of the series are good while the odd - numbered ones are , well , not - so - good .
the pattern continues with the new star trek : first contact , an energetic sci - fi adventure that
( coincidentally ? ) is the eighth entry in the hugely popular series .
in this first trek feature to feature only cast members from the late star trek : the next generation television series , captain jean - luc picard ( patrick stewart ) and the rest of the 24th - century crew of the starship enterprise -- commander will riker ( jonathan frakes , who also directed ) , android lt .
cmdr .
data ( brent spiner ) , lt .
cmdr .
geordi laforge ( levar burton ) , lt .
cmdr .
worf ( michael dorn ) , dr .
beverly crusher ( gates mcfadden ) , and counselor deanna troi ( marina sirtis )
--travel back to 21st - century earth while doing battle with the borg , a race of cybernetic beings that share a collective mind with the borg queen ( alice krige ) .
the borg intend to alter history and assimilate all of humankind into their race -- starting with the earth - orbiting crew of the enterprise and a 21st century stowaway ( alfre woodard ) .
this is an interesting plotline that is sure to mesmerize trekkers everywhere and engage everyone else , but , unfortunately , it only makes up the star trek half of the script by brannon braga and
ronald d . moore .
the other half of the title -- first contact -- refers to a subplot that takes place on 21st - century earth , where riker , troi , and laforge meet legendary scientist zephram cochran ( james cromwell ) , who is about to embark on the first warp speed flight in human history , which directly leads to the first contact with extraterrestrials .
while this story does tie into the main plot and pays off interestingly in the end , it is nowhere near as involving or exciting as the borg battles on the enterprise .
not helping matters is the tiresome cochran character , an eccentric whose drunken schtick starts out funny but becomes too one - note after a while .
in the end , though , the first contact subplot does n't detract from the enjoyment of the film as a whole .
the story is typical sci - fi fantasy , but the conviction of the cast -- most notably the always - phenomenal stewart -- makes you believe and care .
frakes , making his feature directorial debut , keeps the action swiftly rolling along and delivers the action goods , even upping the violence a notch ( this is the first trek film to bear a pg-13 rating ) to greater effect .
st : fc has a bigger budget than the last trek outing , the middling star trek generations , and it definitely shows on screen -- the production design and especially visual and makeup effects are outstanding
( in particular those involving the borg queen ) .
braga and moore 's mostly sharp script will please both trek devotees and the rest ; the references to the borg storyline in the tv series , the continuity with the previous film ( e . g .
the ongoing saga of data 's emotion chip ) , and a fleeting star trek : voyager crossover will make trekkers squeal with delight , but such points are made easily accessible to those less familiar to the trek mythos .
paramount was reportedly worried about the staying power of its trek franchise with the next generation cast now carrying the helm .
based on the entertaining success that is star trek : first contact , i 'd say the studio has nothing to worry about
( at least not until this cast retires and the crew of the wan star trek : deep space nine takes over . . . ) .
Example Output:
P