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

Example Input: not too many people know who james whale is , but it 's a safe bet that a good chunk of them have seen his movies .
if we are to believe the semi- biographical gods and monsters , whale would have wanted it to be that way .
this is an insightful , haunting exploration of the last days of the frankenstein and bride of frankenstein director , and it is notable for introducing one of the first complicated gay characters in a hollywood movie .
gods and monsters has no interest in being a biopic of whale 's life because it tracks only the final few days of his life , and it 's probably a better movie for it .
it 's focus is on whale 's ( ian mckellen ) untraditional and deceptive lust for heterosexual gardener clayton boone ( brendan fraser ) .
it begins with whale ( a fairly talented artist , aside from being a director ) asking boone to " sit for him ,
" ( pose for a portrait ) .
at first , boone does n't realize that whale is gay and grows fascinated with the old man .
when he does discover whale 's sexual orientation from his dedicated and protective maid ( lynn redgrave ) , he is frightened , refusing to sit for the guy .
but he comes back , only to storm out again , disgusted with whale 's " locker room talk .
" boone returns yet another time , after whale promises to tone down the aforementioned " locker room talk , " and finds their platonic relationship to be strengthening .
meanwhile , jimmy himself is suffering from hallucinations and mental attacks as a result of his stroke not long ago .
his ailment leads to desperation and depression , which build to the point where he is forced to ask boone for an incredulously big favor .
what is perhaps most sensational about gods and monsters is brendan fraser 's bravura performance ; up until seeing this film i intensely disliked the young actor because of his tendency to ruin the movies he is in ( blast from the past , for example ) .
i was surprised how expressive an actor he proved himself to be here .
this is impressive because his character 's dialogue is minimal , with mckellan doing most of the talking .
that requires fraser to act through body language ; a difficult skill to master , but something he proves capable of doing well .
this is not to ignore mckellan 's oscar nominated turn .
he earned that nomination with his touching performance here ( although , at the risk of sounding like a philistine , i would have chosen his performance as the nazi in apt pupil for the nomination ) ; an understated , compelling gem .
whale dreaded being remembered solely for his work in the hollywood horror genre , and he thought hollywood to be the equivalent of a battlefield .
he rejoiced in being free from it , only reluctantly going to receptions with fellow movie people .
in the end , perhaps , it is what killed him : the memories of hollywood and war blending together to form a living nightmare . ?
1999 eugene novikov&#137 ;
Example Output: P

Example Input: when walt disney pictures announced a live - action feature based on the ' 60s cartoon series of " mr . magoo , " special interests groups representing the vision - impaired let out a cry of dismay .
mr .
magoo , they claimed , would be an insult to the men and women they represented .
in fact , they were wrong .
mr .
magoo is not just an insult to the blind and near - blind ,
it 's an insult to every human being who has the misfortune to suffer through this dreadfully unfunny , 90 minute atrocity .
it 's stating the obvious to remark that disney appears to have run out of original ideas
.
look at their roster of 1996 and 1997 releases , and you 'll see a shocking list of retreads , including 101 dalmatians , george of the jungle , jungle2jungle , that darn cat ! , flubber , and now mr . magoo .
the best of these ( george of the jungle ) was mildly entertaining .
the worst , mr . magoo ,
exposes just how painful a bad movie experience can be .
the first problem with mr .
magoo is the script .
despite the collaboration of naked gun scribe pat proft , mr . magoo is comically barren .
from beginning to end , there 's not a laugh to be found .
every attempt at humor -- and there are lots of them -- falls flat with an audible thud .
you 'd think that out of the dozens of gags jammed into this film , at least a few would work , but that 's not the case .
i 've had more laughs during ingmar bergman pictures .
then there 's leslie nielsen , who looks , sounds , and acts absolutely nothing like the animated character ( memorably voiced by jim backus ) .
in the past , nielsen has proven his comic aptitude with roles in movies like airplane and the naked gun .
lately , however , he has been getting lazy , taking parts in the likes of dracula : dead and loving it , spy hard , and mr . magoo .
even if nielsen was in top form , it would take an incredible stretch of imagination to see him as magoo ( especially since we 're reminded of the original by the short cartoon segments that open and close the film ) , but " top form " is not a phrase i would use to describe his performance here .
this is strictly a take - the - money - and- run operation .
the story , which , like many disney stories , can be described in one long sentence : magoo is the only witness to the theft of a rare jewel from a museum , and , as he is trying to apprehend the thieves on his own , the police mistake him for the robber .
the cops are played by ernie hudson and stephen tobolowsky , who take their lumps early and often .
the bad guys are kelly lynch ( who does a lot of martial arts - type kicking ) , nick chinlund , and malcolm mcdowell ( who has the good sense to look embarrassed ) .
matt keeslar portrays one of magoo 's sidekicks -- his nephew , waldo .
the bumbling man 's other , more interesting companion is a dog named angus .
most of mr .
magoo 's humor comes in the form of failed slapstick .
the cartoon violence level in this film does n't approach that of home alone 3 or flubber , but it 's still pretty acute , with characters getting hit on the head with sledgehammers and knocked off snowy precipices .
there 's a non - violent bit with magoo preparing a chicken dinner that could have been funny if it was handled better , but , compared to mr .
bean 's recent , similar misadventure , it does n't hold up well .
then there is the series of lame jokes that result from magoo 's near blindness , such as the occasion when he mistakes a wild animal for a baby .
i 'm willing to cut director stanley tong a little slack .
tong , a hong kong film maker trying to break into the hollywood market , has helmed several jackie chan movies , including first strike , rumble in the bronx , and supercop .
his chief talent , that of choreographing martial arts fights , is wasted here ( despite some high kicking by kelly lynch ) .
like john woo ( hard target ) and ringo lam ( maximum risk ) before him , it appears that tong has been consigned to the purgatory of making a bad movie as his entry into the american mainstream .
it is worth noting that , unlike many disney films which hold a perverse appeal for the under-10 crowd while driving parents to distraction , mr . magoo appears to bore viewers of all ages .
the screening i attended was wall - to - wall kids , and , for the most part ,
they did n't seem to be enjoying themselves .
when the film was over , i asked one little girl what she thought of it .
her pained expression confirmed the adage that a picture can indeed be worth a thousand words .
mr .
magoo is the kind of movie that should be rejected by any potential viewer
, sight unseen .
Example Output: N

Example Input: " tarzan and the lost city " is one of the most anemic movies to come out in quite a while .
not only it is poorly written , badly acted , and generally incompetent in all cinematic areas , it is thoroughly uninspired and insipid .
unfortunately , it 's not bad in the way great
, colossal misfires like " heaven 's gate " ( 1980 ) or " ishtar " ( 1987 ) were bad .
instead , it literally drips off the screen like a movie nobody wanted to be associated with , which begs the question of why it was made in the first place .
with all the good scripts lying around hollywood un - produced , how does needless drek like this make its way to the big screen ?
of course , tarzan is one of the most filmed characters in all of motion picture history - he has appeared in over forty films , which have ranged from the very good ( 1984 's " greystoke : the legend of tarzan , lord of the apes " ) down to the really bad ( 1981 's " tarzan , the ape man " with bo derek ) .
most of these films were just cheapie b - movies made in the thirties and forties , starring ex - olympic athletes and a lot of cutsie chimps .
therefore , if another tarzan movie is to be made , one might assume that it would have something new to offer - a different angle , an original storyline , anything to set it apart from all the others .
" greystoke " added a never - before - seen level of realism to the pulpy tale , and even " tarzan , the ape man " at least had the mis - guided audacity to sexualize the story as a vehicle for bo derek 's bare breasts .
" tarzan and the lost city , " on the other hand , has absolutely nothing to offer but a bunch of recycled storylines and bad dialogue .
the script , by bayard johnson and
j .
anderson black is about as formulaic and generic as they come .
comic books have better plots than this .
the movie is so bad
, in fact , that it retains that ridiculous tarzan call that was so tirelessly mocked in last summer 's comedy " george of the jungle .
" did n't the producers think to leave that back in the old weissmuller pictures where it belongs ?
the story starts with the legend of tarzan already firmly established : a quick opening narration tells of tarzan ( casper van dien ) being found in the jungle after having been raised by apes , and his return to england where he assumes his greystoke heritage .
when the movie starts in 1913 , he is a civilized english gentleman ( without an english accent ) , and he is to marry jane ( jane march ) in less than a week .
however , when a wicked archeologist / grave - robber named nigel ravens ( steve waddington ) begins hunting for the fabled lost city of opar , one of africa 's last great secrets , the witch doctor of an ancient african tribe summons tarzan back to the jungle .
at first , jane refuses to go , pouting about how it will interfere with their wedding ; but after tarzan leaves she changes her mind and tracks him down , therefore assuring lots of lame smooch scenes between her and her ape - man .
once the film gets going ( in its own sluggish way ) , it delves into a series of jungle adventures , as tarzan , jane , and the natives attempt the thwart ravens and his crew from discovering the city .
most of the so - called adventures are cheesy , predictable , and unexciting , with no pace , tension , or action to speak of .
there are sequences stolen from innumerable recent adventure movies , ranging from " raiders of the lost ark " ( 1981 ) to " the goonies " ( 1985 ) .
when the movie is running short on action , it includes a few greenpeace - friendly scenes of tarzan freeing caged animals , releasing a baby elephant from a trap , and throwing ivory tusks into the river .
the movie is also lacking even a remote hint of reality . for instance , when tarzan - who was raised in the jungle - is bit by a cobra , he does n't even attempt to suck the venom out like any semi - experienced weekend backpacker would do .
instead , he ties a tourniquet around his arm and stumbles off into the jungle with no plan for survival .
of course , one ca n't help but notice how fundamentally misleading the title is . not to ruin the ending or anything , but there is no lost city .
there is , however ,
a lost pyramid , which i suppose is all the resource - strapped fx department could come up with ( the special effects are not worthy of a made - for - tv movie ) . which also brings up the question of why the treasure hunters had to slog through numerous underground caverns to get to the lost pyramid , when it 's sitting right out in the middle of an open field ? strictly speaking , " tarzan and the lost city " is n't even bad enough to have camp quality , although casper van dien 's laughably stiff performance comes real close .
this movie proves what " starship troopers " only hinted at : he can not act , but he sure looks well - groomed , even in the deepest heart of the african jungle .
van dien is much too much of a pretty - boy to be an effective tarzan ; he 's a calvin klein model in a loin cloth .
i also wondered what the make - up department was thinking when it outfitted him with that awful circa-1983 steve perry haircut .
waddington makes a decent villain , although he 's like a charmless version of belloq from " raiders of the lost ark .
" as jane , the ex - model jane march has little to do but smile and look pretty next to tarzan .
she does fire off a gun at the evil treasure hunters a time or two , but whenever a snake comes into the picture , she is reduced to a hysterical mess .
however , amidst all this complaining , i do have one piece of good news .
" tarzan and the lost city " is so lacking in ideas both new and old , that it is unable to fill even an hour and a half of celluloid .
so , we can say this much for it : at least it had the decency to be short .
Example Output:
N