You will be given a definition of a task first, then some input of the task.
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.

perhaps it 's time for me to say a little about my reading habits .
i really do like to read , and i 've enjoyed many books in my lifetime .
my problem is that i 'm a slow reader , and not very dedicated -- i 'll enjoy portions of a book and then set it down for months at a time
( it 's taken me the last six weeks to get through the first one hundred pages of anna karenina , even though i 'm loving the book ) .
in addition to this , i typically do n't read anything created after the 19th century .
the only reason i bother with this bit of information is because i feel bad admitting , time after time , that i have n't read any of the books on which these films are based ( the only exception , i believe , is great expectations ) .
however , i do n't think it should be necessary to read the book beforehand in order to judge the quality of the film .
needless to say , i have n't read the elmore leonard novel out of sight , on which steven soderbergh 's new film is based .
i ca n't say how faithful of an adaptation it is , or if it lives up to leonard 's vision .
i can say that it 's a terrific film , with sharp acting , great dialogue , and pumping full of energy and style injected by soderbergh .
it 's certainly a nice distraction from 1998 's lineup of brainless blockbusters , all hopelessly wishing that size mattered .
out of sight proves that it does n't .
i had originally written george clooney off as a one - note actor , incapable of depth but occasionally showing a little flair .
after seeing his latest performance in this film , i 've changed my mind --
this guy can act , but he also has that forceful presence that most certainly will make him one of those $ 20 million superstars .
here , he plays jack foley , a middle aged guy who robs banks for a living .
he does it because it 's fun
, i think , but the film opens with him getting caught because his car wo n't start .
he goes to jail -- which is interesting -- only to break out five cinematic minutes later with the help of his friend , buddy ( ving rhames ) .
we 're then introduced to karen sisco ( jennifer lopez ) , a u .
s .
marshall who , conveniently , is waiting with a shotgun as jack escapes .
fortunately , they take her hostage , and she and jack spend some quality time in the trunk together as buddy drives them to safety .
the central conflict arises when both jack and karen become obsessed with one another , though their respective jobs make them superficially incompatible .
we soon learn that the film is not told in sequence ( and , since this is a gritty crime comedy , flashbacks of pulp fiction should arise ) .
at first , i kind of felt that it was a gimmick , but i guess it was a gimmick in pulp fiction , too .
it 's a fun gimmick , though , and soderbergh treats the material with enough humor that everything comes off naturally
.
i 've only seen a few of soderbergh 's films ( i was impressed both with kafka and sex , lies , and videotape ) , but i think he 's excellent at what he does .
he 's an artist without making it obvious ,
and without being pretentious , which is always admirable .
he uses tricks , yes ( lots of freeze - frame stuff here ) , but
it all adds to the smooth and quirky currents in the film .
as i said , clooney is terrific , and he 's matched by lopez .
lopez is , of course , beautiful , but
she can act , too .
i can sense that she 's honing in on her skills , for she comes off more natural here than she has in any of her previous ventures ( not that stone gave her much help in the loathsome u - turn ) .
the two actors have arresting chemistry with one another -- the best scene in the film , by far , is the seduction scene .
the brilliance of this scene is also due , in part , to soderbergh , for he cuts back and forth from their quiet discussion in a bar to the physical act which takes place a few minutes later .
the scene is a series of soft nuances and glances , layered upon light dialogue , and the result is one of the better love scenes in recent cinema -- meaningful and engrossing .
the supporting cast is strong , led by the always - reliable ving rhames .
dennis farina , who plays karen 's father , is good , as is don cheadle as the profoundly stupid villain .
steve zahn , who plays jack 's nearly - brain dead accomplice glenn , steals all of his scenes
( and that 's in a film where every scene is already at a high level ) .
all of the actors are helped by the dialogue and the intelligently - constructed script by scott frank .
out of sight is certainly a light film , although there are a few heavy moments that will linger in the memory .
overall , i can recommend it simply as great entertainment .
not every film has to change your life , and it 's nice to see a movie that uses the art to tell a great story and simply to entertain its viewers .
as for the book , this film is good enough to make me believe that there might be something in the text worth looking at .
Output:
P