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

Example Input: steve soderbergh 's " sex , lies , and videotape , " which won the grand prize at the cannes film festival in 1989 , arguably began the resurgence of independent films .
made on a shoestring budget of $ 1 . 2 million , with then relatively unknown actors , it is a provocative , thoroughly original drama .
the film mostly focuses on the four central characters , all in their late 20's - early 30 's .
ann ( andie macdowell ) , an unfulfilled housewife , is married to john ( peter gallagher ) , an insensitive lawyer , who , unbeknownst to her , is having an affair with her younger sister , cynthia ( laura san giacomo ) .
complicating matters even worse is graham ( james spader , who won best actor at cannes ) , john 's old college buddy , who comes to stay at their house .
ann is absolutely won over by him , even though she clearly has stated that she has very little interest in sex .
that is the set - up for the last hour of the picture , and since the film is entitled , " sex , lies , and videotape , " it is best to keep the rest of the story developments at bay so that they will come as a genuine surprise .
director steven soderbergh has proven to be a wildly offbeat filmmaker , ranging from the independent , to the mainstream ( 1998 's " out of sight " ) , to the downright kafkaesque ( 1997 's " schizopolis " ) .
he is the type of director who obviously takes a lot of chances , and believes in the work that he does , and , " sex , lies , and videotape , " is probably his most confident , and maybe even best , to date .
the performances are superb from all four leads , but macdowell stands out in what is probably the main character .
she is always a very winning actress , but this is probably her most three - dimensional role that she has had ( with a close second being altman 's 1993 mosaic , " short cuts " ) .
the other parts are perfectly cast as well , from spader 's ominous graham , to gallagher 's self - involved john , to giacomo 's outspoken cynthia .
the final act of the film , especially , comes right out of left field , and turns out to be both shocking and oddly touching , and it would be criminal to give away the film 's secrets .
suffice to say that , through one powerful sequence , ann is able to somewhat come out of her shell , and john learns a valuable lesson about honesty , as well as deception .
the film has one fault , however .
the characters are almost all emotionally cold and isolated from one another , and often unlikable .
if there had been a few extra scenes with gallagher , it probably would have helped , since his relationship with macdowell is n't quite as explored as i would have liked .
"
sex , lies , and videotape , " although minorly flawed , is still easily a brave and adult motion picture that is far more mature and honest about its subject matter than the usual film .
soderbergh clearly knew what he was doing while he was making it , and the final product certainly proves this .
Example Output: P

Example Input: whether or not i would be considered a trekker probably depends on whom you would ask .
i have been a fan of both the original series and its recently retired follow - up , as well as the even- numbered entries in the film series .
however , i have never been one of those folks who store away trek minutiae and get into debates over the relative merits of spock vs .
data .
somewhere along the line , the " star trek " film series began to seem more and more directed at those in the latter category , and star trek :
generations may be the natural conclusion of this direction .
its production values may be high , but the writing is frequently appalling , and instead of a script has a collection of references , in - jokes and ill - defined characters .
generations opens in the late 23rd century , where members of the original enterprise crew , including captain james t .
kirk ( william shatner ) , are present for the christening of the latest ship to bear that name .
no sooner is it out on its maiden voyage than a distress signal brings them to the nexus , a mysterious ribbon of energy .
among those rescued from the nexus is long - lived alien
dr .
soran ( malcolm mcdowell ) , but he is none - too - pleased at being back in the real world .
seventy - eight years later , soran is still trying to get back to the nexus , and again encounters an enterprise ,
this one led by captain jean - luc picard ( patrick stewart ) .
soran 's plan involves destroying a star with an inhabited planet , and the only hope for saving 230 million people is the historic meeting of two enterprise captains .
i do n't think it is an insult to fans of " star trek " to suggest that to a certain extent , the particulars of a plot are not really the most important elements in a " trek " film .
it 's about a chance to visit with old friends , and if they are involved in a truly interesting story it can be considered gravy .
but even that interpretation assumes that characterization has to be consistent , and in generations that just does n't happen .
data ( brent spiner ) is particularly victimized by this sloppy writing .
in the film 's major sub - plot , data decides to use a chip which will give him human emotions , a chip he has had in his possession for over a year .
what is his motivation for taking this drastic and perhaps dangerous step ?
he does n't get a joke .
once the chip is in place , spiner gets to have a lot of fun with data 's new emotions , but the point is that he 's no longer the data we know .
if the rest of the " next generation " cast fares any better , it 's only because they 're on the screen
so little that they 're simply window dressing .
but then again , this story is n't really about the new crew .
it 's about kirk and picard , the cowboy and the politician , sharing the screen .
the huge surprise is that william shatner blows patrick stewart away .
perhaps because he knows this is his last go - round in the part that made him a legend , shatner looks like he 's having the time of his life ; stewart , on the other hand ,
borders on the deferrential , and is saddled with the same lackluster motivations as everyone else in the cast .
stewart 's edginess is indicative of what may be a very bad sign for paramount 's hopes to turn the new cast into the same kind of franchise the original cast was : these are clearly the not ready for big screen players .
by contrast , the prologue which features scotty ( james doohan ) and chekhov ( walter koenig ) is the highlight of the film .
these characters have become part of the popular mythology , and when they take over the enterprise in a moment of distress , it 's a moment of high energy .
only thirty years of history can create a moment like that , and that 's time this new crew does n't have .
it certainly does n't help that the plot they are stuck in is so convoluted and badly constructed that you need to leave a trail of bread crumbs to find your way out again .
it 's also loaded with little gags all aimed at those who are familiar enough with the series to turn to all their friends in a shared nudge of recognition .
i wonder whether anyone who is coming in cold to the " trek " universe at this point would be anything but
baffled and bored
by what is going on .
and what a waste of malcolm mcdowell , who could have been a great monomanical villain but should have been given a much more compelling reason for his obsession .
there are plenty of details both scientific and of continuity to pick at , but to do so would be to ignore generations ' major flaws .
however , i would like to make one recommendation : seatbelts .
not just for the enterprise crew , although you 'd think by the 24th century space travel would n't involve rolling around on the floor during a battle .
no , i think the audience might need them more .
this journey is one bumpy ride .
Example Output: N

Example Input: the happy bastard 's quick movie review the concept of enjoying a stupid comedy is best realized as keeping it stupid , really .
shift gears even once and the audience can be thrown miserably out of control .
sadly , that is the case with kingpin , a film directed by the farrelly brothers , the duo that brought us there 's something about mary and dumb and dumber .
since the duo directed and did n't write the script , i can assume that 's part of the problem .
the story seems good enough : a pro bowler in the 1970 's by the name of roy munson ( woody harrelson ) is sitting on top of the world .
his popularity has gone through the roof and he 's getting his career off the ground .
then , however , he runs into ed mccracken ( bill murray ) , a rival bowler with hardly any real consideration for , well , anything .
these two form an ill - timed relationship that involves risky betting , and , before roy sees it coming , ed 's abandoned him
and he 's about to lose his hand in a bowling ball machine .
forward seventeen years later , where roy has become quite the loser , complete with mechanical hand , torn - up car , and , of course , the occasional knocking up of the ugly - ass landlord to avoid paying rent for a while .
however , he finds a glimmer of a hope upon a visit to a local bowling alley , where he runs into an amish kid named ishmael ( randy quaid ) , who has quite the bowling arm .
with the kid 's help , he figures he can be known again , particularly at the biggest bowling tournament rapidly approaching in reno , nevada .
of course , the amish kid needs some coaxing , particularly when you consider , well , he 's amish .
this leads to some of the best comic scenes in the film , such as roy 's process of removing horseshoes or milking the cow .
finally , the duo get on the road and , along the way , pick up an additional helper- a beautiful hustler ( played by the gorgeous vanessa angel ) .
the main problem i had
with kingpin was n't the fact it was n't funny .
in fact , it does have some rather hilarious scenes in it , such as the aformentioned above and roy 's explanation of not having children ( something involving a cheese grater ? ) .
but that 's just it- scenes .
there 's a couple of really serious scenes that throw off the entire momentum of the movie , like the abuse angel takes from her hustler ex - boyfriend .
i mean , was this really necessary ?
could n't have this been handled just a bit wackier ?
i mean , this is a comedy , why throw ethics in ?
particularly in a farrelly brothers vehicle , where hair gel can be easily mistaken ?
that really ruined it , however , and that 's too bad .
the acting is top notch , especially from angel and murray , and the really funny scenes are worth noting .
still , if you 're going to think dumb , think dumb all the way through , ok ? at least the farrelly brothers got back on track with mary or i 'd still be a little bit irked .
Example Output:
N