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

Input: Consider Input: a film that means well , but is too pushy in promoting its belabored point and too sentimental to be compelling as a drama .
it 's jeroen krabb ?
's melodrama about a community of jews in antwerp in 1972 who ca n't forget their bitter past .
the heroine is an attractive , carefree , nonreligious 20-year - old , chaja ( fraser ) , who wants to forget her jewish roots by getting involved in student demonstrations , screwing a student rebel leader , and living with her gentile friends away from her nagging mother
( s ? gebrecht ) and her self - absorbed , eccentric father ( schell ) .
her parents are survivors of the holocaust concentration camps , and her home life is filled with angst .
her mother is in denial about the past always busying herself by cooking soup and baking cakes and complaining about everything , while her father is more openly loving but has recently been absorbed in searching for two suitcases filled with mementos , a family album , silverware , and his old violin .
he buried them in a garden during the war while fleeing the nazis , but ca n't locate them now due to all the changes in the city .
out of frustration after quitting her job as a dishwasher and facing eviction from her apartment , she reluctantly accepts a job as a nanny with an hasidic couple that an old man in her parents ' apartment building , mr .
apfelschnitt ( topol ) , tells her about .
the hasidics are ultra - orthodox : they do n't go to the cinema or watch tv , adhere to strict dress codes , and strictly observe their religious laws .
chaja is at first put off by the way they expect her to follow their rules , but soon finds the wife , mrs .
kalman ( rossellini ) , to be kind and she becomes attached to one of her 5 children , a 4-year - old named simcha ( monty ) who does n't talk .
the stern mr .
kalman ( krabb ? ) is not friendly to her and considers her to be a whore because of the way she dresses .
to hammer home the point of how anti - semitism has n't gone away
there 's a barrage of overdone and uninvolving scenes with a sneering concierge ( bradley ) , who keeps making nasty remarks about jews and tries to make things inconvenient for them by preventing the jewish family from using the elevator .
the film is done in by its ham - fisted script as the story , adapted from carl friedman 's book " the shovel and the loom , " goes from one false note to another until it gets lost in all the goo of its sentimentality .
it starts off telling chaja 's story of how she 's a lost jewess trying to find her identity , then to her nanny role as she loves a mute child stuck in an insulated environment , and then it makes it a story about the lingering effects of the bitter past that ca n't be forgotten .
the effort seemed heavy - handed , as the film kept delivering too many obvious messages that it ponderously kept delivering through the stock characters .
the supporting cast consists of all wooden characters who give their roles a cartoonish flavoring
: chaja 's parents are given no human shades , while the janitor villain was a particularly annoying role that was one - dimensional and falsely acted .
the only ones who fought through the script and showed some feelings were fraser , whose effervescent face was expressive of both the trying times she was going through and the joys she felt -- but most admirably showing how she could be so mistaken as to think that she could forget her roots ; while rossellini gave a warm performance of a woman suffering in silence , but is strong in accepting her faith .
topol 's reassuring performance as the wise man who says all the right things to fraser , acts as the true voice of the filmmaker in explaining all the sufferings with common sense .
the film brazenly uses little simcha to get across its agenda of pointing out how the patriarchal world can be cruel when it ca n't love : it starts out by showing how under chaja 's loving care he 's taken to the duck pond and soon starts jabbering away , beginning by saying ' quack , quack ' and then going on to ask the four questions during a passover seder .
but by showing how the boy is so terrified of his strict father that he wets his pants in his presence , refuses to speak because of his stern dad , and eventually becomes the victim of a tragic accident , the film thereby exploits the boy 's sufferings and his story just becomes tiresome and not sincerely done
.
i felt i did n't just see a movie , but i attended a lecture for the whole 100 minutes of this serious but unappetizing story .
it was the kind of movie that you hoped would somehow end soon , as it seemed to be in the habit of rehashing its same viewpoint unnecessarily -- the message it keeps sending was already received .
in the last shot where father and daughter are hopelessly digging for the lost luggage , one has the impression that no one in the film learned anything about themselves or the past .
that seems strange , since i thought that was what this film was supposed to be about . unless i was mistaken and the film 's real aim was to make us cry over simcha .

Output: N

Input: Consider Input: the one question that eats at me after seeing corky romano is why touchstone spent so much money marketing this throwaway film .
since june , i have n't been able to turn on the tv or go to the movies without getting hit by some ad depicting chris kattan as the spastic corky , shrieking out a - ha 's " take on me " in his yellow miata .
why would disney sink so much cash into the corky hype machine ?
honestly , i was hoping that all the goofball ads were actually a front for a decently funny movie .
man , was i wrong .
corky romano is one of those throwaway , clich ?
-ridden
tv - star - to - film vehicles built upon the most rickety of plots .
fortunately for chris kattan 's precariously positioned career , corky does have some good laughs , even if most of them are of the lowest - brow variety
.
kattan plays the title character , the unsinkable assistant veterinarian corky who has a penchant for sunshiny ' 80s tunes , bright ties , and banal coffee mug slogans ( " you do n't have to be crazy to work here , but it sure helps . " ) .
when his mob boss dad ( peter falk ) is about to be put away on murder charges , his bungling , lughead brothers ( peter berg and chris penn ) rope in innocent , black sheep corky to infiltrate the fbi as an agent and steal the evidence .
predictably , hijinks ensue .
if the basic plot sounds bad , wait until you get into the inner - workings of this clunker .
the writers will amaze you with the depth of their inanity .
corky 's fbi agent identity is named corky pissant ( " that 's pronounced pees - ahn .
it 's french . " ) .
he becomes a first - rate agent by accidentally stumbling mr .
magoo - style onto the proper clues and talking his way in and out of situations , which plays like something out of a sitcom .
and not a good sitcom , i mean .
the romano family brothers even insult each other by farting in each other 's face .
and in a scene taken straight from there 's something about mary ,
corky gives a dachshund mouth - to - mouth resuscitation .
but it 's not a complete disaster .
the manic kattan does occasionally rescue some comic moments , including a bit featuring a cat in a fat suit named jesus and another involving schoolchildren , a german shephard , and a kilo of cocaine .
plus , berg -- whose career has obviously gone downhill since the last seduction and chicago hope -- gives a great turn as the illiterate brother paulie .
and , it 's nice to see that richard roundtree of shaft fame is getting work .
unfortunately for those out there who ca n't truly appreciate animal or fart jokes , corky wo n't have much to offer you .
so the next time one of those pesky ads appears on your tv , asking , " who is corky ?
"
you can simply reply , " who cares ? "

Output: N

Input: Consider Input: i 'm not sure i should be writing a review of the witches of eastwick , because i 'm not sure just what the hell ( pardon the expression ) was going on in it
.
however , i can express the most important observation i made of it , i .
e .
i did n't like it .
if i had to summarize this film , i think i 'd conclude it was an updating of one of those old new england folk tales of someone selling their souls to old scratch and
how they try to get out of the deal .
that 's the kernel of it , anyway .
tossed into this are little bits and pieces that occasionally seem to be saying something about men and women , feminism , the role of the devil , modern reformers , and friendship .
unfortunately , little or no effort is ever made to follow up and elucidate on these concepts ; they 're simply thrown out and then left to rot while the film goes on apace
.
actually , i think that most of the audience was even more confused than i was .
they came in expecting some kind of supernatural comedy , on the level of ghostbusters , and were a bit confused to be getting a folk tale with philosophical overtones .
they laughed , or tried to laugh , at moments that were either barely funny , or much more horrible than funny , as if that could bend the film away from it 's rather frightening direction .
three women ( cher , susan sarandon , and michelle pfieffer ) live in eastwick , a small midwestern town .
one night , while drinking late into the evening , they begin wishing for the ideal man to drop into their lives .
in seeming answer to their idle daydreams , a wealthy eccentric moves into a mansion on the hill and seduces each one by attempting to be everything they want him to be .
he soon shows evidence of mystical -- perhaps demonic -- power , and his devotion to the women 's merest fantasies or wishes has dangerous overtones .
even worse , when ignored his moods become ugly , and he mistreats the women for spurning him .
anyway , the problems : all three female characters are fairly uninteresting , and several are cardboard stereotypes , especially sarandon 's character .
we never get inside them , never feel sympathetic to them , because their dialogue and personalities seem pretty bland
.
as for nicholson , well , even the devil needs a direction to go in , and while darryl van horne is the most interesting character in the movie ( due to the grace of the screenwriter and , more importantly , nicholson 's acting ) , he still ca n't be yanked in one direction and then another without making him a little vague .
and then there 's the special effects .
not in themselves -- they were n't that good -- but their overuse .
i was almost positive , until i saw the credits , that the witches of eastwick was either produced by alexander salkind ( who has turned out the slop named superman ii and iii and supergirl ) , because of the big name actors in dopy stunts , or stephen spielberg , after the 18th vomit scene and the nicholson - blown - down - the - street stunt .
nope , it 's another bunch of guys , and directed by george miller , who has shown great skill with stunts / special effects before ( the road warrior , " nightmare at 20 , 00 feet " episode of twilight zone : the movie ) but apparently does n't know when to turn off the wind machine and let his people act .
f'gawds sake , guys , this is jack nicholson ! let him loose !
let him grin demonically !
skip the splitting earth and fake lightning !
watching the scene where nicholson is tossed out of the car by the voodoo doll , all i could think of was , " what a waste " .
if you 're going to use slapstick like that , use it up on pee wee herman .
nicholson does what he can with the role , and when he can find his bearings , can be extremely good ( the scene in the church , for instance ) , but most of the time , he seems a bit stiff , as if he 's not sure what he should be doing next .
and no wonder .
this script goes all over the map , giving you the feeling that it 'd just love to be allegory , but it 's not sure about what-- maybe if you give it time it 'll think of something .
so what is the witches of eastwick ? a horror movie ?
a folk tale ?
a comedy ?
a statement about women ?
an examination of the religious right or comparitive morality ?
i tend to think of the image that seems to dominate the movie for me . . .
watching someone regurgitate half - digested bits of food and cherry pits all over rooms , people , the screen , and ultimately , the audience .
in other words , a mess .
( $ 2 . 00 ) if you like nicholson enough to watch him here ; maybe 25 % of his charm is able to make it through the logjams of others .
Output: N