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

Example Input: when i originally saw the trailer for " analyze this " a few months ago , i must admit ,
i thought it looked kind of lame .
and then when the commercials started popping up a week or two ago , i thought it looked outright bad
.
but then when " analyze this " finally opened a few days ago , an odd thing happened .
it got great reviews .
critics were proclaiming it " hilarious " and a " dead - on parody of mob movies " .
well , with praise like that , i figured , it must be good
and so i headed off to the theater .
you know that expression that says always trust your gut instincts ?
well , turns out that expression is more valid than i ever gave it credit for .
" analyze this " is slow , unfunny , and badly acted .
do n't get me wrong , i think that deniro is one of the top ten greatest actors of the century , but he is just out of his league here .
i think the problem is he did n't quite know how to approach this material .
he plays his character , mob boss paull vitti , somewhere in between the realm of comedy and drama . if he had played the character straight , along the lines of leslie nielson in the " naked gun " series , he probably would have been a lot more successful .
as it is , though , he plays the character completely serious at some moments , and for laughs at others .
this does n't work .
it creates an uneven character that never breaks out of the deniro mold ; you always know it 's him . and the movie is badly paced , too .
it never takes off .
it just crawls from one scene to another without any forward momentum .
i think the blame for this should be placed on the script .
it 's obvious the writer had a good idea for a movie , mob boss faces breakdown and needs the services of a psychiatrist , but once this is established , the movie does n't really go anywhere .
the formula of the film seems to be this : billy crystal says no to deniro , deniro forces him , and much wackiness ensues .
this formula of sorts is repeated several times throughout the movie .
i 've said it before and i 'll say it again : the only thing that matters to me in a comedy is whether or not it 's funny .
if " analyze this " had been funny , the pacing and bad acting would n't have bothered me .
i would have been too busy laughing to notice .
but as it is , i only chuckled a few times .
the only really funny scene is a dead - on parody of " the godfather " .
sadly , though , i do n't think anyone in the audience i saw it with realized it was a parody , because i was the only one laughing .
but my sense of humour , i have come to realize , is vastly different from the general population .
i loathed " there 's something about mary " , yet loved " baseketball " .
now , if you want a movie that * i * think is funny , go out and see " office space " .
it 's full of genuine laughs and wo n't leave you glancing at your watch every 10 minutes , as " analyze this " did .
Example Output: N

Example Input: "
some houses are born bad , " goes the haunting 's tag line , to which i must add , " some movies , too .
"
nothing short of hiring a new cast , a more literate screenwriter , and a new director could have saved this tragically misguided adaptation of jackson 's meritorious novel .
the haunting is late entry summer dreck too slick to be creepy , and its seemingly endless stream of digital trickery and spooky ooky sound effects do n't frighten so much as numb the audience into submission
- the film is like a rube goldberg contraption rigged to shout " boo .
" fragile nell ( taylor ) , bisexual theo ( zeta - jones ) , and smiley luke ( wilson ) are three insomniacs who gather at the reputedly possessed hill house for an extended study on sleep disorders , hosted by professor marrow ( neeson ) .
marrow 's secretly gathering data on their respective paranoid responses to his recount of hill house 's bleak history .
he 's not prepared for the very real apparitions that terrorize the crew , nell especially , who has some ancestral connection to the manor 's previous inhabitants .
taylor is thoroughly insufferable in her first big - budget lead .
for starters , her consistently dour expression sucks the life out of even the early scenes , when we 're introduced to the mansion and all its fun - house trappings .
her character is supposed to be depressed , having tended to an unloving mother for too many years , but taylor plays nell as supernaturally lame , alternately grouchy , mopey , wiggy and pathetic , and i kept wondering why the other characters did n't just ditch this bitch
.
as for the obscenely photogenic zeta - jones , she breezes through her scenes with a wink and a smile and takes the scenery with her .
unfortunately , she 's saddled with some of the most unlikely dialogue the screenplay has to offer .
theo 's assessment of the house ?
"
i love it !
sort of charles foster kane meets the munsters .
" who on earth would say that in place of " citizen kane meets the munsters " ?
( furthermore , would you gladly spend a single night in a house befitting that description ? )
both actresses fare better than neeson , who looks embarrassed to be a part of this ensemble ( and for good reason ) , and his character is the most bland .
as luke puts it , dr .
marrow pulls the old " academic bait and switch " on his subjects , but he breaks down and confesses to this the second he 's accused .
later , he risks his life by climbing a crumbling stairwell to save nell ( it 's amusing to hear neeson shout " nell " repeatedly , given his starring role in the 1994 jodie foster vehicle of the same name ) .
why was this nice , helpful , and redemptive researcher so absent of ethics at the start ?
the haunting was well designed by eugenio zanetti .
his sets are obsessively detailed , and even before the cgi kicks in , they seem alive , never quite still .
i do have one beef with this aspect of the production :
the real life mansion used in exterior shots , nottinghamshire 's harlaxton manor , is so vast that one has trouble believing that nell and company , no matter how much running away they do from ghosts and goblins , always finish up in locations that were established in act one , as if all the action has been confined to one wing of hill house .
eighty million dollars was spent on the haunting , and despite a powerhouse box office debut ,
i doubt it will recoup its costs ( including marketing ) domestically .
thank jan de bont for that : proving for the third time that speed was a fluke , in that it was actually enjoyable , de bont has served up another ride , sans thrill .
his images , well - lit though they are , have an unmistakable been there - done that quality
; in fact , whole sequences , not to mention the cloaked , airy ghoul who owns the climax , feel lifted from a much smarter and infinitely more enjoyable spectacle from three summers back , peter jackson 's the frighteners .
i do n't mean to suggest de bont is a plagiarist , i mean to suggest that he 's a hack , having found no new ways to give us chills .
Example Output: N

Example Input: tectonic plates is an incredibly painful motion picture experience that nearly prompted me to walk out 20 minutes into the movie .
the film ( which opened in canada during 1992 but was never released in the united states ) is based on a 1988 stage play by canadian auteur robert lapage , and , while it 's evident that this could be a fascinating live production , the translation to the screen is a creative disaster .
enduring tectonic plates is like sitting through a filmed version of performance art -- lifeless and tedious .
the qualities that make it captivating when seen in person are effaced in the motion picture medium .
tectonic plates has a storyline , although the narrative is developed in a decidedly non - traditional fashion , with shots of the stagebound play intercut with more typical cinematic sequences .
it 's not an inherently uninteresting way to present a movie ( despite the valid complaint that it is pretentious , all - but - screaming , " look ! art ! " ) , although it keeps the audience distanced from the characters .
because we 're constantly made aware that we 're watching a play or a movie , it 's impossible to accept these individuals as anything more than mouthpieces for the writer 's ideas .
they 're not real , sympathetic , or believable .
i 'm willing to give director peter mettler credit for trying something different , but this particular experiment is not a success .
tectonic plates opens by introducing us to madeleine ( marie gignac ) , an art student studying in montreal who has fallen in love with her professor , jacques ( lapage ) .
one day , he disappears , and , fearing that he left because she was undeserving of his love , madeleine travels to venice to kill herself .
while preparing to commit suicide , she encounters drug addict constance ( celine bonnier ) , who causes madeleine to re - think her decision .
meanwhile , jacques has moved to new york city , where he starts cross - dressing , calls himself jennifer , and becomes a successful counter - culture talkshow host .
with settings that shift from paris to venice to montreal to manhattan to scotland , supporting characters that include a topless goddess and a deaf / mute , and cultural references that point to chopin , george sand , and jim morrison , tectonic plates is unique , if nothing else .
however , as interesting as the film sounds ( and i was excited to see it because the synopsis is promising ) , it never really delivers .
the tone is soporific , the supposedly - intellectual prattle is inane and uninteresting ,
the plot meanders in
a pointless and irritating manner
( although it does n't take long for the viewer to determine that the story is largely unimportant ) , and the symbolism is obvious .
tectonic plates is trying to show that human interaction is as volatile as unpredictable as the shifting of the earth , but it takes one - hundred minutes to get across this transparent point .
there are some worthwhile moments , such as a silly sword fight between jacques and the topless goddess and an entertaining discussion in both french and english about the differences between the two languages ( although the fine points will certainly be lost on those who are n't bilingual ) .
the only people likely to enjoy tectonic plates are those who feel a strong need to praise something this rootless and boring
because ( a ) it 's different , ( b ) it 's not like anything they 've seen before , and ( c ) it 's pretentious .
for everyone else , it 's not only a waste of time , but a poor introduction to the work of robert lapage .
Example Output:
N