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

Ex Input:
i 've never written a review for a movie i have n't watched all the way through , but i had to make an exception with powder .
i was about forty - five minutes into this one at a friend 's house when he and his brother got into a huge shouting match that would have ended in violence
had we not left the house .
so i never got to finish the movie
and i 'm sure as hell not going to pay three more bucks to watch half of a bad movie .
but i can at least get a partial review out of it , because i saw enough to know this one was n't worth finishing in the first place .
the movie centers around a freaky teenager who 's spent his entire life living in the cellar of his grandparents ' house .
when grandpa dies ( taking his department store down with him ) , social worker mary steenburgen has to take powder ( first and middle names ?
gold bond ) to a state home , where we find out he 's a different from the other kids .
actually , we find out he 's different when we first see him , because he 's the most pale individual we 've ever seen and moreover he has no body hair whatsoever .
when powder is born in the opening minutes of the movie , the father takes one look at him and says " he 's not my son . " obviously .
all i want to know is where the pillsbury dough boy was nine months ago .
so the white - faced freak leaves his neverland ranch for the state home and faces the ridicule of other kids .
that is , until they try to haze him during his first cafeteria lunch by making him " wear " his spoon ( " you can either wear it on your nose or up your ass .
" decisions , decisions . . . )
and he uses telepathic powers to draw all the silverware in the room into a giant pile in the middle of the table .
so if his father is the pillsbury dough boy , his mother must be sissy spacek 's carrie character .
and you have to factor in two more things from the subsequent scenes , as we find out powder
has some sort of
super - intelligence ( " your i .
q .
test went straight off the chart ! " ) and attracts electrical power .
this first shows up as powder visits the world of high school ( if he 's such a genius already , why would he need a high school education ? ) and sits through a demonstration in jeff goldblum 's science class .
goldblum plugs in a " jacob 's ladder " device that shows current running up two wires and immediately the current flows across the room and into powder 's chest .
but goldblum just stands there for about thirty seconds watching , instead of just unplugging the damn thing .
i guess he was too busy contemplating why he was appearing in his third bad movie in a row
( following hideaway and nine months ) .
that 's about all i saw before the big fight began and , let me tell you , that was twice as interesting as the movie itself .
but like i said , i saw enough to know this would be one of those terrible melodramas about the isolation of people who have superior abilities and how hard it is for those people to assimilate themselves into mainstream civilization .
none of these movies ever handle the subject properly , instead introducing the feeble beauty and the beast copout of having a beautiful woman fall in love with the guy 's personality , overlooking his personal appearance .
i already had the female character picked out ( the girl who was sitting next to him in the back of the room during the electrocution scene ) , but i guess i 'll never know for sure what happened .
from noraruth@aol .
com mon jun 10 15 : 04
: 03 edt 1996 article : 3654 of rec .
arts .
movies .
reviews path :
nntphub .
cb .
att .
com !
not - for - mail from :
noraruth@aol .
com ( andrew hicks )
newsgroups :
rec .
arts .
movies .
reviews , rec .
arts .
sf .
reviews subject : review : powder ( 1995 ) followup - to :
rec .
arts .
movies .
current - films , rec .
arts .
sf .
movies date : 10 jun 1996 18 : 16 : 03 gmt organization : university of missouri - columbia lines :
70 sender :
ecl@mtcts1 .
att .
com ( evelyn c . leeper )
approved :
ecl@mtcts1 .
att .
com
message - id : " > reply - to :
noraruth@aol .
com ( andrew hicks )
nntp - posting - host : mtcts2 .
mt .
lucent .
com summary : r .
a .
m .
r .
# 05425 keywords :
author = hicks originator :
ecl@mtcts2 xref : nntphub .
cb .
att .
com rec .
arts .
movies .
reviews : 3654 rec .
arts .
sf .
reviews :
710 status : ro powder a film review by andrew hicks
copyright 1996 andrew hicks / fatboy productions .

Ex Output:
N

Ex Input:
after the press screening of " moulin rouge , " i stood in the lobby of the theater listening to the reactions of my friends and colleagues .
everyone seemed a bit numb , understandable after sitting through a barrage of often - incongruous sounds and images .
a pal of mine simply said that he loved the film and could hardly wait to take his wife to see it .
another enthusiast immediately began to analyze the production , while a woman who flat - out hated the movie gave him the skunk eye .
when one fellow quietly stated " i 've never really been a fan of musicals , " the statement surprised me because ,
even though the story is told almost completely through song , i did n't think of it as a musical .
there is so much going on in " moulin rouge " that " musical " seems too small a term to cover it .
"
moulin rouge " is the kind of creation that sends critics scurrying off to the big tub o ' adjectives in search of proper words to describe the experience .
australian director baz luhrmann , the man behind " strictly ballroom " and " romeo + juliet , " fills the heads of viewers with unique camerawork , opulent imagery and songs ranging from " the sound of music " to " smells like teen spirit .
" sumptuous and beautiful , vulgar and overdone , " moulin rogue " travels through the looking glass while an ethereal stereo loaded with 50 years worth of catchy tunes
operates on the " random " setting .
oh , and it has a story as well .
"
it was 1899 , the summer of love . . .
"
christian ( ewan mcgregor ) is a penniless young writer newly arrived in paris , " to write about truth , beauty , freedom and love , " where he encounters a group of bohemians , led by henri de toulouse - lautrec ( john leguizamo ) .
christian meets satine ( nicole kidman ) , a courtesan from the legendary moulin rogue , and his world transforms from black and white to technicolor .
at once fragile and vivacious , the dazzling red - haired woman sweeps him off his feet without even trying .
christian instantly falls in love with her and satine finds herself smitten with him as well , which is quite a hindrance for someone in her profession .
working with the bohemians and moulin rogue impresario harold zidler ( jim broadbent ) , christian writes an opus modestly named " spectacular spectacular .
" zidler quickly finds a backer , the wealthy duke of monroth ( richard roxburgh ) , but there 's a catch ?
the duke also wants the hand of the fair satine .
as if all that is n't enough , satine has a cough , and while a cough in the real world probably indicates a cold , it rarely turns out to be anything that simple in movie land .
like a teeter - totter , " moulin rogue " moves up and down between the ridiculous and the sublime .
one of the loveliest moments comes as christine and satine commune outdoors at night , becoming part of a defiantly unrealistic parisian cityscape straight from a book of fairy tales .
together they dance , while serenaded by the man in the moon ( alessandro safina provides the vocals ) , apparently transported from the classic georges
m ? li ?
s
silent film to guard the nocturnal sky .
other scenes merely traffic in everything - and - the - kitchen - sink overload .
the cavorting of toulouse - lautrec and his comrades gets strained at times and some of their overt comedy , accompanied by cartoon sound effects , is overly reminiscent of the frenzied farce that sitcoms like " bewitched " beat into the ground .
of course , sensory overload was exactly what baz luhrmann had in mind .
"
we never heard from baz to turn it down , " one of the actors told the los angeles times .
"
it was always , ' more !
more ! '
" the director even sent a note to his cast reading , " i dare you to make me say you 've gone too far .
"
the musical numbers reflect his attitude .
one knockout piece , the " elephant love medley , " incorporates the beatles ' " all you need is love , " u2 's " in the name of love , " dolly parton 's " i will always love you " and elton john and bernie taupin 's " your song .
" need more ?
how about " diamonds are a girl 's best friend " spiced with portions of " material girl ? "
luhrmann 's cast offers a wide variety of approaches that , together , add up to something messy , but often wonderful .
ewan mcgregor is extremely likable as christian , emphasizing the sincerity of the love - struck poet .
mcgregor 's singing voice is robust and adds vigor at just the right moments .
once labeled the " ice queen , " nicole kidman melts that characterization with a sizzling , yet tender , performance .
she handles the songs adroitly , although her voice sounds a bit thin in the upper range .
veteran character actor jim broadbent is suitably larger than life as ringmaster zidler ?
wait until you see him perform " like a virgin .
" as the buffoonish duke , richard roxburgh proves to be the film 's weakest link , although i 'm sure he was simply following instructions .
i suspect " moulin rogue " will be one of those love - it - or - hate - it films .
while i did n't completely love it ,
i most certainly liked it a lot .
over the course of a year , i see well over 300 movies , and most of them look like xeroxes of each other .
" moulin rogue " is an original , and an original , even a flawed one , is a thing to be cherished .

Ex Output:
P

Ex Input:
oh god how many john grisham lawyer films we have been munundated with !
in a perfect world , " a civil action " would be a breath of fresh air .
it 's cynical about lawyers in a way that grisham is n't .
it 's romantic in the exact opposite way a grisham book / film is n't .
and , the capper , it has no distinct ending , and the law in hollywood films is that above all else , you must have an ending .
even if it 's based on a true story , a true story which has n't yet ended , you must supply an ending , a false one , but an ending nevertheless .
hell , " a civil action " is even more sly and more witty
than any of the grisham works put together ( and that includes " the firm , " the only novel of his that will ever be regarded as a classic ) .
yet it 's also oddly and slightly unsatisfying .
weird .
this is , in fact , a steve zallian film , not just the work of a hack , and zallian is the director of the much - admired " search for bobby fischer " ( did n't see it ) and writer of none other than " schindler 's list .
"
in short , i like this guy , and am a sucker for the way he tells his stories .
after all , apart from the obvious it's - a - holocaust - film and it's - a - spielberg - film , is n't " schindler 's list " just a damn brilliant film , not so much a holocaust film as it is a wonderful character study .
" a civil action " is the same way : it 's narrative is split between being a lawyer film and being a character study .
and it 's here that the film seems to go a bit wrong .
the main complaint of this film is that while , yes , it 's an engrossing lawyerly tale , it has no real ending , and that 's not necessarily the problem with the film .
it 's that it 's just kind of unsatisfying .
if this were a great film , it would feel complete , and still end basically the same way .
but this film just seems to end , and i do n't want to be stupid and suggest an alternate ending should be tacked on :
imagine , if you will , being one of those the film is about , looking forward to this film , and then discovered the truth has been through a surrealistic and unpleasant hollywood filter , just so the many wo n't bitch about what is , essentially , genuine .
but the fact that it just ends is not , in all actuality , what is wrong with it .
it 's rather that zallian has chosen , in the last half hour , to adandon the traditional lawyer story , and chose the other part of his story , the one about the lawyer , one jan schlictman ( john travolta ) , who 's shown in the opening and throughout most of the movie as a heartless but brilliant lawyer , brilliant because he 's manipulative and he always wins .
it wishes to make it all about jan in the end , but the truth is , his change , although nicely done , is not full .
we see him suffering from a personal crisis , and travolta does do a pretty good job in depicting his change of heart , but in the end , we do n't fully believe it .
and i think that the problem is when he has made his decision , the film choses an odd angle to go at , a noble one , but one that gives the film 's conclusion that of incompleteness .
in the opening of the film , we see him doing his old schtick , manipulating courts , winning cases effortlessly , and then discussing on a heard radio interview how great he is at his job and how much he cares for his cases .
in short , he 's full of bullshit
and we know it .
in the film , he takes a case that is hardly desired : a town where several of the children have died mysteriously of lukemia and the source of the illness seems to be from a local factory that may or may not have been dumping waste into the river .
point one
, it 's not of the usual criteria ( jan points out , wickedly , that dead or wounded children are n't nearly as sympathetic as those struck down in the midst of their success ) .
point two , it has been through several lawyers .
after turning them down , jan changes his mind ( a muddled scene - he stops his car on a bridge , looks out . .
.
is he feeling a sense of overachievement ? ) , and he and his team of lawyers ( tony shalhoub , zeljko ivanek , and accountant william h .
macy ) head out to the town to do battle with the town 's company .
they spend millions of dollars examining the land , test the water , what have you ( this is where stephen fry , a possible oscar nominee for his brilliant performance in " wilde , " pops up thanklessly ) , and in the meantime question the parents of the dead children , and then , unsuccessfully , the workers at the plant .
they also find themselves clashing with a brilliant lawyer for the company , the eccentric jerome facher , played by robert duvall ( more on him later on ) .
as we progress , we get so involved in the way the story is being told , which is engulfing everything around it , including the individual and brief stories of some of the townspeople ( one of the best is a bit with james gandolfini as an employee of the plant living across the street from kathleen quinland , who lost her child , who begins to have a personal crisis ) .
things begin to go downhill for the lawyers in the second half , as they are up against impossible odds : the judge ( john lithgow ) is not only a strickler , but a pal of facher ; the employees of the plant are either afraid or to loyal to testify ; no concrete evidence is being found , depsite the money spent to find it ; and they are quickly running out of money .
as macy mortgages everything he can , including their homes and their office , he slowly loses his sanity ( his meatiest role since , oh , " fargo " ) , and we the audience begin to feel a real loss of hope for our protagonist .
in fact , the last half hour is such a change from the rest of the film and so unresolved that it has been widely panned as not being up to par ( owen gleiberman , especially , criticized the film for not being overly - dramatic . . .
i suppose like a grisham novel ) .
this would n't be so if the change in jan had not been handled the way it is : instead of having a change of heart and automatically being perceived as good , he 's seen as being still full of bullshit . because he does n't take stock in the cares of his partners , and causes them all to lose their money and noteriaty in the lawyer field because he wants to help the people of the town , he is instead seen as being of good nature but not sure how to bring that out .
the final half tries to redeem this , as must have been the point of making this in zallian 's mind , but what follows is a series of scenes where we merely see him making personal stands for his beliefs , and though he has changed considerably from the opening moments when he 's seen speeding back and forth from the town that wishes to employ him ( and thusly receiving two speeding tickets ) , we still feel that the big change in his life is that he 's not rich and esteemed anymore ( the film 's final title card is witty but in all actuality shallow ) .
the fault is not that there is no closure to the court case
( it 's still going on , you know ) , but that its personal story feels like it needs either another chapter or another angle in the final one it has .
we need to feel like the character has really made a big change in his life , and that the story is how a story of strife like the one of the town could inspire such a whopping change in his personal life .
it only feels like half of that .
maybe even less .
and it 's not travolta , who does a great job here ( though never to be a truly memorable performance of his ) , but rather
zallian , whose final chapter needs a rewrite .
up to then , though , it 's an engrossing drama , one of the best of the year in fact , and one of the best lawyer films , period .
the reason is because it recognizes that a court trial is not about those being defended or prosecuted , but rather it 's about the lawyers , the knights who battle eachother .
we learn that the company is almost positively to blame for the deaths in the town , but the reason it ca n't be blamed is because it has the best prosecution you can find .
and duvall 's facher is such a brilliant character
and he does such a magnificent job at portraying that man that it 's almost easy to overlook how subtley great he is .
facher is seen as an elderly man , a goofy eccentric , carrying a broken brown bag with stickers on it , eating lunches out of paper bags , and making a point to take time out of his day to listen to the radio , and scold anyone who interupts him .
but look deeper and you see a master at work : his evil and manipulative nature are hidden under the eccentricities that others don upon him , and it 's difficult as hell to clearly generalize him in any way .
that 's why i liked this film : it 's hard to put a pointer on .
you can never see exactly where this film will land , and even when the credits roll , you still are n't sure what to make of it .
call it the zallian effect .
same thing happened with " schindler 's list " ( not that i 'm comparing oskar schindler to jan schlictman ) .
each film is so greatly crafted that you ca n't help but get involved in its broad storytelling , interesting characters , and , most peculiarly , the wit that comes along with it .
if only it felt totally complete ( like , say , " schindler 's list , " though at this point it may be unfair to make comparisons between the two ) , it might have been one of the best films of the year , and along with that , a full breath of fresh air .

Ex Output:
P