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

Example Input: ingredients : london gal , fate , true love , running joke about monty python 's spanish inquisition synopsis : american actress gwyneth paltrow with dark hair , playing a londoner ? believe it .
sliding doors is a love ' what if ' story .
the gimmick is that it 's really two stories : the film follows the life of helen ( gwyneth paltrow ) down two directions .
in the beginning , likeable gal ' helen ' ( gwyneth paltrow ) gets unexpectedly fired from her advertising job .
so she goes into the subway train station meaning to return home early to her apartment and
her sleeping live - in lover gerry ( john lynch )
.
helen does n't know it , but she is at a fateful junction in life :
1 ) if she enters through the sliding door of a london subway train her life takes one path with one future 2 ) if she stays on the platform her life takes another path with a different future .
the film shows what happens in both paths , switching back and forth between intertwined , parallel stories .
in story one , helen meets a charming and talkative monty python fan named james ( john hannah ) on the train .
arriving home early , she discovers that her live - in , gerry ( john lynch ) , is having sex with his former lover lydia ( jeanne tripplehorn ) .
this leads to a life where helen moves out .
helen 's winsome new friend james helps her recover from a broken heart , and encourages her to start her own business .
in story two , helen experiences a different fate .
she misses the train , never meets james , and does n't get home early enough to discover gerry 's infidelity .
in this new life , helen takes up odd menial jobs , and faces the constant sneaking suspicion that all is not right with her relationship with gerry .
will the truth of the heart finally work its way through a number of problems and setbacks in both scenarios ?
opinion : rejoice all ye monty python fans , gwyneth paltrow fans , and watchers of quirky romance flicks .
at last here 's proof that there 's still creativity in 1990s filmmaking .
sliding doors is refreshingly different from anything this year .
not only is it a well - acted , heartwarming film , but it 's also easily gwyneth paltrow 's best recent performance .
when helen ( paltrow ) screams that her unfaithful boyfriend is a ' shagging wanker , ' ( a british phrase better left untranslated ) she sounds like she knows what she 's talking about ! nor does sliding doors go overboard with formulaic true love or other stereotypes .
nobody scrambles around in danger , screaming , " i will find you no matter what , my darling ! " when helen finds herself on a boat in the starlight with james , she does n't take the easy way out and leap into his arms , since she 's supposed to be recovering from heartache . and handsome live - in boyfriend gerry is n't the stereotypical screen hunk ( either a stud or a snob ) .
instead he 's a nervous and indecisive , almost helpless hunk .
another example : when one of the protagonists lies wounded in a hospital , sliding doors gives us neither the ' hospital miracle ' nor a maudlin tragedy but surprises us with a third variation .
in other words , all of the characters seem non - stereotyped , human , and local .
there are minor inconveniences .
since sliding doors switches back and forth between two possible fates , it 's occasionally difficult to distinguish between the two .
distinguishing between the two stories is n't a problem in the scenes containing paltrow , who sports two different hairstyles .
but in scenes containing only lydia and gerry , who look the same in both stories , it 's slightly confusing .
also , quite a few snappy comebacks referring to american pop culture ( seinfeld , woody allen , etc . ) are spoken by the british characters .
but these seem slightly forced , given that the remaining dialogue is predominantly british slang .
possibly an attempt by the screenwriter to balance the british so that american audiences can feel more comfortable ?
sliding doors is a charming , quirky , original , happy romance with a little ' philosophy of fate ' thrown in .
monty python and the meaning of fate , anybody ?
Example Output: P

Example Input: much ado about nothing .
ah , how sweet the irony !
it 's accepted wisdom in some circles - among english literature nuts , mainly - that whenever a critic knocks shakespeare they are only doing so through ignorance .
he just does n't " understand " shakespeare , you will hear them say .
the bard 's work is apparently beyond criticism .
what a load of old cobblers .
if these arbiters of public taste think kenneth branaugh 's film of shakespeare 's " comedy " much ado about nothing is comedy in any modern sense of the word
, it 's time to get a life .
get monty python .
get woody allen .
get john waters .
whatever .
just get a real taste of some clever , witty , risky comedy . and banish this nonsense
to where it belongs .
drama and tragedy was shakespeare 's strength .
to my sensibilities - and i 'm no stick in the mud - much ado about nothing resonates with no spark whatsoever .
no kidding : this film ranks among the most embarrassing two hours i have ever spent in a cinema in my 20 years of movie going .
the only thing that stopped me walking out was loyalty to my lady friend , as this was our day out
and i had n't seen her in ages .
but boy , does she owe me one !
i wo n't spend too much time on the plot .
basically , we follow the trials and tribulations of two would - be couples - one young , the other older .
there 's some dark treachery amongst all this , but everyone is so awfully jolly that you 'd hardly know it .
mind you , there 's nothing wrong with the basic story .
good romantic comedies based on similar premises abound .
nothing wrong with most of the cast , either .
branaugh , emma thompson and denzel washington are all talented performers .
the problem is the script , or more accurately , shakespeare 's original text .
light comedy should n't be complex .
yet wrapped in elizabethan english , the dialogue becomes difficult to comprehend .
for this alone it will be a problem for modern audiences unschooled in shakespeare and in search of nothing more than a good , undemanding laugh .
the only laughs to escape my belly were brought on by the gloriously inept performance of keanu reeves , the actor once again miscast as a jealous half - brother or something .
but when dissected and understood , what it all boils down to is that this stuff is just so goddamn lame .
this is comedy so clean and nice and corny and so devoid of danger that it leaves this viewer
totally cold .
ho , ho ,
ho ,
boy likes girl !
ho ,
ho ,
ho , men are such klutzes !
ho ,
ho ,
ho ,
she 's so awfully clumsy !
oh please !
there 's wit in here somewhere , i 'm told .
i call it pretentious
.
something lightweight striving to be something sophisticated through clever wordplay .
in the end , it 's cringeworthy .
watching some of the cinema patrons around me collapse with laughter made much ado about nothing a very weird movie going experience .
comedy ?
bah , humbug !
Example Output: N

Example Input: robin hood :
men in tights is another mel - brooks - produced film in the classic tradition of movies like blazing saddles and young frankenstein .
mel brooks is well known for his comic look at regular life , his fast paced dialogue and sharp wit .
unfortunately , robin hood :
men in tights has none of the easy going humor of blazing saddles , none of the fun acting of young frankenstein , is devoid of the charm of spaceballs , and is even lacking the good , solid dialogue of history of the world .
it is , in short , one of the worst movies i have seen mel brooks , or anybody else , produce .
the plot borrows heavily from the well - received kevin costner movie of last year , robin hood : prince of thieves .
this is not surprising in and of itself , and could have been used to great comic effect , mainly by parodying scenes from the orginal movie .
mel brooks does not take advantage of this , however , and uses the film to launch several ideas into the air , none of which connect and none of which are explained later on .
the movie 's scenes could be shuffled around in any order and one would be hard pressed to notice .
cary elwes , of princess bride fame , plays robin of loxley , a man who was captured in the crusades , fighting with king richard .
he escapes and , joining with a man named achoo
( i am sure you can see the obvious joke ) , fights in england to reclaim his name and the throne for richard , which has been captured by evil prince john , played by funny comic richard lewis .
he also tries for the love of maid marian and attempts to overthrow the evil " sheriff of rottingham " .
a good adventure plot that is sadly unused .
elwes and lewis are both excellent comics , but the dialogue in the movie is simply excruciating .
neither actor has any good words to work with , and the lines simply are n't funny , nor believable .
perhaps the worst example of this is when the group of merry men encounter a man playing a macaulay culkin clone from the hit movie home alone .
this particular scene is so out of place and so badly acted , and followed by so many other scenes of equal miserable ideas , that i really felt like leaving the theatre .
much of the audience continued to look at their watches throughout , and some left the theatre .
chuckles were few and far between , and they mostly dealt with visual jokes ( such as an old , beaten up horse from " rent - a - wreck " ) then from any dialogue whatsoever .
scenes that could have been classics , such as the archery contest , are ruined by poor acting .
perhaps the largest problem with the movie is that it is simply offensive .
the basic plot , that robin has received a key that will unlock the chastity belt of maid marian , is not witty nor funny .
mel brooks as a circumcision - giving rabbi is also offensive to me and others in the audience ( not all jewish , either ) .
the movie simply tries to hard trying to be funny and by and large fails .
the addition of a blind man who stumbles around , falling off cliffs , walking into ledges and being a general buffoon could have had some humorous potential , but is also made terribly offensive .
the only reason to see this movie is the surprise actor at the end who plays king richard .
he is well worth waiting for , if you can stand an hour and half of unfunny dialogue , excruciating visual humor , old puns , ancient jokes and bad acting .
if you ca n't , do n't even bother watching this miserable film .
Example Output:
N