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

Ex Input:
i was anxious to see this for a long time .
a friend of mine recommended this to me because he has a crush on neve campbell , and he wanted to prove that she 's as hot as he thinks he is .
he proved it for me all right , but
the reasons i enjoy this film go way beyond that .
scream treads on familar ground , horror movie with , as star neve campbell puts it , " some stupid killer stalking some big breasted girl who ca n't act who 's always running up the stairs when she should be running out the front door .
"
it 's very familar , your typical horror film .
so why , you may ask after watching it , does it seem so new and original ? because it treats itself as if it has n't been done before , and thus the viewer is disilusioned into believing that it is not old , familar tired stuff .
this raises another question : how does it do this ?
simple : the characters .
they 're not your typical stupid horror film victims who do n't know what the hell to do when being chased by a guy in a ski mask and a machette .
they are horror fans , they know how stuff happens in a horror movie , they know what to do and what not to do , and that makes it scary , and even funny at certain times .
you can tell this just by watching the opening scene where casey becker ( drew barrymore ) is making popcorn , getting ready to watch a video , and some guy who sounds like a killer calls her up to play a game with her that involves horror movie triva that , if she gets it wrong , will get her and her boyfriend killed .
she knows what to answer when he asks her horror film questions , she just ca n't answer his final question , " what door am i at ? " and that gets her killed .
that scene works because in a normal horror film , half the things that happen in that scene would never happen .
the plot is typical horror stuff : sidney prescott ( an impressive neve campbell ) , an attractive young high school student who 's mother was killed a year ago tommorrow , is being stalked by a killer who 's previously murdered one of her classmates ( casey , naturally ) , and everybody in this small , california town is a suspect , including sidney 's boyfriend , billy loomis .
but as i said before , these people know how horror movies work , and that 's what makes it so appealing .
that and the references to horror movies , like when casey says , " the first ( nightmare on elm street ) was scary , but the rest sucked .
" which is obviously director wes craven ( who does a good job of poking fun of the genre that made him a legend ) patting himself on the back as he directed the first nightmare movie and none of the others , and when tatum , sidney 's friend , mentions the director , wes carpenter , which is obviously an homage by writer kevin williamson to not only craven , but also director john carpenter .
the cast is well chosen , neve campbell pulls off a good heroine
( and unlike most horror film heroines , she * can * act ) , drew barrymore does a good janet leigh impression for what little time she has in the film , and david arquette is impressive .
also good
( and funny ) in his role is henry winkler ( " the fonz " )
as the school principal .
i took half a point off for the unnecessary ( albeit limited ) appearance by friends ' courteney cox as reporter , gail edwards , sidney 's rival because she covered her mother 's disappearance .
i hate that show
, i hate those actors .
they 're untalented , overexposed , and overpaid , imho , and i would think wes craven is smart enough to know those actors are overexposed enough , but i suppose he is n't .

Ex Output:
P

Ex Input:
i came to an epiphany while watching the bachelor , an innocuous - enough - on - the - surface romantic comedy .
it 's not the sort of film in which one would expect to achieve any moment of clarity , but there it was nonetheless .
i sat there watching this marshmallow of a movie unfold when suddenly i realized what is so ridiculously wrong with the entire romantic comedy genre circa 1999 .
in a word , it 's the same thing that 's wrong with so many movies circa 1999 : writing .
more to the point , it 's the refusal to acknowledge that characterizations matter when you 're telling a story about a relationship .
the bachelor is merely the latest in a long line of films where we 're expected to get dewy - eyed over any pairing of attractive , pleasant people just because they 're attractive and pleasant .
in this particular case , attractive and pleasant exhibit a is jimmy shannon ( chris o'donnell ) , a single guy who has been watching his friends slowly but surely sucked into marriage .
it 's a scary notion for jimmy , even though he dearly loves attractive and pleasant exhibit b anne ( renee zellweger ) , his girlfriend of three years .
convinced despite his reservations that it 's time to " sh
* t or get off the pot , " jimmy proposes to anne -- very badly .
anne refuses , which leaves jimmy in a very odd position when his eccentric grandfather ( peter ustinov ) dies and leaves a very specific video will .
jimmy stands to inhereit $ 100 million if he is married by 6
: 05 p .
m .
on his 30th birthday , stays married for 10 years and produces a child .
there are only a couple of minor problems : 1 ) jimmy 's 30th birthday is the next day ; 2 ) anne is nowhere to be found , meaning jimmy has to find another willing bride from among his many ex - girlfriends .
it 's a wacky , brewster 's millions - esque premise ( acknowledged as such in one of the film 's better , more self - aware lines of dialogue ) , the kind where a shallow and materialistic guy learns what really matters .
at least that would be the case if jimmy were n't already a world - class altruist .
screenwriter steve cohen slides into the story an even more draconian condition in the will : if jimmy does n't get married , not only will he lose all the money , but the family billiard table buisness will be sold out from under him , costing hudreds of jobs .
from the outset , jimmy 's motivation is n't cash ; it 's the livelihoods of his devoted employees .
it 's almost embarrassing for his marital misgivings to play a role in the bachelor 's plot development .
by any human standard , the guy is impossibly selfless .
and that 's the essence of the gutlessness endemic to films like the bachelor --
the fear of giving the characters flaws to overcome on their way to happiness .
there 's never any tension between the two star - crossed lovers , because there 's no sense that anything remotely significant is at stake .
the blandly nice o'donnell could n't pull off a randy cad if he tried , so the filmmakers do n't even let him ; zellweger 's anne may have issues with her sickeningly affectionate parents as an impossible standard to live up to , but no one dares make her anything but the woman ( lightly ) wronged . and forget about seeing enough of jimmy and anne together to feel invested in their potential reconciliation .
the parade of sit - com set pieces had better be damned funny , since they 're all that stands between us and a blissfully sweet foregone conclusion .
i 'll admit a couple of those set pieces are amusing , including ustinov 's rantings about procreation and a restaurant full - to - bursting with men popping questions and champagne corks .
far more of them are either tedious or downright ghastly
, like the shudder - inducing sight of brooke shields as an icy fortune - hunter or the hideous collection of stereotypes when hundreds of potential brides gather in a church .
you 're never going to get too many raucous belly laughs from a film like the bachelor , but that 's not the real problem .
nor is it the real problem that you know exactly the kind of warm - n - fuzzy conclusion it 's leading up to .
the problem are a beginning and middle that are equally warm - n - fuzzy --
there 's no spark , no energy , no humanity .
it 's an emotional pudding guaranteed not to offend any consumer 's digestions .
we 've reached a point where our proxies for cinematic romantic wish fulfillment do n't even have a pulse .
the bachelor is love among the mannequins .

Ex Output:
N

Ex Input:
it 's actually not so bad that dreamworks decided to release the love letter at about the same time as star wars episode i :
the phantom menace , because this way less people will have to sit through
this dreadful little comedy .
and no , i really do n't feel guilty about wishing this movie death at the box - office .
really , i do n't .
not at all .
the plot has been done before -- a mysterious , unaddressed love letter shows up in a small town , causing confusion for everyone who reads it .
the center of the ensuing disaster is bookstore owner helen ( kate capshaw , and by the way , what is it with bookstore owner main characters ?
in the past year and a half we 've seen them in life is beautiful , you 've got mail , this movie , and the upcoming notting hill ) , who finds the letter in between couch cushions in the bookstore .
she immediately starts testing other people to see who it might be from , and comes to the ( incorrect ) conclusion that the author of the note is a young employee played by tom everett scott .
he , reading the letter himself , assumes that she wrote it for him .
after a while , they fall in love ( well , duh ) .
kate feels guilty about getting in a relationship with someone more than twenty years younger than her , and she also feels guilty because at the same time she is also involved with the town fireman ( tom selleck ) .
to add to her turmoil , her mother shows up ( blythe danner , who apparently must have had her daughter when she was about 9 ) and her trusted bookstore manager ( deadpan ellen degeneres ) quits .
supporting characters are n't called supporting for nothing .
their purpose is n't just to move the plot along , they 're also supposed to give the storyline a backbone .
to do this , they must exhibit at least marginal depth and must also be interesting .
rarely can a movie work
if it puts an interesting protagonist in the middle and surrounds her with hackneyed , dull , cardboard secondary characters , especially when at the core of the movie is the protagonist 's various interactions with them .
this is the love letter 's damning error .
capshaw 's character is as good as i have seen present in recent romantic comedies , but the people that surround her are all either underwritten or purely one - dimensional .
because of that , the love letter is awkward and insincere .
even worse -- it 's a bore .
i liked capshaw and her helen , but everyone else is painfully fake , undermining the little drama or sexual tension that has the potential to exist .
there is nothing particularly hilarious about all this either -- and besides degeneres ' wisecracks ,
there 's little that is even a little amusing .
this is not a completely thoughtless film and director peter ho - sun chan does a good job of portraying helen 's yearnings and various subtle complexities .
but it 's far from profound .
there is n't a common theme running through the proceedings , thus the movie seems thoughtfully pointless .
really , this is a harmless little movie ; it 's far from an abomination
and it 's not torturous to sit through .
but bad , it is .
awful , it also is .
the love letter is a failure , and an inane failure at that . ?
1999 eugene novikov&#137 ;

Ex Output:
N