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

Input: Consider Input: jean - luc picard ( patrick stewart ) and the rest of the crew of the u .
s .
s .
enterprise are back for their third outing in the ninth film based on the 1960 's series , star trek .
gone are kirk , spock and mccoy and in their wake in the very able and very talented cast from star trek : the next generation .
as usual , a crisis is brewing and it is up to the crew of the enterprise to make the galaxy safe again .
this time out the united federation of planets and an alien race led by f .
murray abraham are trying to move some colonists off a planet against the colonist 's will .
it turns out that this planet is the fountain of youth and the federation and their alien buddies feel that is should be used for the good of everyone and not just a few hundred colonists .
of course picard feels that this sort of treachery is wrong , so he disobeys direct orders and vows to help protect the colonists .
insurrection is a lighter movie than the last two star trek films .
the film focuses on the lofty question of whether the rights of society as a whole outweighs the rights of a small group .
in this respect it gets back to the roots of star trek by disguising social commentary as science fiction .
it does n't do a bad job , other than it tries to inject too much humor into the story line .
many of the jokes are your typical inside star trek - fan - only jokes , while many of the others just fall flat .
the other criticism that i had with the story was that it ignores common sense .
there are only a few hundred people on this whole planet , why do they have to be moved ?
the explanation is that the planet has to be bombarded with deadly radiation so that this fountain of youth effect will be strong enough to help heal f .
murray abraham 's aliens who number only a couple of dozen .
so the basic story line is bad enough in that we have a few hundred being booted out for a few billion , at least that 's plausible .
but in reality we have a few hundred being moved for the benefits of a few dozen , which makes no sense whatsoever .
the other little hiccup in logic is the inclusion of worf ( michael dorn ) , the trusty klingon .
worf was on star trek : the next generation , so they want to include him in the films .
no problem so far .
worf is now a character of star trek : deep space nine , so the writers have to find a way to have him show up .
in the last star trek movie , first contact , the included worf in a credible fashion , in this one , the writers are so lazy that the completely gloss over why he is even in the movie .
what little explanation they do give is so small that you would have missed it if you were n't hanging on every word on the screen .
my minor problems with the movie aside , star trek : insurrection does have an overwhelming number of good points as compared to its bad ones .
while many of the jokes do miss the mark , many are pretty good , even for non - trekkies .
the special effects are among the best for the star trek series .
the action is plentiful and well done .
this is a very good - looking movie .
it should come as no surprise to anyone who ever watched star trek : the next generation that the acting is first rate .
it is very obvious that these actors have been working together for over a decade .
they interact with each other with a skill that few other ensemble casts can muster .
most star trek fans probably will not be disappointed with this latest film in the series .
if you 've always hated star trek , there is nothing here that is going to change your mind .
star trek : insurrection is not the best film in the series , but it is good enough to dispel the long standing tradition of the odd numbered films in the series being far inferior to the even numbered ones .

Output: P

Input: Consider Input: i do n't expect much from eddie murphy these days .
for the past four years , the gods of cinema -- or the expansive payrolls of studio conglomerates -- have allowed him to make one bad movie after another .
such films as metro , doctor dolittle , holy man , life , and bowfinger have reduced a once great comedic persona to a living and breathing washed - up hack performing as a studio puppet for 20th century fox and universal pictures .
the biggest shame to fall on his shoulders is his newest film , nutty professor ii : the klumps .
the klumps once again revisits the life of sherman klump , an overweight university science professor looking for love in all the wrong places .
sherman has just invented a new " youth drink " that enables man or beast to become younger for a short period of time .
janet jackson is the love interest who chooses the lovable sherman for a soul mate rather than excel at her career as a university professor ( and for the most ridiculous reasons ) .
with love on his mind , sherman is determined to rid himself of his alter ego , buddy love from the first professor , who still resides with vigor inside his psyche and causes sherman to act like a bad imitation of vince vaughn from swingers .
with some convoluted mumbo - jumbo about dna extraction , sherman extracts the " buddy love " link in his dna and smartly deposits buddy into a handy - dandy lab beaker .
but one night , the beaker is knocked over and buddy love is regenerated . . .
because every movie like this needs an unnecessary villain to thwart the good guy .
then the klump family , all played by eddie murphy , step in for some comedic relief involving old people having sex , flabby breasts , a slew of fart and dick jokes , and enough fat people jokes that i lost count after the first thirty minutes .
and did i mention the part where larry miller gets anally raped by an overgrown hamster ?
the movie finally dissolves into a really bad hallmark family special about realizing who you are and what you can be in this world -- with enough soft lighting and people on the verge of tears in every scene .
pure and simple ,
the klumps is a failure .
its script was handled by not one but five screenwriters , and it really shows during the awkward transitions between scenes .
any sense of story and plot were lost in the rewrite process .
it 's more discerning to learn that chris weitz and paul weitz , the team behind one of the funniest films of the last decade , american pie , have their names stamped to this trash .
hey guys - quick
note - keep this movie off of your resumes .
the characterization of sherman 's family , the klumps , is one of the most ignorant stereotypes of a black family i have ever seen in cinema .
everyone member of the family is a large person who wipes the bins clean at a local buffet restaurant like pigs at a trough .
the grandma is an oversexed fiend who constantly talks of ways to pleasure her man and her sagging breasts .
the father is gruff , is fired from a blue - collar job , is sexually inadequate , and can not communicate with his family about his feelings .
the mother is ignorant of all the negativity around her and seems to hold no opinion about anything or anyone .
the brother is silent and brooding and resembles the ice cube gangster character from boyz in the hood .
sherman himself is terribly insecure and never conveys anything for the audience to become attached to .
but the main problem with the film is its inability to create any type of convincing conversational or situational comedy .
the family scenes from the first nutty professor worked so well because their conversations were short and direct .
and you got the feeling that these crass people could n't act like this all the time .
the sequel does the reverse and drives the negatives of the klumps right in to the hilt , making the first five minutes of their interaction enjoyable and the last 55 or so unbearable and pathetic .
after a while , their conversations just become a barrage of frustrated anger tinged with indecency and overworked premises that end up drawing energy away from any type of empathy one might feel for the central themes of the story .
its also a damn shame that the makeup magic of rick baker -- who worked on the original nutty professor and won an academy award for his work on an american werewolf in london -- and amazing digital special effects that enabled murphy to interact with himself in such beautiful motions are built around such a lame story line .
even the best effects ca n't seem to save the most pathetic of movies these days .
now that i think about it ,
the worst thing about this film has to be all the money that it will make .
people will be lined up around the block for it .
the studios will concoct the a sequel for release in the summer of 2002 .
eddie murphy will be signed up to take not just one role or five roles , but he 'll play every character in the movie .
i just ca n't wait to see eddie murphy in a love scene with himself .

Output: N

Input: Consider Input: it 's difficult to expect much from a director whose greatest accomplishments to date are a handful of " award - winning " tv commercials , as is the case with bubble boy director blair hayes .
that said , hayes 's feature film debut lives up to expectations , coming off mainly as equal parts offensive and moronic .
but occasionally , bubble boy transcends its substandard roots with glimmers of humor and scathing social commentary .
those moments of intelligence are delivered mostly by the film 's two stars , jake gyllenhall as the immuno - deficient jimmy and swoosie kurtz as his over - protective , hyper religious , reagan - loving mother .
gyllenhall 's sweet - natured delivery of jimmy 's hilariously na ?
ve narration serves as the backbone for an otherwise flimsy coming - of - age story :
jimmy is a bubble boy , a kid born without immunity who could die if he comes in contact with a single germ -- a plight explored more seriously in the john travolta tv movie boy in the plastic bubble and less so on seinfeld .
his mom home - schools jimmy , filling his head with wildly twisted conservative propaganda and anti - sexual messages , until he 's befriended by chloe ( marley shelton ) , the beautiful girl next door .
jimmy falls in love with chloe , but is afraid that his love will literally kill him , as evidenced in a scene when she drunkenly tries to enter his bubble for a kiss .
but when chloe decides to marry her high school boyfriend , jimmy builds a bubble suit and embarks on a hijinks - addled cross - country voyage to stop the wedding by professing his love .
the offensive bits have little to do with jimmy 's rare handicap ( regardless of what the film 's protesters would have you believe ) , but instead center on
outrageous racial stereotypes , including a screaming chinese strip club owner and a devout east indian hindi .
but even if you find stereotype humor funny , it 's hard to muster more than a giggle for these shallow gags .
they even manage to bungle some potentially great moments with a group of carnival freaks .
but a few of the harsh jabs manage to work , especially in the case of kurtz , who very bluntly shows the dark , hypocritical side of the religious right , and a wacky send - up of a cult called " bright ' n
shiny , " led by the inimitable fabio . unfortunately ,
a few giggles ca n't make bubble boy the riotous , off - the - wall comedy it so desperately wants to be . honestly ,
it 's a mystery how on earth this movie was ever made , and i 'm not just saying that because it 's so mediocre . how odd for disney to take a gamble on a film with an unknown director starring virtually unknown actors that does n't seem to appeal to any particular demographic and
has the potential to offend so many .
and now that the studio is suffering through a very public protest against the film by the parents of real - life bubble boy david philip vetter , maybe disney 's wondering the same thing .
hope the opening box office take makes it worthwhile .
Output: N