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

Example Input: the job of the film critic is to see a movie and write a review of it that tells you what it 's about and why it 's good or bad .
i feel kind of embarrassed to admit this , but i after having seen " get carter
" i really ca n't tell you what it 's about although i could go on and on about how and why it 's a bad movie .
" get carter " falls into that category of ?
movies that continue to be made for reasons unknown to anyone outside of a hollywood executive board room .
you might call them the " steven seagal / mickey rourke / jean - claude van damme / wesley snipes school of mediocre action / crime thrillers .
"
you know - the potboilers that are heavy on fistfights , shoot - outs and car chases but really light on plot and character development .
they have stories where the so - called hero just keeps running into characters who have some connection to one of the other characters who are all antagonists without a reason for being in the movie other than to give the protagonist someone to fight , chase or shoot at .
sylvester stallone stars as jack carter , a las vegas - based mob enforcer who returns home
* for his brother 's funeral .
he believes his brother ?
richie was " taken out " and did n't die from a dwi accident .
carter 's one of the most cliche bad - asses ever captured on celluloid .
his face alone is pretty intimidating and there 's quite a few scenes in which he leans on both regular citizens and criminal lowlives simply by staring them down and speaking with confidence in his " rambo - on - testosterone - therapy " voice .
stallone 's performance in this movie is so forced and unnatural
he does n't realize he 's mocking himself .
the actual story involves carter 's investigation into his brother richie 's death .
he 's in a town that 's not his
but somehow the local top dogs know him very well .
mickey rourke co - stars as one of these characters , a sort of crime boss who has something to do with running a porno web site and blackmailing a young internet tycoon
( played by alan cummings looking and acting a lot like pee wee herman ) .
there 's also another plot involving richie 's mistress , a secret cd - rom with some convicting and disturbing evidence on it and something terrible involving one of carter 's still - living relatives .
i 'm rolling my eyes
just thinking about trying to critique all this in a way that could be remotely comprehendible .
i could just rip the screenplay to shreds , plus the direction or the editing or the production values but that would require discussion of nearly every scene in order to explain it all .
i do n't like to put spoliers in my reviews either intentionally or accidentally .
yes , " get carter " is just that complicated and complex .
and what 's worse is that it 's not this intricate to make it seem smart like " the usual suspects " for example - just the opposite .
you get the feeling whoever wrote this script
did it in short intervals spaced far apart
and they probably did n't remember what had already happened and did n't figure out how each scene would lead in to the next one or how the major plot points would work towards the climax .
all you really need to know is that most of the film is just scenes of carter tracking down one scumbag or supposed witness after another , asking them what they know , getting information and then realizing that if he was n't a complete idiot he could have figured it out in the first five minutes .
although the supporting characters are equally stupid themselves since they tell him everything which comes back to haunt them in one violent way or another .
making a movie entirely about criminals does n't necessarily mean they have to be unlikable and cliche cutout characters .
mel gibson starred in " payback " a few years ago
that had a story not unlike this one but had such a good screenplay you could n't help
but like him even though he was just as bad a guy as jack carter .
so ultimately " get
carter " fails for pretty much every selling point it has
. carter is not a likable character and you really do n't care if he gets revenge or not .
the action sequences are not at all exciting or original .
the enemies and their massive conspiracy are not threatening at all ( c'mon , you know who 's going to win every brawl and shoot - out and car chase ) .
in the end you do n't feel nearly satisfied with the results .
the filmmakers did a good job in doing everything as unoriginal as possible .
*
the city is never mentioned by name
but i assume it 's seattle since all the cars have washington license plates
and it 's always raining .
Example Output: N

Example Input: ( warning to those who have not seen seven : this review contains some spoiler information . )
seven is a powerful , fully - realized film on the level of the silence of the lambs .
it is a disturbing film that accomplishes its biggest of goals -- it occupies the viewers mind long after the closing credits have rolled .
while this film is not for the squeamish , there is no denying that seven demands attention , for it is a film that transcends its genre in both style and substance .
for starters , classifying seven as a " thriller " would not be an altogether complete classification of this film .
while i was genuinely thrilled throughout , i would rather call seven an " intense drama , " because that is what it delivers -- meaningful scenes with a relentlessness that does not readily let up .
part of director david finchers accomplishment is in style .
he seems to have a knack for knowing exactly how the average person fears something as " simple " as a corpse .
and visually , fincher shows us the remains of murder victims in all - too - realistic and graphic terms ( courtesy of rob bottin 's always - grisly special effects ) .
throw in the appropriate but not - to - be - underestimated effects of lighting and a foreboding score and the result is a technical masterpiece of the murder scene .
these scenes alone are quite impressive ; as fascinating as they are harrowing .
yet , seven is more than just a technical accomplishment .
in addition to style , fincher supplies substance .
seven has compelling characters that it wants us to know and understand , and fincher ties them all together in a completely pessimistic view of society .
detective william somerset ( morgan freeman ) is a man who has nearly given up on the world .
its easy to see why .
the world does n't make sense .
( somerset drives this point home with a rather ghastly story of a robbery victim who was attacked just blocks from the police precinct .
after knocked down and robbed of his wallet , the attacker stabbed the helpless man in both eyes . )
why should somerset believe that by following this murder investigation and " picking up the pieces " he will be able to catch the killer ?
somersets new partner , david mills ( brad pitt ) has not given up on the world , perhaps because he is still young ( and perhaps by having this optimism he 's naive in
this films portrayal of the world ) .
he completely disagrees with somersets abandonment of hope .
however , david 's wife ( gwyneth paltrow ) has so much fear of her urban surroundings , she is n't even sure if she wants to * tell * her husband about her recent pregnancy , let alone carry it until birth and attempt to raise it in this environment .
these three characters are all performed with skill and authenticity
that makes them feel like real people and not the typical hollywood characters a lesser film might have offered .
and in addition to making clear how each of these characters sees the world , fincher gives us support for
* why * they feel the way they do .
but if there 's one character that underlines the message seven is trying to convey , it has to be the killer , john doe ( kevin spacey ) .
seven 's payoff lies in its ability to allow us to see how the killer views the world and what drives him to do what he does .
one important thing to remember about doe is how easy it is to simply dismiss him as a " psycho , " with no motives behind his slayings .
this is exactly the mistake mills makes .
in the extremely intense and superbly performed closing scenes , were allowed to see that doe is , in his mind , merely a product of society .
he 's a killer who kills those who are bringing society down .
in his mind he did n't kill " innocent " people , and , perhaps , they were not completely innocent ( but , then again , who is ? ) .
he s absolutely infuriated that mills believes that the murder victims were innocent .
really , seven does n't just comment on the superficial obviousness of how screwed - up john doe is .
seven makes larger statements about how screwed - up society is , hinting that society 's degradation is simply conducive of creating more john does .
besides the stylistic and larger - issue arguments for seeing this film , i recommend seven because it is , after all , also a very slick and well - made thriller .
it features exciting plot developments , commanding performances , lots of suspense , and a conclusion that is chilling , riveting , and quite unfair .
but then again , its a cruel world .
Example Output: P

Example Input: one might expect a cathartic viewing experience walking into a new jean - luc godard film .
after all , he was a founding member of the highly influential french new wave .
he is also an esteemed film critic , lending intelligence and historical perspective to us in much of his writing .
however , his latest creation , in praise of love , is possibly the most exasperating film experience of the year .
the abstract concept on which the film is based had merit , to dissect love into the following four categories : meeting , physical passion , quarrels , and reconciliation .
these four universal truths would be revealed through three different couples : young , adult , and elderly .
it is edgar 's ( bruno putzulu ) self - appointed task to capture these moments after a recent breakup , to define a central idea :
" it 's only when things are over that they make sense .
" whether this project will end up a play , film , or opera remains undecided .
the thesis is simple enough that , if played right , it could really hold sympathetic value for anyone .
instead what ensues is an hour and a half of repetitive vignettes
, the next scene no more engaging than the last . only once does any character utter something worthwhile , but by the time it happens you 're
so thoroughly bored you can easily miss it .
but do n't fret , it will surface again .
you could easily sleep through whole sections of the film ( as some fellow critics did ) and wake up in a scene exactly like the one you nodded off in , not having missed anything worthwhile .
but you hold hope for some time .
the background music keeps you in a state of urgency , and even suspense , for the first few conversations .
it 's only after repeated failures to pay any of this off that you lose all hope .
and with speeches like , " i am thinking of something , but i can only think of that something when i am thinking of something else , " how can you expect to hold anyone 's interest ?
to godard 's credit
, he certainly knows how to frame a scene .
the black and white footage used for the first half of the film is starkly beautiful .
watching edgar read while walking along a train track on a mountain makes you wish you had something to ponder along with him .
and if this film had anything poignant to say , you would have , which makes you all the angrier at the numerous missed opportunities .
the environments , be it city or country , are impeccably captured in crisp detail , but the script never complements them . unfortunately , godard also manages to pillage his photographic eye by randomly
cutting to black numerous times within any given scene .
sometimes these breaks are used for chapter headings , but these are even more cryptic than the spoken words .
the second half is composed of nauseating hyper - color that often blurs the image .
you suddenly feel like a doomed character straight out of scanners .
the only scene that makes any sense is one that complains about the united states bastardizing history in the making of movies .
steven spielberg is picked on in particular .
while i 'll grant that this does happen , and i tend to shy away from watching such garbage , it 's still a pointless focus for a film that purports to articulate the specific qualities of couplehood .
it just goes to show , an intelligent person is n't necessarily an admirable storyteller .
the days of breathless are no more .
Example Output:
N