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

Input: Consider Input: you know the plot : a dimwit with a shady past is seduced into committing a crime only to be double - crossed by a fatal femme .
in " palmetto , " the dimwit is harry barber ( woody harrelson ) , a reporter who 's just been released from prison ( he was framed by the gangsters and corrupt officials he was investigating ) .
enter la femme : rhea malroux ( elisabeth shue ) , the sexy young wife of the richest man in palmetto , florida ( rolf hoppe ) .
she and her stepdaughter odette ( chlo ? sevigny ) have a plot to extort 500k from the old man : harry will " kidnap " odette .
after groping both women , harry agrees .
as everyone except harry can see , he 's being set up as a fall guy .
sure enough , before long , harry has a dead body in his trunk and the cops on his tail .
his brother - in - law ( tom wright ) , an assistant da , has hired harry to be the press liaison for the case , so harry gets a front row seat for his own manhunt ( and we get to watch him sweat - literally ) .
there are several plot twists , of course - a couple of them even took me by surprise .
apparently every woman in palmetto is a raving horndog , and they 're on harry like he 's the only bone in the kennel .
shue vamps so broadly that i expected tex avery 's wolf to show up .
her incredible performance in " leaving las vegas " seems to have been a fluke .
here , she could easily be mistaken for melanie griffith .
shue 's character is supposed to be a savvy schemer
but she comes off as a brainless bimbo
.
in addition to shue and sevigny , the kennel includes gina gershon ( who filled the dimwit - with - a - shady - past role in " bound " ) as harry 's girlfriend nina ; when harry gets out of jail , she licks his face ( now there 's a horndog ) .
the parts are so overplayed that with a little push " palmetto " could have been an over - the - top parody of film noir
a la " romeo is bleeding .
"
as it is , it 's best watched at 2 am on showtime ( the love scenes seem to have been written for one of that channel 's soft porn programs anyway ) .
" palmetto " has a well - known director , volker schl ?
ndorff , who 's best known for his adaptations of major literary works , especially " the tin drum .
"
i suppose he must have been drawn to this plot - by - numbers script by the same admiration for classic film noir that led scorsese to remake " cape fear .
"
schl ?
ndorff tries hard - he makes an interesting motif out of the ubiquitous palmetto bugs - but
nothing can freshen up this stale script .

Output: N

Input: Consider Input: by the time dennis quaid , the ostensible star of switchback , makes his first appearance at about the 22-minute mark , you may find yourself wondering why he bothered .
after all , writer / director jeb stuart has already set up a fairly promising pair of parallel story lines .
the first finds amarillo , texas sheriff buck olmstead ( r . lee ermey ) facing a hotly - contested election battle just as a brutal double homicide is discovered at a motel in his jurisdiction .
as olmstead begins his investigation , we also meet the two men who come to be our prime suspects .
lane dixon ( jared leto ) is an enigmatic young hitchhiker ; bob goodall ( danny glover ) is the jovial motorist who offers lane a ride from texas to his utah destination .
all the necessary conflicts seem to be in place -- the internal struggle of olmstead over the clash between good politics and good police work , and the external struggle as one of the two travelers eventually becomes villain to the other 's protagonist .
but then quaid shows up as grimly determined fbi agent frank lacrosse .
lacrosse is certain that the amarillo murders are the work of a serial killer he has been tracking for nearly two years .
he 's not supposed to be tracking him any more -- according to the bureau , they 've got their man -- but lacrosse has a very important reason for believing otherwise .
two months earlier , lacrosse 's own son was kidnapped by the killer , and the boy has yet to turn up anywhere .
lacrosse knows his killer 's work , and he knows that the man is still out there somewhere trying to continue their game .
it would n't be fair to reduce everything that 's wrong with switchback to quaid 's presence , but it 's a pretty good place to start .
there 's a reason lacrosse feels like an intruder in the narrative instead of its vital center :
as a dramatic actor , dennis quaid possesses exactly one facial expression and one vocal intonation .
we can tell lacrosse is determined because his face is a perpetual tight - jawed , sourpuss pucker ; we can tell he 's grim because every word comes out in an eastwood - esque rasp .
a more flexible performer might have given weight to the character , pulling the audience into his haunted intensity , making switchback _ his _ film .
quaid
merely looks annoyed and slightly constipated .
it 's tough to become emotionally invested in a character 's turmoil when it looks like all he really needs is a big bowl of bran flakes .
even without quaid , it does n't appear that switchback would have stayed on course .
the early scenes between leto and glover have a lively energy , building our curiosity over which man -- the taciturn kid or his gregarious benefactor -- is the real threat .
unfortunately , stuart tips his hand far too early in the game , both through the pitch of the individual performances and the facts he chooses to reveal .
once the mystery of the killer 's identity is dispatched , the interaction between leto and glover becomes stale and predictable
.
in fact , " stale and predictable " describes the direction that switchback takes in general , falling back on far - too - common hollywood devices like cats jumping out of nowhere , a climactic fistfight on board a freight train , and edgy law enforcement agents .
it 's too bad stuart was n't willing to spend more time with sheriff olmstead , far and away the most interesting and appealing character in the film .
played with atypical restraint by r .
lee ermey
, he 's a wonderful , unconventional hero who seems genuinely comfortable accepting the consequences of acting on his convictions .
a film focusing on the olmstead would have signaled a film - maker willing to take a few risks with his casting and story - telling .
instead , stuart places his trust in a " name " star who ca n't carry the material .
maybe next time he 'll throw away that one crucial page in the script , the one where the grimly determined fbi agent wanders onto the scene to muck up a perfectly good story .

Output: N

Input: Consider Input: capsule :
the much anticipated re - adaptation of the pierre boulle novel comes to the screen as a dark and a little dreary film with lots of chases and fighting , but very little intelligence .
visually there is much to like about this version , but the approach is to take an adventure after the style of gulliver 's travels and treat it as an action film .
that makes it a film without much center . , 0 ( -4 to +4 )
pierre boulle , author of the bridge on the river kwai , wrote planet of the apes ( a . k . a . monkey planet ) , the novel , as a social satire .
it reads a lot like a fifth book of gulliver 's travels .
humans discover a planet in which the roles of apes and humans have been reversed , not unlike the roles of horses and humans on jonathan swift 's island of the houyhnhnms .
the novel moves somewhat slowly to create some suspense in revealing all the things most film fans know to be true about the nature of the planet .
it seems to me there is also a statement about human cruelty to animals , but perhaps i was just looking for that .
when rod serling adapted the novel into a film released in 1968 , he added a number of serling touches , familiar from episodes of the twilight zone and changed the ending to make it more serling - ish .
the final irony of the original version has become film history .
without it there could never have been a " planet of the apes " film series .
i can surmise only that serling ran into serious script problems in how to handle the tricky question of language .
in the book the apes had their own language and the human eventually learned that language .
that could have been done in the film , but that would have required the entire film to be subtitled for the non - ape - speaking .
serling avoided this by having the apes speak english and , of course , there is some justification for that by the end of the film .
justifying why the apes spoke english may have even been the inspiration for his surprise ending .
but serling never tackles the all - important question of why a supposedly intelligent human never shows any curiosity or even surprise that the apes speak his own language , a language they had no opportunity to ever hear .
few viewers questioned this serious plot hole , however , and the film has become well respected in cinema history .
partial credit at least should go to jerry goldsmith whose extremely inventive score is one of goldsmith 's best if not his best .
when the film 's success called for sequels , the filmmakers turned up the violence and they added well - intentioned , though not very subtle , political messages about what was happening in the united states of the 1960s and 1970s .
while the first film had a little shooting of guns and what was there seemed a little half- hearted , by the second film , beneath the planet of the apes , there was a good deal more violence and from that point on the series had a lot of violence and chases .
the series concluded with battle for the planet of the apes in 1973 .
now director tim burton tries his hand at adapting the original book again .
for those who thought that the 1968 version was not very faithful to the book , burton 's new version is even less faithful .
first , he does not really reverse the roles of the humans and the apes .
he has them both be intelligent , articulate races battling for a dominance of the planet currently in the hands , uh , make that paws , of the apes .
that could be a good story too , but it is not planet of the apes .
as with the mission impossible films and so many other cinematic homages to the third quarter of the last century , the title makes promises that the filmmakers have no intention of honoring .
in 2029 leo davidson ( mark wahlberg , not this world 's most expressive actor ) works on a space station increasing the intelligence and usefulness of apes .
then a convenient time storm sweeps him up wizard - of - oz - fashion and drops him on an alien planet .
( yes , he survives this storm , but then no storm is perfect . )
he quickly finds , not greatly to any surprise he shows , that on this planet apes rule and humans drool , but everybody talks .
and the language they talk is earth- english .
apparently it does not even occur to leo that there is a mystery that needs to be explained about that .
the fact it does not occur to leo and apparently did n't occur to tim burton either is the heart of the real horror of this film .
both just assumed that if apes were going to talk the language they would speak would be english .
in any case having one talking race dominating another makes this not a look at human - animal relationships and more one of the master - slave relationships .
outside of sudan and a few other countries this is a less relevant topic .
leo is captured to be used as a slave but also is discovered by ari , played by helena bonham carter .
ari is an attractive ape with close ties to high political power .
she is bent on making the world a better place .
perhaps in a previous draft of the script she was called hil - ari .
in any case with makeup that stifles her usual pout , carter is just about as attractive as she has ever been in a film .
she may want to consider this to become her standard look from this point forward .
it is not long before leo escapes with some human and only a couple of sympathetic apes .
this is a further abandonment of the source material .
the chase severely limits the interplay of ape and human and the examination of each 's place in this reversed society , each important in the book .
we can not see how the society works because most of the screentime society has broken down .
we see the humans either separated from the apes or fighting them .
burton chooses visceral thrills over cerebral ones at almost every turn .
this is a miscalculation , as characters so lacking in empathy value are difficult ones to place much emotional investment in .
they are basically chess pieces and the viewer has little reason to root for them to win .
the 1968 script had little subtlety , with lines like " i never met an ape i did n't like , " but at least we cared for what happened to taylor , the main character .
most of what this film has to offer is in the visuals .
the visual work is spotty but generally nicely done except that so much of the film takes place in the night or in fog .
this tends to limit close looks at the makeup .
in general it seems much improved from 1968 .
the makeup team is led by rick baker instead of john chambers , who did it for the 1968 version .
in 1968 chambers makeup was a jaw - dropper .
it was realistic enough to almost be believable but flexible enough to show emotion .
chambers is good , but if anyone had a chance to best him it would have to be baker .
today audiences have higher expectations ; baker 's visualization is really an improvement .
these visuals work nicely .
what does not work is the wire- assisted leaps some of the apes make .
they look like they were inspired by the physics- defying leaps of crouching tiger , hidden dragon .
apes spring incredible distances .
some of the best scenes are apes running into battle looking like they have ape posture , but when they start flying through the air
the effect is lost .
one final visual problem is that the film frequently shows its budget in what should be spectacular battle scenes the camera shows us only a small group of people close - up . since the days of lon chaney and boris karloff few actors have crossed over to stardom in a role that required heavy make - up .
the one actor who has a shot is paul giamatti .
it is not that his lines are so good , most are silly jokes .
but he delivers them very well .
he was always a watchable actor , but has not yet made stardom .
as the ape - trader limbo he over - emotes to overcome his ape make - up , but does it very well .
in doing
so he makes himself the most interesting thing on the screen .
he is probably the best thing in the film and conjures up memories of peter ustinov 's performance in spartacus .
as an in - joke there are several lines in the script borrowed from the 1968 film and an old ape played by charleton heston becomes an allusion to the first film by itself .
danny elfman 's score has a nice primitive feel , but jerry goldsmith 's 1968 tour de force score is a real classic .
that score and the whole film will be remembered when the 2001 film is forgotten .
i rate the remake 4 on the 0 to 10 scale and a 0 on the -4 to +4 scale .
Output: N