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

Ex Input:
synopsis : original " jurassic park " survivor alan grant ( neill ) is tricked by paul and amanda kirby ( macy and leoni ) into leading an expedition to an island overrun by dinosaur , to rescue their stranded son .
grant 's team is picked off one by one as they encounter dinosaurs both new and familiar , and grant grows to realise that some breeds are more intelligent than he previously thought .
review : there is one reason why " jurassic park iii " is better than its immediate predecessor , " the lost world : jurassic park " .
the latter wasted 129 minutes of my life ;
the former , only 94 .
the first " park " was a marvellous film , full of awe - inspiring sights , interesting characters , and genuine thrills .
its two successors have been pale imitations , amounting to hundred - million - dollar b - grade horror movies .
at least this third entry realises it ; whereas " the lost world " tried to justify its existence with a ludicrous and overextended plot , " jurassic park iii " simply sticks its characters on an island with a bunch of dinosaurs and lets the mayhem begin .
there is a desperate sense of deja vu presiding over this movie ; the computer - animated dinos are no longer novel or exciting , and even the first - time presence of aerial lizards scarcely improves the situation .
remember that wondrous first trolley ride through the park in the original movie ?
nothing in this rehash even comes close .
add in execrable dialogue from screenwriters buchman , payne and taylor , and phoned - in performances by the normally capable macy and leoni , and
it is difficult to recommend the film to anyone but dino enthusiasts .
at least neill makes some effort to retain the dignity of his character , and there is much less gore than in " the lost world " , making this installment more suitable for children .

Ex Output:
N

Ex Input:
in my opinion , a movie reviewer 's most important task is to offer an explanation for his opinion .
but with soul survivors , i 'm so full of critical rage that this review is liable to turn into a venomous , uncontrollable rant , obligations damned .
however , protocol forces me to do otherwise .
soul survivors tells the story of four college - bound friends : cassandra ( melissa sagemiller ) is sweet and innocent .
party girl annabel ( eliza dushku of bring it on ) is dating world - weary harvard student matt ( wes bentley ) .
matt still has feelings for cassie , who is now dating sean ( casey affleck ) .
driving back from a creepy , gothic party , the quartet gets into a horrific car crash .
sean dies , leaving cassie crestfallen and guilty , made worse because sean saw matt kiss cassie just minutes after sean revealed his love for her . as cassie mopes through her classes , she sees the ghost of sean all over the place , urging her to follow him .
along with being plagued by other ghastly visions , cassie is also followed by thugs from that strange party .
annabel and matt try calming her down , but no one shares cass 's visions .
she has to figure out this purgatory all by herself .
rarely have i seen a director
so thoroughly mishandle material .
in his directorial debut , steve carpenter does nothing to provoke the audience into feeling any emotion .
when the movie 's camerawork is n't pedestrian , it 's clich ?
d .
carpenter 's need for close - ups , his camera following sagemiller from behind , drain the movie of any anticipation .
we already know what to look for , so why should we be surprised ? and the sense of scary atmosphere , which was recently done so well in the others , is nowhere to be found here .
carpenter 's script relies on random twists and turns with a minimum of logic and loads of laziness .
this is a movie where the ending features one character providing an explanation about the plot to another character , which is one of the lamest screenwriting devices around .
the second lamest device , of course , is the , " oh , it was all a dream " resolution . and guess what ?
this movie has both ! not that the main body of the film , which has sagemiller constantly running in fear or having a nervous breakdown , is anything worthwhile .
since there 's no captivating dialogue , no character chemistry exists anywhere .
that 's a huge problem , since the four main characters are supposed to be couples .
carpenter ca n't even get the smutty scenes right , which are becoming more prevalent in pg-13 movies like bring it on and get over it .
[ the film was recently re - cut from an r rating to get more kids in the seats .
-ed . ]
when sagemiller and dushku dance together at a club , he rarely shows them in a full shot and he never keeps the camera on them for longer than a second before relating to some michael bay - style quick cuts .
and when sagemiller and dushku take a shower together after getting covered in paint , they 're fully clothed . regardless ,
any sexiness in that scene is undercut by its stupidity .
why would n't they wash the clothes in the sink or in the washing machine ?
why would they shower in their clothes ?
what if they were n't covered in latex paint ?
the cast , which will see better material in the future , would be wise to leave this one off their resumes .
i felt sorry for affleck , who i 've liked in other movies , and bentley , who was great in american beauty .
dushku , who possesses an alluring femme fetale quality , has got to stop taking roles belonging to rose mcgowan .
as for sagemiller ( star of the aforementioned get over it ) , i want to see her in a movie where she plays a person , and not an object for gawking .
and i 'm not even getting into luke wilson 's role as a priest .
at least he 's friends with wes anderson .
bottom line : soul survivors is so awful i feel compelled to knock on doors and warn people about it .

Ex Output:
N

Ex Input:
this is the worst movie i 've viewed so far in 98 .
the avengers = silly = man dressed in a bowler hat + woman wearing tight leathers
> evil scientists dressed in teddy bear suits + greater evil , sir august de wynter wearing kilt .
the question is what could have gone wrong with a potentially great idea with big name cast ?
the same question was probably asked of last year 's stinker batman and robin .
i feel the production got a little too smug ,
the script a little to smart and direction was somehow lost in the chaos of random events that collided together to form a movie .
my greatest criticism rests on the fact that there was no chemistry between emma peel and john steed ( thurman and fiennes ) ?
something that was a vital element of the 60 's tv serial of the same name .
the dialogue goes on and on about tea and other finer british perks , but does not allow much room for character development and interaction , except to perhaps grate on the viewer 's nerves .
one wonders why the dynamic pair bother kissing in the end except for pure english formality .
connery as sir august , does not fair better than thurman or fiennes .
his dialogue is as erratic as stormy weather , mostly embarrassing and poor quality .
if there is a movie you would prefer never to see , i believe the avengers would be a good choice .
for one thing , you will not have to witness a product that is far inferior to the three high profile names that is associated with the title .
i can not understand how something
so poorly produced could have been released , but i put it down to one of those freak happenings in nature , like lightning you ca n't see it coming until it hits you .

Ex Output:
N