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

Example Input: did claus von bulow try to kill his wife sunny in their newport mansion ?
that is the question reversal of fortune asks you to consider as it opens in a hospital ward , with a comatose sunny von bulow .
she is the main narrator of the film , in a narrative trick that was extraordinarily risky for schroeder .
the dramatic trick works , as sunny von bulow narrates a compelling story of murder , sex , unhappiness , and a lawyer 's moral dilemma
as he takes a case he thinks he can not win .
jeremy irons is claus von bulow , in what is his finest role , and one of the most devastingly evil performances in history .
he is as hated as any man alive , as cold as a cucumber .
his remorse for his wife 's comatose condition is nonexistant , and it is no wonder that even his children have difficulty accepting his version of what happened during christmas , 1980 .
the background to the case is such .
during christmas of 1979 , sunny von bulow fell into a deep coma from which she recovered and awoke .
the same situation occured in 1980 , only sunny never woke , and probably never will .
when examined , it was found that she had 14 times the normal amount of insulin within her blood .
claus von bulow is then accused of attempted murder by his stepson , convicted , and freed on bail .
he immediately hires alan dershowitz , the renowed harvard law professor , to acquit him .
ron silver is magnificent as a moral lawyer who can not stand what has happened to him .
we follow him through two very different cases ; the case of the johnson case , where two innocent kids are standing on death row for a crime they did n't commit , and von bulow , who he still has n't figured out .
dershowitz does n't know what happened to sunny , and he is extremely hesitant to take the case .
nevertheless , he does , based on certain things which happen during the investigative process that deeply upset him .
together with a group of law students , dershowitz concocts a defense and ultimately get the verdict reversed .
silver 's performance is one of a handful of solid roles in this deep film .
schroeder directs on many different levels , with multiple plot lines which blend in wonderfully in the mind of alan dershowitz .
there are flaws ; at times , the film gets overly theatrical .
yet , due to glenn close 's troubled and brutally honest performance as sunny von bulow , the use of her comatose body as a narrator works here fairly well .
the flashbacks are good , but at times schroeder does n't fill in the blanks .
the movie could have benefited with the increased attention of certain developments during the film , and it could have used a better ending .
the film progressed wonderfully before ending suddenly , without any intelligent conclusion .
the supporting characters are often neglected , and dershowitz 's team should have been allowed to grow character wise , but schroeder over - simplifies the story and the characters .
yet , for all these flaws , the film is deeply engrossing because of irons .
as von bulow , he is brutally evil .
anti - semitic , prejudiced , arrogant , protective , he is a rotten , lying monster , whose conviction may have been wrong legally , but morally he was to blame .
irons plays him to a cold perfection , with pathetic attempts to gain moral support for his claims to innocence .
he is an adulterous liar and a cheat who in all likelihood committed the murder .
however , the genius of reversal of fortune comes in its distinction between moral culpability and legal responsibility .
there is no doubt von bulow is responsible for his wife 's death by years of neglect and coldness .
however , legally , did he do the murder ?
schroeder dares the viewer to make up his own mind .
with all the character flaws , reversal of fortune is an engrossing puzzle because it is intelligent ; he wants the viewer to make up his own mind .
schroeder taunts the viewer with contradictory revelations , and then mentions that the answer to this compelling puzzle shall be revealed when we join sunny von bulow , in death .
for all the failed dramatic theatrics , this is one that works beautifully .
we do n't know what happened .
that sense of legal ambiguousness , along with von bulow 's obvious moral guilt , is why reversalf fortune works .
in the end , von bulow is as sadistic as ever .
irons is haunting , and that is why reversal of fortune is so good .
Example Output: P

Example Input: stars : armand assante ( mike hammer ) , barbara carrera ( dr . charlotte bennett ) , laurene landon ( velda ) , alan king ( charles kalecki ) , geoffrey lewis ( joe butler ) , paul sorvino ( detective pat chambers ) , judson scott ( charles hendricks ) , barry snider ( romero ) , julia barr ( norma childs ) / mpaa rating :
r / review : in the 1982 updating of mickey spillane 's 1947 novel " i , the jury , " hard - boiled detective mike hammer is a vietnam vet who drives a shiny bronze trans am , dresses like don johnson in " miami vice " with less pastels , and has sworn off alcohol .
however , he still smokes his lucky strikes , detests all forms of authority , and kills at a whim .
beyond that , the updated film retains little or no resemblance to the original pulpy page - turner by spillane , probably the most infamous and often reviled of all mystery writers .
the movie starts off with a bang : a howler of an opening credits sequence that is a cheap steal from the james bond series , complete with cheesy graphics and an overbearing jazz score by bill conti ( " rocky " ) .
after that , the movie and the book begin the same , with the murder of jack williams ( frederick downs ) , a one - armed detective and hammer 's best friend .
hammer declares that he will seek vengeance for jack 's death , and with the help of his devoted secretary , the blond and shapely velda ( laurene landon ) , and the alternately friendly / antagonistic police chief pat chambers ( paul sorvino ) , he is immediately on the killer 's trail .
here the movie splits completely from the book , and dives into a convoluted and improbable tale of government conspiracy and mind control tactics involving the mafia , the cia , one of hammer 's vietnam vet buddies , and a kinky sex clinic .
many of the same characters from the book appear in the movie , but they take on slightly different roles .
for instance , charles kalecki ( alan king ) , a numbers runner and narcotics dealer in the book , turns into a suave mob boss .
and , more importantly , hammer 's suspicious love interest , charlotte bennett ( barbara carrera ) , morphs from a run - of - the - mill psychiatrist into the coordinator and founder of the sex clinic .
"
i , the jury " is one of several cinematic renditions of spillane 's books ( including a 1953 version which was made in 3-d ) , but this film differs from those earlier versions in one major way :
it includes all of the sex and violence spillane wrote about that could never be given screen treatment due to hollywood 's production code .
although this takes the 1982 version of " i , the jury " closer to the core of the original subject matter , it is in this aspect that the film received the most criticism , because it took this new license to extremes that many argued surpassed what was in the book .
rest assured , the movie not only includes a great deal of nudity , but it is thoroughly violent , especially toward women .
it features one woman having her neck slashed , a set of twins forced to strip before being stabbed to death by a psychotic sexual deviant programmed by the cia ( judson scott ) , and another woman shot point - blank in the belly by hammer himself .
no one would deny that spillane 's writing has a definite misogynistic nature , but the movie seems to take it a step further by giving it such glorious screen treatment ; its constant equation of sex and violence , much of which is played with the intention of being erotic , is quite unsettling .
it 's no surprise that the movie , like the book , fades to black with a dead woman on the floor .
"
i , the jury " had a troubled production and was not well - supported by the studio that made it , which is one explanation why it did n't do well in theaters and many people have forgotten that it was ever made .
the script was written by larry cohen , who is best known for his creatively cheesy but nonetheless effective monster movies , like " it 's alive " ( 1974 ) and its two sequels , " q " ( 1981 ) , and " the stuff " ( 1985 ) .
cohen wrote the script thinking he was going to helm the project as well , but he was yanked from the director 's chair after only a week 's worth of shooting because he was already $ 100 , 000 over budget .
he was quickly replaced by richard t. heffron , who has worked for the last three decades on a handful of undistinguished movies and dozens of television projects .
heffron was obviously brought in not for his talent , but because he could make the movie rapidly and efficiently .
it shows in the final product .
cohen had personal interest in the updated version of hammer , but heffron has none .
he shot the movie quickly and clumsily , and although some scenes ring true , most of them are flat , trite , and invariably dull .
the movie features numerous car chases , shoot - outs , and stunts , but heffron 's background in television is the dominant tone ; despite the graphic violence and full - frontal nudity , " i , the jury , " takes on the air of a made - for - tv quickie , with no real punch or depth . but the problems in " i , the jury " run deeper than the technical .
the central fault in this updating is mike hammer , whose character was lost in the shuffle while updating from the fifties to the eighties .
because spillane wrote all his hammer mysteries in the first person , hammer 's character is central to the tale because all the events are filtered through his persona .
we never really get that impression in the movie -- there is no first - person voice - over narration and some scenes do n't have hammer in them at all .
consequently , a great deal of the texture of spillane 's storytelling is lost .
the period updating turns out to be a detrimentally bad idea because much of hammer 's moral code is thrown to the wind .
despite his characterization as a hard - nosed , violent , misogynistic killer , hammer always stuck fervently to his own moral code .
the title itself , " i , the jury , " refers to his anti - establishment notion of being his own law .
unlike private eyes who seek out the bad guys and then turn them over the police
, hammer both pursues the criminal and exacts the punishment .
in this way , he can be seen as " above the law , " but he still adheres strictly to her own personal code of conduct , his own morality .
the movie forgoes that aspect of his character , and hammer comes off not only as amoral in society 's terms , but in any terms , especially his own .
if anything , hammer always had his professionalism , but the movie does away with that in the first three minutes by showing him rolling in the sack with the wife of a client who had paid him to find out if that wife was being unfaithful .
maybe the scene was intended for laughs , but it only cheapens hammer 's character and is , by all accounts , a lousy way to start the movie .
the blame for hammer 's character ca n't be laid on assante 's shoulders , because despite some unnecessary marlon brandon - like mumbling , he delivers a fine performance .
spillane never once described hammer 's physical attributes in any
of the dozen books in which he appeared
, so any actor could conceivably portray him .
of course , because of the lack of written description , those who have read spillane 's books will have a strong personal notion of what hammer looks like , and therefore almost any screen incarnation will somehow fall short of expectations ( spillane , who played the character himself in 1963 's
" the girl hunters , " is generally considered the best of the film hammers ) .
the rest of actors are most un - noteworthy .
with the exceptions of alan king and paul sorvino , everyone who appeared in " i , the jury " were up - and - comers who basically went nowhere .
many of them ended up working in television ( like carrera , who had a short stint on " dallas " in the mid - eighties ) , which only adds to the made - for - tv atmosphere of the film .
maybe someday , someone will manage to get the right elements together and make an effective film rendition of a spillane book , but this is certainly not it .
Example Output: N

Example Input: i have to admit that i disliked this film initially .
it certianly is n't for every taste , and it 's sheer torture to sit through if you 're in a restless mood .
that said , if you are in the right mood , it 's absolutely incredible
.
this was my second favorite movie of 1998 , and would have been a shoo - in for first
in almost any other year .
perhaps the big turn - off for many was this film 's unconventionality .
i 'd be hard - pressed to compare it to any other film that i 've seen - it is very , very artsy , incredibly slow - and amazingly , it works beautifully .
on my second viewing , i realized that the film follows the three act structure ( i did n't think it had any sort of structure at all when i first saw it ) .
the first act serves to set up the characters - sort of .
it exists even moreso to set a mood of tension and restlesness , and perhaps even feelings of boredom .
and then it is shattered by the intense violence of the second ( which encompasses most of the movie ) .
the majority of the film is one extended battle scene , intercut with brief flashbacks and voice - overs .
the artsier elements do not detract from the action , but add to it - they succeed in briefly letting the viewer peek into the minds of the soldiers , only to be suddenly yanked back into reality when the battle resumes .
the battle scenes are amazing
( second only to " saving private ryan " in my opinion ) .
they 're brutal , horrifying , and at times beautiful due to the amazing cinematography .
the second act is as immersive , brilliant , and haunting as any film that i have ever seen .
the only problems come during the first and third acts .
malick takes a little too long to get the film started .
although the initial scenes - which consist of two soldiers ' experiencing a near - eden - like paradise while going awol , and the preperations for battle - are effective and necessary , hints of pretentiousness sink in .
the film is just a tad too artsy near the beginning , and a lot of people that disliked the movie probably gave up on it because of this .
the final act is effective at winding the film down , but the problems from the first persist - it 's a bit too long , and comes over as pretentious at times .
that said , there are two sequences ( one where a soldier gets a devastating note from his wife , and another where one of the main characters is killed ) that are nothing short of incredible .
the performances are phenominal all around .
the two standouts are nick nolte and newcomer jim caviezel , both of whom should have been nominated for oscars .
nolte is riveting and intense as the colonel in charge of the operation .
his character is hard , mean , and somewhat reckless with the lives of his men , and yet nolte somehow manages to evoke sympathy for him .
caviezel is forever questioning the nature of war , his place in it , and if there 's any deeper meaning to the hell that he 's going through .
he is absolutely perfect - genuine , sympathetic , sincere , and yet strong when he needs to be .
although restricted to a relatively small role , sean penn is also very good
as the company 's pessimistic seargent .
as to how it stacks up to " saving private ryan " - it was my second favorite movie of 1998 , " ryan " was my first .
it 's really hard to compare the two -
they are so , so different - so
i wo n't , beyond saying that spielberg 's film had more of an impact on me .
however , the two are comparable from the standpoint of quality ( i can easily see why someone would " the thin red line " above " ryan ) .
i highly recommend both of them , and consider them to be the two best war movies ever made .
all in all , " the thin red line " is filmmaking of an incredibly high order .
it 's slight faults are easily offset by the sheer brilliance of what is done right
.
it 's a real shame that it tanked at the box office - films
this unconventional , powerful , and thought - provoking do n't come along very often .
Example Output:
P