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

Example Input: miramax " disinvited " on - line media from press screenings of scream 3 .
they ostensibly feared that folks like me would write spoiler - filled reviews and post them prior to the film 's february 4th release date - unsound reasoning .
you see , ' net critics established enough to be on any sort of vip list are
professionals - miramax surely knows the difference between a member of the on - line film critics society ( ofcs ) and the type of fanboy who posts spy reports at ai n't it cool news .
no , the ? mini major ' was afraid we 'd let a bigger cat out of the bag than whodunit , that scream 3 is a dismal conclusion to the beloved ( by this writer , at least ) franchise .
something smells rotten in the state of california right from the get - go
:
cotton weary ( liev schrieber ) , the former lover and would - be killer of maureen prescott , sidney 's mother , is juggling phone calls in his luxury car .
( once considered a danger to society , weary now hosts his own talk show , " 100 % cotton " , a clever , if dated , jab at american pop culture . )
of course , a new ghostface dials him up , and , with memories of scream 's unbearably suspenseful prologue in mind , we immediately wonder , where is the killer ?
the backseat ?
the next car ?
thrilling prospects , to be sure , but actually , ghostface is at the weary residence , waiting for cotton 's girlfriend ( kelly rutheford ) to finishing showering .
what 's missing from this sequence , and indeed scream 3 's remaining frights ( most disappointingly , the moment when an ingenue is forced to hide in a wardrobe room filled with ghostface costumes , one of which might spring to life ) , is an elaborate and attenuated payoff .
our other surviving regulars have become estranged .
sidney ( campbell ) is living a paranoid existence of electronic gates and password - protected locks , while dewey ( arquette ) acts as technical advisor on the second sequel to scream 2 's movie - within - a - movie , " stab 3 " , and gale weathers ( cox arquette ) headlines a gossipy news program .
murder reunites them , as knife - wielding ghostface stalks the set of " stab 3 " , imitating its sadistic screenplay - and his / her / their own personal draft climaxes with sidney 's death .
the appeal of ghostface 's villainy is that he /
she
/ they could be your boyfriend , your classmate , your next door neighbour . . . or a combination of people .
scream was the first of its kind : a slasher mystery , with the guessing game not only entailing who will be next , but also who is /
are the perpetrator ( s ) and
what is / are his / her / their motive .
ironic self - reflection aside
, parts one and two stand out in a crowd that includes umpteen friday the 13th and halloween flicks because there 's at last articulate human beings behind the iconic costume .
with scream 3 , the novelty of ghostface 's ever - mutating identity has worn off some , but the character remains conceptually potent .
conceptually .
the execution of ghostface 's master plan this time around is creaky , because screenwriter ehren kruger has invented a new mythology for the world of sidney prescott far afield from what we 'd come to understand in scream and scream 2 .
the movie gets in the silly habit of saying " all bets are off ! " in reference to the " rules " of a trilogy 's third act , but there 's a difference between rule breaking and cheating .
with the departure of kevin williamson , who authored the previous screams as well as a tidy outline for scream 3 ( that , for reasons incomprehensible to me , was ignored , save the notion of " stab 3 " ) , kruger needed to be reined in tighter , and by wes craven .
craven 's direction of scream 3 is lazy in most respects .
how else to explain the jay and silent bob cameo ( the slacker duo of kevin smith movies ) , akin to seeing mickey mouse pop up in mulan and more distracting than funny .
it pains me to write this , but scream 3 's comedy is generally laughless , with the exception of well - timed performances by josh pais ( as a police detective possessed of the same personality he had as a persnickety teacher in craven 's music of the heart ) , jamie kennedy ( resurrecting film geek randy for the sendoff he was denied in scream 2 ) , and parker posey ( through sheer force of will as a b - actress ) .
the visuals are much weaker in part three , as well - the occasional sweeping gesture of peter deming 's camera is a pale imitation of the stalking steadicam craven gave us twice before .
( aside : in the wake of columbine , craven toned down the violence significantly for scream 3-why the sanctimony , when scream and scream 2 are still readily available on video store shelves ? )
finally , marco beltrami 's music cues the suspense too blatantly
- do you recall the tense chase at the college radio station in scream 2 ?
it 's mostly silent .
sting notes are a whole lot more effective if they spring from nowhere ; here ,
they act as the crescendos of an incessantly nerve - jangling score .
i look at scream 3 as coming from an alternative universe , the same place that birthed the godfather part iii and superman
iii - woefully out of synch with its prequels , scream 3 is a nightmare instead of nightmarish , and will likely put the horror genre back in mothballs .
the film unintentionally follows the unspoken rule of a trilogy to a t : ?
part three must disappoint ' .
Example Output: N

Example Input: for many people , procrastination is n't a problem to overcome , it 's a high art .
we 'll do just about anything to put off a task .
when the deadline for this column nears , it 's the only time during the week dishes get washed and the bed made and laundry done and
plants watered and . . .
eventually , hopefully , sometimes , there 's a breakthrough
and we actually get down to work .
amazingly it 's almost always easier than we dreaded and
after finishing , that sense of oppressive apprehension melts away .
and then , the next time , we do it all again .
english professor grady tripp ( michael douglas ) is a master .
seven years ago , his first book was a hit .
he 's been working on his second -- a short 200-page piece -- since then .
fearful that he ca n't live up to the first , he ca n't bring himself to finish it .
no writer 's block , he 's nearing 3 , 000 pages with no end in sight .
now he 's having a particularly difficult day .
the college 's annual writers conference is bringing in accomplished novelists reminding tripp that other people are finishing _ their _ books .
during the first day , his wife has left him , his married girlfriend informs him
she 's pregnant and his agent is in town with a six - foot transvestite in tow .
by the evening , our besieged writer is driving though the snow - covered streets of pittsburgh with a suicidal student beside him , a stolen jacket that marilyn monroe wore on her wedding day in the back seat and a murdered blind dog stuffed in the trunk .
this could be a pivotal point in his mid - life crisis .
and then there 's the next morning .
there 's a lot to like about this movie .
there are no huge explosions , shattering glass or computer - generated dinosaurs to distract from the very real human issues .
grady is caught up in the curse of people who accomplish great things early in their career .
in the world of " what have you done for me lately ?
" , he knows his second book has to be better than his first . instead of finding out , he drifts , comfortable in the insular cocoon of academic peter panhood .
he does n't have much of a life and neither does his star pupil james leer ( tobey maguire ) .
james may be suicidal and psychotic .
certainly everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie .
he makes up a past of working clash anguish because the truth of wealth and comfort just is n't interesting enough .
as the weekend progresses , they are both forced to fully engage life .
that 's the question they must face : comfort or real experiences ?
the film takes some interesting chances .
non - traditional relationships are presented as matter - of - fact .
extra - marital , gay , interracial , professor - student : here they are n't judged , merely choices .
the actors are all first - rate .
douglas triumphs , playing against type as he spends most of his time disheveled , unshaven and clad in a pink women 's house robe .
maguire 's disengaged alienation works perfectly here .
robert downey jr .
as grady 's agent livens up his scenes .
director curtis hanson (
" l . a . confidential " ) makes a few missteps .
the women are underused .
frances mcdormand does a good job of her limited role of sara , grady 's married lover
but we never understand much of who she is .
the chemistry between the two of them is non - existent which makes some of the ending unconvincing .
katie holmes is a student with a major crush on the professor , but her character goes nowhere .
we never even see grady 's exiting wife .
this is very much a guy 's film .
the varied relationships between the men are much more convincing than any of the others .
grady 's alternating mentoring and rejection of james is the centerpoint of the film , not him and sara .
as the boomers age , expect to see more mid - life crisis films to catch the attention of that demographic .
eventually it 'll probably become cliche , but right now
we 've got a winner .
i 'll finish this in a second .
right now i have to grab some paint .
i noticed some trim in the other room that needs a little touch - up .
( michael redman has written this column for so long that he 's made mid - life crisis a career choice . )
Example Output: P

Example Input: i came to an epiphany while watching the bachelor , an innocuous - enough - on - the - surface romantic comedy .
it 's not the sort of film in which one would expect to achieve any moment of clarity , but there it was nonetheless .
i sat there watching this marshmallow of a movie unfold when suddenly i realized what is so ridiculously wrong with the entire romantic comedy genre circa 1999 .
in a word , it 's the same thing that 's wrong with so many movies circa 1999 : writing .
more to the point , it 's the refusal to acknowledge that characterizations matter when you 're telling a story about a relationship .
the bachelor is merely the latest in a long line of films where we 're expected to get dewy - eyed over any pairing of attractive , pleasant people just because they 're attractive and pleasant .
in this particular case , attractive and pleasant exhibit a is jimmy shannon ( chris o'donnell ) , a single guy who has been watching his friends slowly but surely sucked into marriage .
it 's a scary notion for jimmy , even though he dearly loves attractive and pleasant exhibit b anne ( renee zellweger ) , his girlfriend of three years .
convinced despite his reservations that it 's time to " sh
* t or get off the pot , " jimmy proposes to anne -- very badly .
anne refuses , which leaves jimmy in a very odd position when his eccentric grandfather ( peter ustinov ) dies and leaves a very specific video will .
jimmy stands to inhereit $ 100 million if he is married by 6
: 05 p .
m .
on his 30th birthday , stays married for 10 years and produces a child .
there are only a couple of minor problems : 1 ) jimmy 's 30th birthday is the next day ; 2 ) anne is nowhere to be found , meaning jimmy has to find another willing bride from among his many ex - girlfriends .
it 's a wacky , brewster 's millions - esque premise ( acknowledged as such in one of the film 's better , more self - aware lines of dialogue ) , the kind where a shallow and materialistic guy learns what really matters .
at least that would be the case if jimmy were n't already a world - class altruist .
screenwriter steve cohen slides into the story an even more draconian condition in the will : if jimmy does n't get married , not only will he lose all the money , but the family billiard table buisness will be sold out from under him , costing hudreds of jobs .
from the outset , jimmy 's motivation is n't cash ; it 's the livelihoods of his devoted employees .
it 's almost embarrassing for his marital misgivings to play a role in the bachelor 's plot development .
by any human standard , the guy is impossibly selfless .
and that 's the essence of the gutlessness endemic to films like the bachelor --
the fear of giving the characters flaws to overcome on their way to happiness .
there 's never any tension between the two star - crossed lovers , because there 's no sense that anything remotely significant is at stake .
the blandly nice o'donnell could n't pull off a randy cad if he tried , so the filmmakers do n't even let him ; zellweger 's anne may have issues with her sickeningly affectionate parents as an impossible standard to live up to , but no one dares make her anything but the woman ( lightly ) wronged . and forget about seeing enough of jimmy and anne together to feel invested in their potential reconciliation .
the parade of sit - com set pieces had better be damned funny , since they 're all that stands between us and a blissfully sweet foregone conclusion .
i 'll admit a couple of those set pieces are amusing , including ustinov 's rantings about procreation and a restaurant full - to - bursting with men popping questions and champagne corks .
far more of them are either tedious or downright ghastly
, like the shudder - inducing sight of brooke shields as an icy fortune - hunter or the hideous collection of stereotypes when hundreds of potential brides gather in a church .
you 're never going to get too many raucous belly laughs from a film like the bachelor , but that 's not the real problem .
nor is it the real problem that you know exactly the kind of warm - n - fuzzy conclusion it 's leading up to .
the problem are a beginning and middle that are equally warm - n - fuzzy --
there 's no spark , no energy , no humanity .
it 's an emotional pudding guaranteed not to offend any consumer 's digestions .
we 've reached a point where our proxies for cinematic romantic wish fulfillment do n't even have a pulse .
the bachelor is love among the mannequins .
Example Output:
N