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

Input: Consider Input: it is with hesitance that i call " apocalypse now " a masterpiece .
certainly , it had the pedigree to be one of the greatest films ever made , with a director known for producing masterpieces with ease , and some of the finest actors of the 1970 's .
the plot , an adaptation of joseph conrad 's " heart of darkness " , was set in vietnam , and the timing of the film was supposed to be brilliant , coming on the heels of the end of the war .
" apocalypse " certainly has its moments , some of which are the finest in film history .
the plot is fairly simple .
captain willard ( sheen ) , is a troubled soldier who came back to hanoi for a 2nd tour of duty .
his mission is simple : take a boat up to cambodian territory , and destroy the command of renegade colonel kurtz ( brando ) " with extreme prejudice " .
along the way , willard runs into a series of adventures , including one with lt .
col .
kilgore ( duvall ) , and a strange encounter with playboy bunnies .
willard ' s four person crew finally make it to kurtz ' compound , where he discovers kurtz has set himself up as a god among the natives .
willard 's experiences with kurtz take up the last half - hour , with a confrontation and eventual ending .
the movie is visually breathtaking .
the battle scenes are exquisitely done , and the score is brilliant , setting a murky mood of darkness that is first - rate .
the collage of disturbing images that coppola presents is at times both astonishing and sickening .
the vast amount of detail poured into every war scene is stunning , and there are many episodes that are deeply powerful which resonate through the entire movie .
the journey to kurtz ' camp is quite a ride , with psychosis setting in on almost every character .
the most interesting one is kilgore , the lt .
col .
who cares more about the surf than about the mission .
it is at times revolting , psychotic , and incredible , and
it is one hell of a movie .
the scenes are bold , inventive , and powerful , and the acting is stunning , especially be sheen , duvall , and fishburne .
the narration is exquisite , as is the mystery of kurtz .
coppola sets about a hallucinatory ride through vietnam , kind of like " saving private ryan " on lsd .
the film is jarring in its implications , and psychotic in its execution .
the problems come when the film slows down .
one of the major scenes in the film , where the boat arrives at the final army checkpoint before they start their search for kurtz , is a colossal mess .
the dialogue is confusing , the lighting is atrocious , and the scene drags on for 10 terrible minutes of film .
the true problems happen after the crew does come into the kurtz compound .
the film slows down to a drag .
sheen seems forever captured by a madman , played by brando is a lazy performance that is not deserving of the accolades it received .
brando is in the film for no more than 15 minutes , but is bathed in shadows the entire time , making the last half hour of the film visually pathetic .
the scenes are poorly done , the dialogue is muffled , and the whole mess is utterly confusing beyond all belief .
sheen seems to adore this man , but why the viewers are never told .
the entire journey is supposed to be a prelude for a stunning entrance of this god - like kurtz , but the scenes fall way short of expectations .
granted , it has its moments , which are brutally horrific , but the general feeling is one of confusion .
brando mumbles his lines in a incoherent stir , and my feeling was that this could never be a great man , this could never be a man who inspires hundreds to follow him , so why do they do it ?
there are moments of brilliance , but the visual confusion dilutes the power of the scene .
there are too many questions left unanswered with the character of kurtz to have a satisfying ending .
the finest scene at the end is sheen 's escape , and his entrace into the temple .
his rise out of the water , with the smoke coming off of his slicked head , is a brilliant 30 seconds of film .
yet , you can not shake the feeling that there is so much more this film could have done .
the psychotic ride is unforgettable at times , and indeed the film on the whole is very good .
it is a stunningly flawed expression of film , for it addresses major issues , such as man 's mental stamina during bouts of war .
but one still can not shake the feeling that this film could have so much more powerful , had the character of kurtz been more explored , and had sheen truly succumbed to the fate that the viewer thought he was destined for .
there is too much good material in here not to be called a masterpiece , but it could have been so much more rewarding .

Output: P


Input: Consider Input: according to popular film opinion , a film 's greatness is determined by time .
take for example " casablanca .
" great film , even today .
it 's still as powerful as it was when it came out and still as romantic and tragic .
another example would be " star wars , " which had a very , very healthy box office gross despite the fact that we had all seen it about 3 billion times before .
but as i rewatched " independence day " when it came out on video after being the number one hit of 1996 , i kinda felt like it was n't as cool as when i had first seen it .
i had liked it when i saw it the first time (
*
* * was my original view ) and basically saw it as a good " escape film .
"
but when i rewatched it , i felt cheated .
thus , the curse of the " event film . " " independence day " is like that kid who come out of nowhere and makes everybody happy at once ( except for a couple kids - the critics , in this situation ) .
but after a while , this kid becomes annoying and you just wait for the next one .
well , this kid is the " event film " in my little analogy .
and when i rewatched " independence day , " not only did it not look cooler at all on the big screen , but i felt insulted the whole time .
there are too many gaping craters in the plot and you just are n't sure if it 's comedy or hokey drama .
one scene , you 'll see a hilariously nebbish scene between jeff goldblum and judd hirsch ; the next you 'll see a bunch of military uptight guys walking around , saying corny lines .
the worst is a scene between brent spiner and bill pullman where spiner is sayinig something innocently funny but is barked like a junkyard dog by bill pullman who gives him the most unitentionally funniest speech since the end of " glen or glenda ?
"
now this annoying kid 's problem is that in the process of trying to make everyone like him all at once , he shows he has no balls .
and " independence day " has no balls .
it plays it safe everywhere .
it throws in a ton of action that is borrowed from other superior films .
the chase scene between the alien ship and will smith is straight out of " star wars .
"
i mean , is n't that devil 's den ? and
the aliens are about as anticlimactic as demi moore 's breasts in " striptease .
"
they 're these octopus men , boring freaking octopus men .
i mean , come on .
the aliens in " 2001 " were more interesting and you did n't even see them !
basically the plot is straight from a b - movie from the 50s : aliens come to earth and we wonder if they 're hostile or peaceful .
okay , it 's an interesting topic , but it 's not handled greatly .
now they are n't and somehow a computer geek , jeff goldblum , figure out they 're using our satellites as a countdown to destruction .
yep .
these aliens are not only heavily armed , they 're stupid too .
they also use the same kind of computer as we do , but that comes about later .
the president ( bill pullman ) , who 's under attack for being a wimp , decides this would be a nice time to be belligerent , and he decides he 'll stay in the white house which the aliens have covered .
i do n't care if it 's bob freaking dole in the white house , get him out of there .
i do n't care if you have to inject him with sodium pentathol , just get him out of there .
later on , he 's stupid and wants to fly in the attack on a big alien ship .
i think it 's time for impeachment for this guy .
he 's more senile than reagan on pot .
then there 's a cocky pilot ( will smith ) who is the only person to survive the counter - attack on the second day and becomes moses in leading his children to the elusive area 51 ( the film 's only sign of being brave ) .
his girlfriend 's a stripper sharing a subplot with " striptease " in that she has to do it for her son .
come on , she has a fighter pilot boyfriend / soon - to - be fiance .
i think she can quit that job and get a more respectable job at long john silvers .
she 's also the few , the proud , the lucky to survive the igniting of l . a .
( as well as her dog , who narrowly survives ) .
there are some bright spots .
they tossed in enough old film homages to keep me laughing .
the best one is when jeff goldblum ( nicely named david ) turns on his computer and a picture of hal comes up and says , " good morning , dave .
"
and they even played r .
e . m .
's
" it 's the end of the world as we know it ( and i feel fine ) at the beginning .
and judd hirsch steals the film by actually acting great ( he 's a stereotype ,
but i just loved the man anyway ) .
but there are no real subtle comic moments .
will gets way too many one - liners and he has no one to play off of
( execept jeff towards the end , and the two do great ) .
as i said , this film has no balls .
it is just aiming for a crowd pleaser
and that 's what it is .
but after a couple months , we all move on to the next " event " film while intaking little films and a couple indy ones for good measure .
but at least the indy ones last for a lifetime .
this one 's short on batteries .

Output: N


Input: Consider Input: historical epic as a genre was almost banished from hollywood in early 1990s .
for many critics , scholars and , most importantly , film producers , it was a thing of the past - something that could have attracted crowds only in the era of black - and - white television and non - cgi special effects .
but in 1995 , same as in the case of dances with wolves five years ago , there came the man who decided to use of all his energy and talents of actor , producer and director in order to revitalise that particular genre .
and , same as in the case of dances with wolves , he was awarded for his effort with " oscars " .
the name of the film was braveheart , and the name of its director and main actor was mel gibson .
the plot chronicles the life of scottish warlord and folk hero william wallace ( 1272 - 1305 ) .
in his time , english king edward i " longshanks " (
played by patrick mcgoohan ) has almost completely subdued entire british isles , including scotland , whose proud inhabitants are now subjected by " ius primae noctis " and various other forms of humiliation and oppression by english knights .
although english had killed his father many years ago , young scottish commoner william wallace ( played by mel gibson ) does n't care about politics and wants only to have peaceful life with his new bride murron ( played by catherine maccormack ) .
murron 's death changes that and wallace takes arms and , together with small but dedicated band of followers , begins guerrilla campaign that would systematically destroy almost every english garrison in the country .
through time , more and more people join his ranks and in 1298 wallace 's rag - tag army scores surprising victory against english knights in the battle of stirling bridge .
but the newly won freedom is endangered by the internal squabbles between scots themselves , especially nobles under pretender robert the bruce ( played by angus macfadyen ) , who would n't like to have a simple commoner as a national leader .
braveheart was only the second film in the directorial career by mel gibson , so it would n't be fair to compare it to the better known genre classics directed by david lean or anthony mann .
however , even when we apply such criteria braveheart is more than decent historical epic that takes new and refreshing approach to the genre .
the most noticeable element of this approach is naturalism .
while older hollywood films set in medieval europe used to give fairytale - like vision of picturesque castles , splendid costumes and knights in shining armour , gibson shows us the extremely unpleasant world of poverty and feudal injustice where might made right and life was hard , short and brutish .
this general unpleasantness is especially underlined in the scenes of battle , where hand - to - hand combat is naturalistically displayed in all its gory details , never seen since verhoeven 's ultra - naturalistic flesh & blood .
compared with this naturalistic approach , most of old hollywood epics look like stage plays .
braveheart also employs humour at the right places , not only to make bloody realities of medieval british isles more bearable to sensitive audiences , but also to underline its down - to - earth atmosphere , so different from previous historical epics .
what makes braveheart " larger than life " is his protagonist .
mel gibson obviously invested plenty of his energy and talent in bringing the mythical figure of william wallace and , as a result , character of 15th century poems is transformed into superhuman being that resembles late 20th century comic book hero .
wallace is more than superior to his enemies , both physically and mentally , yet he is able to show his sensitive , more vulnerable side .
naturally , when the character is based on epic poems , most of historical accuracy is going down the drain ( which was the case with almost every historical epic from hollywood in 1990s ) .
however , even those who do n't particularly care about history or are willing to give poetic license to scriptwriter randall wallace might think that he went over the top in idolising wallace , especially in the second part of film when scottish superhero manages to seduce princess isabel ( played by sophie marceau ) and make her a child .
because of that the disbelief is hardly suspended , and final scenes are n't as effective as they should be .
mel gibson as an actor is truly wonderful , and he is also helped by small army of very good british and irish actors .
most memorable of them all is patrick mcgoohan , whose cold , calculated and evil medieval monarch is one of the most effective villains seen in contemporary cinema .
brendan gleeson ( who would later become famous for his role in boorman 's general ) is also very good
as wallace 's trusted companion , as well as ian bannen is effective as leprosy - stricken king john balliol .
david o'harra is very entertaining as wallace 's irish ally , and angus macfadyen brings a lot of anxiety into his conscience - stricken character of robert the bruce .
women in this film have rather thankless roles , especially marceau as one - dimensional french princess .
catherine mccormack as wallace 's wife was more interesting , but she was eliminated from the picture early on .
from the technical point of view , the film is also very good .
photography by john toll brings a lot of scottish natural beauty to the screen .
on the other hand , the musical score by james horner employs too much of modern - day instruments for period piece set in medieval times .
although mostly welcomed by critics and audiences alike , braveheart was often criticised for homophobia and other forms of extreme conservatism .
the main reason for that was the fact that gibson , among many historical facts , chose to be faithful only to those related to sexual orientation of " longshank " 's son prince edward ( played by peter hanly ) .
he is not only presented as a villain , but also as one of the less competent in villain 's camp - and portraying of homosexuals as villains or inferior to heterosexuals is almost unforgivable sin in " politically correct " hollywood . to make things even more obvious , good guys in this film are the total opposite of effeminate and incompetent edward - rugged macho men of mountains who are more practical and efficient because they tend to employ conservatives ' common sense instead of fashionable theories of ivory tower liberals .
however , although the message of this film might look right - wing , it owes more to leftist ideology of various national liberation movements in 20th century .
according to that ideology , oppressed classes ( workers , peasants ) are better suited to fight for national freedom because their members has less to lose in that struggle and , as such , they are more radical , less willing to make compromises and more efficient ; on the other hand , privileged classes ( aristocracy , bourgeoisie ) are more likely to betray the cause of freedom and be in cahoots with foreign oppressors in order to keep their privileges .
this marxist worldview is presented in braveheart without any subtlety .
in the end , whether the audience is patient enough to discover hidden meanings or simply wants to enjoy entertaining historical epic , braveheart is more than adequate choice for all fans of this recently resurrected genre .


Output: P