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

Ex Input:
i can hear the question already .
what on earth do these two movies have in common ?
to most people , not a lot , except that both are by renowned directors .
as i saw them , however , both movies have flawed romantic scripts wrapped in distinctive packaging of lavish visuals musical numbers .
but oh , how differently the packages affect their films .
while " everyone 's " production numbers make an otherwise ordinary woody tale something special , jane campion 's imaginative visuals only serve to emphasize how pompous and uninvolving laura jones ' script is .
i left " everyone says i love you " not remembering a lot about who loved whom , but its infectious happiness put a grin on my face .
i left " the portrait of a lady " not remembering a lot about who loved whom , and i could have cared less .
" everyone " features nothing allen has n't done before storywise .
woody is again desperately in love with a beautiful woman ( roberts ) , and against the odds they manage to click for awhile before allen is left wondering what went wrong -- again .
similar situations happen to his family and friends .
some of the more outlandish comedy scenes even hark back to his " early , funny " films .
the scenes between tim roth and drew barrymore could have come out of " take the money and run , " his directorial debut .
however , nothing allen has ever done prepared me for this one - of - a - kind display of sheer good spirits .
in fact , in this movie , the feeling itself is what 's most important .
yes , the movie would have been better -- among his very best , i think -- if it had a meatier story .
but what it lacks in substance it makes up for in feeling .
and what better way to express feeling than through music ?
love is often best expressed in a song , and the numbers the cast break into here cut straight to the heart .
some are a tad too goofy , such as the number where a lot of ghosts prance around in a funeral parlor ,
but i admired allen for even putting them in there .
it also helps that as usual , allen has a top - flight cast working with him .
their singing voices range from quite good ( goldie hawn ) to not quite good ( allen ) to literally unlistenable ( barrymore , whose real voice was dubbed by a professional ) .
but while their vocal abilities differ , all the actors do a great job of putting joy up there on the screen , and making it rub off on the audience .
granted , some people will simply never accept characters singing in movies , but for those attuned to it , this film should work wonders .
jane campion , too , has a top - flight cast working for her in " portrait of a lady , " too , but even their considerable skills can do nothing to keep the film from being a stilted , virtually lifeless mess ,
albeit a visually interesting one . campion and her cinematographer stuart dryburgh come up with a great variety of eye - filling images that linger in the mind .
unfortunately , what did n't linger in the mind for me
was the story the visuals were supposed to be reflecting .
i remember very well shots of a train with its light beaming and shots of men vanishing around nicole kidman , but i can remember very little of what happened between all these people .
even worse , i do n't find myself feeling bad that i 've forgotten .
the problem , i think , lies not with the cast , which seemed to be trying very hard for the material .
it was the script that could n't convince me to care about anyone .
the characters were putting out all kinds of emotion , but i found no reason to connect with any of them .
i understood that the story was about cold , emotionally vacant characters , but for me to care about them , i have to identify with them somehow and want them to inject feeling into their lives .
jones ' script never simply gave me that opportunity .
in the end , it almost seemed as if campion was trying to inject some life of her own into the proceedings with her visual flourishes . unfortunately , as she kept painting these dazzling pictures , they only served to push me further away from the material and remind me that there was no connection between me and the film .
in the end , the movie 's one strength ended up hurting it .
so here we have two films with pretty uninteresting plots , and
yet i was able to truly enjoy one of them .
why ?
with both films , my head cared about neither story , but
only " everyone says i love you " was able to make my heart sing .

Ex Output:
P


Ex Input:
seen may 19 , 1999 at 5 p . m .
at the crossgates cinema 18 ( guilderland , n .
y . )
, theater # 1 , with my brother john for $ 8 .
50 .
[ theater rating :
*
*
* * : excellent seats , sound and picture ] ( critic 's note : this review is the longest i 've ever written and still only scratches the surface .
i 'd recommend this be read only by those who have seen the film as a form of critical analysis . ) as my friend and fellow film critic ted prigge said in his review of ` the phantom menace ' - how do i even write this review ?
never mind the fact that i 've been waiting for a new ` star wars ' movie since i was seven years old .
never mind the fact everyone on the internet had already dissected and discussed the movie before it was even released .
never mind that there 's so much going on in this movie in terms of plot , action , special effects and long - term story that to analyze every aspect would take a lot of time and energy and still would n't cover everything .
and also like ted
does in all of his reviews , i 'll try to review this in a way different from my usual reviews and instead write as casually as possible as if i was talking directly to you , the reader . before we can begin analyzing the specific aspects of the film , many of the most general and most significant factors must be considered ( to get the specifics of the film , skip this and the next four paragraphs ) .
as has been made obvious for the last several years , another trilogy of films will be produced to account for the [ missing ] initial three installments of the ` star wars ' series ( the first of the films was actually episode four , not one ) .
george lucas , the creator of the series , has probably just assumed most people know the first - produced trilogy ( ` star wars , ' ` the empire strikes back ' and ` return of the jedi ' ) is actually the second trilogy , chronologically .
in media interviews in the past he has explained why the movies were made out of order , but i ca n't recall his reasons .
with this new film he as writer and director has also assumed viewers are at least vaguely familiar with the storylines and significant plot points of the first trilogy ( err . . .
second trilogy .
. .
well you know what i mean ) .
and in order for this review to be thorough many of those significant points must be mentioned which , unfortunately , may serve as spoilers so proceed with caution .
[ critic 's note
# 1 : it is one my personal policy not to intentionally analyze spoilers because i would like my reviews to be able to make sense to the reader both before and after viewing the film reviewed , but it would be nearly impossible to do the film justice here without breaking the rule .
critic 's note # 2 : reviewing this film also breaks the universal critics ' law of reviewing movies , which as roger ebert coined , ` it 's not what a movie is about , but how it is about it . '
because so many outside factors come into play in the film 's plot and significance as part of a trilogy , and just considering modern society , it again would be difficult , if not impossible to simply review the film as a completely autonomous story . ]
first of all we have to catalog what we know about the film before even going into it .
we know that young anakin skywalker will grow up to become the evil ruler darth vader who is also the father of luke skywalker , who will lead a successful revolution against him and his empire .
we know obi - wan ` ben ' kenobi was the trainer of anakin in the ways of ` the force ' in attempts to become a jedi knight , but would fail and thus anakin would fall to the ` dark side . '
we also know something about ` the force ' itself , that it is some kind of universal force which determines fate and can be manipulated by those whose minds are expanded enough to believe in it and feel it ( the jedi ) .
what we do n't know for sure is the history of the ruling of the galaxy , which is most likely much longer and more complex than any government we have had here on earth .
to me , this was one of the most fascinating aspects of the first three films because there seemed to be a subtle , definite order to all the complexity .
also , it seems that we 're supposed to be familiar with a few other details about the story which have come out of the thousands of comic books and paperbacks published in the years since the movies ended .
most notably , details regarding the emperor from ` empire ' and ` jedi , ' and that he was once a senator and his last name is palpatine .
for those who have n't kept up with all the ` star wars ' paraphernalia over the years , there is still a way to know these details simply by recognizing an actor ( or his voice at least ) .
with ` the phantom menace ' being the first chapter of a long saga , one would assume the basic groundwork would be laid , including the history behind all the major factors of the series , especially ` the force ' and the jedi knights .
unfortunately , this film does more of the opposite as it simply builds on top of what must be a history so long and detailed it could never be explained .
i did n't liked that aspect to this film and is one of the reasons it falls just short of greatness .
if you 're going to tell a story from the beginning - tell it from the beginning ( is it possible that after this trilogy is complete there could be another trilogy of episodes -1 through -3 to clarify the back story even further ? ) .
but i digress .
i 've said so much and yet i have n't even touched on the specifics of the film itself .
all these necessary ` disclaiming ' elements should go to show just how vast the story of the ` star wars ' series is and this individual film itself .
what we get here is a movie not unlike any of the other three we 've come to know and love since the late 1970s .
its similarity to the other films helps to keep the spirit of the series familiar , but at the same time seems to be a flaw in the filmmaking process itself since it sometimes rings of unoriginality .
the basic story is rather sorted , complex and even confusing at times .
we 're told that an army known as ` the trade federation ' has set up a blockade around an seemingly insignificant planet called naboo .
we 're not given too many details to clarify the back story of what the federation is and what their purpose is , instead the film opts to get its story moving quickly .
we 're introduced to two jedi , the master qui - gon jinn ( neeson ) and his apprentice obi - wan kenobi ( mcgregor ) .
the two are acting as ambassadors of some sort in hopes of ending the obvious hostility between the federation and the planet 's queen , amidala ( portman ) .
the leader of the federation , an alien called viceroy , is following the orders of a strange , mythical character - an older human man whose face and body are covered and shadowed by the black robe and hood he wears .
he is referred to as lord sidious but considering his appearance , and especially that creepy evil voice of his , he is a obviously one of the most significant characters in the series .
sidious communicates to viceroy only through digital transmissions and never in person .
clearly his actual whereabouts are something he wants to keep secret because that would also reveal his identity ( which is never openly revealed in the film , but should be clear to most viewers .
i have a feeling we 'll delve into his background in the next two films ) .
but it does n't take the film long to spring into action and within minutes our hero jedi are fighting for their lives and the film 's story
begins to move along .
the film does n't have one specific plot and works in the same manner as the other films in the series where as what we get is one mini - plot and adventure on top of another .
there are so many of these mini - plots - within - plots in this film
i would not describe them all because it is what gives the movie its hook .
the other films have relied on this type of storytelling , but because of the limits of the technology at the time , the films ' screenplays were also limiting .
the sense of limitlessness here is what gives ` the phantom menace ' its unique traits .
as we already know , the film takes place at least a generation or two before the original ` star wars ' trilogy which means a lot of the background which was unclear and/or unexplained may be cleared up here as it is the beginning of the vast epic story .
and here the most significant storyline is that involving the discovery of 10-year - old anakin skywalker ( lloyd ) , by qui - gon jinn and his introduction to the jedi council .
to briefly summarize the story , jinn stumbles upon skywalker in an attempt to buy parts for queen amidala 's spaceship which was damaged in efforts to free her from the federation .
their meeting on tatooine is mostly chance but of course jinn chalks it up to the will of the force .
jinn can feel that skywalker has a great natural power in the force , and through another sub - plot involving a bet on skywalker in a fantastic race he will enter , more and more details of his significance begin to reveal themselves .
this also provides for a new elaboration and explanation of the force which has never been mentioned before .
in fact , it seems to be something so important it is upsetting it has never been mentioned before .
the element seriously undermines the mystical aspect of the force and transforms it into something more physical and scientific which is completely unnecessary .
by the film 's third act all the major significant elements become tied together in a rather familiar execution of the plot .
it 's funny how the reality of the ` star wars ' world seems so embedded in mythology , new age - like philosophy and religion and yet the solution to all the major conflicts in the series has been violence .
not that this technique has n't been used in movies and in real - life situations countless times throughout history .
and at least it 's all in the spirit of the ultimate powers of good versus evil in a fun and exciting matter .
it does border of the cartoonish sometimes , but that 's just the film appealing to our inner child , which is the basic reason the entire saga exists and has become such a big part of our modern society .
` the phantom menace ' delivers exactly what you 'd expect from a ` star wars ' film which is why it succeeds as well as it does
but is always why it never truly achieves greatness .
so many things in the film we 've seen before and done with more heart because the filmmakers concentrated just a bit more on story and character because they were limited .
but this film is far from bad because it at least embraces the spirit of sheer fun at the movies .

Ex Output:
P


Ex Input:
i have a great idea for a movie , one that ca n't miss .
see , i 've got coolio to do a song for the soundtrack , and about fifty athletes and celebrities to do cameo appearances .
it 's about professional basketball , so i 'll release it right around the nba finals to guarantee added publicity .
as for what the movie is actually about . . .
well , that will all sort itself out eventually .
i figure it will be a comedy , so i 'll throw a half - dozen writers at it and take the best of whatever they come up with .
maybe we 'll put a gender spin on it , see if we can get some women out to see it , too .
eddie is one of those phenomenally lazy films that infuriates me more than any other kind .
twister , as inane as the script might have been , at least required some creative technicians ; mission : impossible , overwrought plot and all , at least involved genuine effort .
eddie just sits there , hawking up a formula story without any laughs , and makes every possible bad decision when a decision is required .
whoopi goldberg plays eddie franklin , a new york limo driver and die - hard knicks fan who is suffering through a dismal season for her beloved team .
coach john bailey ( dennis farina ) has lost control of his overpaid prima donnas , and the losses are beginning to mount .
the dwindling attendance inspires new team owner wild bill burgess ( frank langella ) to try a publicity stunt in which a lucky fan will get to be an honorary coach of the team .
the winner ( surprise , surprise ) is eddie , who becomes a fan favorite , and eventually the actual coach .
the knicks continue to lose , but eddie has some sassy tricks up her sleeve to inspire her troops .
incidentally , the knicks eventually start winning .
please raise your hand if that comes as a shock , and i will invite you to my all - night marathon of the bad news bears , major league , angels in the outfield , the mighty ducks , the big green , cool runnings and little giants .
awful teams in sports comedies make miraculous turnarounds ; it 's what they do .
those teams usually involve kids , for a very sound comedic reason : it 's funnier when they screw up , and they 're more sympathetic .
those which _ do n't _ involve kids usually have actual actors in the lead roles , for another very sound comedic reason : they generally have developed some sort of comic timing .
eddie was cast under the misguided premise that it 's easier to make basketball players look like actors than it is to make actors look like basketball players .
this finds nba players like greg ostertag , dwayne schintzius , rick fox and malik sealy delivering punch lines as though they were reading them for the first time off a bazooka wrapper
( though sacramento kings center olden polynice has a nice moment describing a black hole to fellow players ) .
perhaps that all did n't matter to anyone because there are so few punch lines , and because the whole film is one big casting gimmick .
steve rash directs
the spiritless script as though waving a flag of surrender and screaming , " do n't blame me , i just work here .
"
perhaps it was patently obvious to him that eddie is n't a movie -- it 's a cameo appearance that trips over a plot every once in a while .
among the notables who lend their faces to this travesty are donald trump , new york mayor rudolph giulianni , former new york mayor ed koch , david letterman , letterman regulars mujibur rahman and sirajul islam , espn broadcaster chris berman and knicks announcer marv albert , as well as dozens of nba players and several nba arenas .
and those are the real jokes in eddie .
nothing these individuals say or do is funny ; you are supposed to be laughing simply because you notice , " hey , it 's donald trump ! " or " hey , it 's mujibur and sirajul !
"
it 's difficult to decide whether eddie is so bad because it was so shamelessly lacking in imagination or because it ca n't even get the cliches in a cliche - ridden genre script right .
the knicks coach who is eddie 's antagonist early in the film reappears at the end , but he is n't given a chance to be the villain eddie desperately needs .
neither is frank langella , and none of the athlete - actors have the ability to give whoopi goldberg anything to play off of .
that leaves her to do her street - wise miss thang routine , but with no character , no sharp lines and no help .
eddie is n't just a bad movie with a formulaic premise .
it 's a movie that makes you feel cheated and offended , because someone came up with a poster and a marketing plan to which they had to attach an actual movie , and you had the nerve to believe it was going to be a comedy .

Ex Output:

N