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

Ex Input:
warner brothers ; rated pg-13 ( mild violence , sexual situations ) ; 132 minutes director : luis mandoki screenplay : gerald di pego ( from the novel by nicholas sparks ) cast : kevin costner , robin wright - penn , paul newman , illeana douglas , robbie coltrane , jesse james , john savage .
review by :
geoff berkshire
i 'm not an overly cynical guy .
there have been many glossy hollywood romances that have carried me away with their romanticism over the years .
however , i have my limits and i also have standards .
this brings us to the subject at hand : message in a bottle , the big ticket romance that warner brothers ' unleashed upon the movie going public just in time for valentine 's day .
the story , what little of it that there is , involves boring chicago tribune reporter theresa osborne ( robin wright - penn ) dealing with her recent divorce and trying to raise her young son jason ( jesse james ) .
during a brief stay somewhere in new england she finds the titular message in a bottle while on a morning run by the ocean .
the letter , written to a mystery woman named catherine , instantly captivates her .
upon her return , theresa shares it with her best friend lina ( illeana douglas ) , her boss charlie ( robbie coltrane ) , and the entire city of chicago ( the newspaper publishes an article about it ) .
it turns out that the message was written by grieving widower garret blake ( kevin costner ) and so theresa travels to north carolina and tracks him down .
he turns out to have a colorful father ( paul newman ) but is otherwise perfectly dull and overly obsessed with sailing .
this is somehow attractive to theresa and the two begin their awkward courtship .
of course she does n't tell him that she found his letter , she wants to but the rules of this type of film require him to find out later ( preferably right after they first make love ) .
this way garret can get very angry and the relationship can be threatened .
the discovery of the message and garret 's discovery that theresa discovered the message are really the only two noteworthy events that happen during the nearly two and a quarter hour running time of this film .
there 's a truly lame subplot about garret 's relationship with his dead wife 's family ( he gets into a bar fight with her brother , played by john savage ) and then the necessary tear - jerking ending .
a fun way to pass the time is to take bets on exactly who will die , although it becomes pretty clear by the second reel .
the actual death sequence is one of the most ridiculously forced , and unintentionally humorous , sequences filmed since .
. .
well , since costner 's the postman ( 1997 ) .
message in a bottle is one slow moving film .
last year audiences were offered endurance tests such as the horse whisperer and meet joe black but both of those films resemble jerry bruckheimer productions next to this .
they also had redeeming qualities in the form of quality performances and some stand out technical work .
message in a bottle has a decent enough cast but they 're fighting the material all the way , and losing badly .
costner and , especially , wright - penn are both likable and attractive enough to cheer for but their characters are simply too boring .
they also fail to generate any kind of real romantic chemistry .
the supporting players are given very little to do .
the reliable douglas is particularly wasted .
old pro newman gives his all and occasionally threatens to kick some life into this dead horse of a film .
a confrontational scene he has with costner near the end is especially well played .
however , too frequently he just reminds us how unexciting our lead characters are .
the film is very polished on the technical side to be sure but it only works to undercut the story .
gabriel yared , who previously set the romantic moods of the english patient ( 1996 ) and city of angels ( 1998 ) with his scores , overdoes it a bit here .
caleb deschanel 's camera makes everything look a little too beautiful .
do the offices of the chicago tribune really need to look heavenly ?
the editing by steven weisberg is troubling not only considering all that could have been cut out but is also simply messy at times .
the real offender here is screenwriter
gerald di pego .
working from a best- selling novel by nicholas sparks ( which i have not read but have been told is on the same literary level as the bridges of madison county ) , di pego creates one of the most uninspired scripts of recent times .
its strict adherence to clich ?
s brings to mind such disasters as i still know what you did last summer ( 1998 ) .
there simply is n't an original scene in this film .
the dialogue is rarely better than laughable and this is only accentuated by the excessively long pauses every character takes while speaking .
this is director mandoki 's first film since when a man loves a woman ( 1994 ) , the solid meg ryan / andy garcia romance .
he 's simply going through the motions with this .
message in a bottle is easily the worst of the several romantic offerings available in theaters at the moment and vies with what dreams may come ( 1998 ) as one of the most misguided romances of the decade .

Ex Output:
N


Ex Input:
seen august 8 , 1998 at 6 p .
m .
at rotterdam square cinemas ( rotterdam , ny ) , theater # 6 , by myself for free using my sony / loews critic 's pass .
[ theater rating :
*
*
* : good seats , sound , and picture ] war is a topic that ca n't help but be glorified any way it is portrayed by the media .
movies , documentaries , and even history books have a way of making the darker side of humanity exciting since the most general aspects are focused on , such as strategy , politics , and victory .
it 's easy to forget war , in its most basic form , is a battle of armies out to slaughter each other .
forgotten more easily is the fact that each soldier , no matter what his rank or importance , is a real flesh - and - blood person and not just a number . " saving private ryan " is one of the few films that dares play up this aspect , especially in its unapologetic , realistic delivery .
it proves there 's a huge difference between battling and killing .
the film opens with one of the most graphic , disturbing scenes in recent memory .
it 's world war
ii , d - day to be exact , and the u . s .
military is invading omaha beach where the nazis are more than ready for them .
spielberg uses many techniques to create for a total sense of reality . instead of positioned cameras , the footage here seems to have been shot by camera operators running alongside soldiers as if they were just as scared .
there is no sense of stability , but of constant , anxious , and confusing motion , giving us the feeling of being in the middle of the battle , and just a vulnerable as the poor troops .
" poor " is a proper word to describe how pathetic and yet innocent the men fighting are .
there is little to no dialogue throughout the loud battle and no prologue to define any characters .
we do n't get the feeling these are handsome actors playing heroic roles , but that these are men about to kill and be killed for reasons beyond their understanding .
the nazis are not portrayed as enemies to be hated , but as people that must be destroyed because they 're there .
in the movies , the good guys can run through a firestorm of bullets and bombs and not get a scratch , but in reality that would n't happen .
the men have nothing to shield or protect them besides some metal flanks and dead bodies .
they are sitting ducks and we realize this through the perspective of the well - secured germans who can actually see who , what , and where they 're shooting , unlike the americans who must fire in a general direction to avoid getting their heads blown off .
perhaps the film is flawed by not providing any backstory on the war itself and who the men really are , but that seems to be part of the theme .
the film seems to rely on the audience 's sense of patriotism , that the american military is " right " and good and that the nazis are " inherently evil .
"
the battle scene eventually focuses on a group of men who have miraculously survived and made their way close to the enemy stronghold ( a whole 50-foot progression ) , and begin to inflict some damage .
i have to admit that once the first glimpse of victory over the nazis sprang up , i could n't help but feel some sense of joy and relief .
to triumph against all odds is a cliche to be sure , but there 's nothing cliche about the graphic , detailed , atmosphere here because it really happened .
one of the most surprising aspects of the film is how little story construction there is , and yet the events that take place make sense and are interesting
.
the plot is practically irrelevant since the film is more concerned with the reality of the war and the soldiers we meet .
tom hanks stars as captain miller , a relatively average man who happens to be the leader of a platoon .
he 's never obsessive or any such generic , cartoonish characteristic that might dominate a character like this .
he does n't want to be there any more than his men , but when he is given a mission he intends to carry it out .
the mission the film is concerned with is , as the title states , saving private ryan .
through a series of command started by an ordinary clerical worker , it is brought to a general 's attention that three brothers from iowa have been killed in action and their mother will receive notices of each 's death simultaneously .
when they learn a fourth brother is stationed somewhere in europe , they make it a top priority to have him returned safely to his mother .
it 's easy to sympathize with this situation , after all , no one should have to lose all their children at once .
but finding one man in this war is , as miller puts it , " like trying to find a needle in a stack of needles .
"
the saving of private ryan is n't just a dramatic device , but a thematic one .
his salvation represents the sense of innocence the country , the world even , was trying to convince itself it still had .
when miller 's company hears of the mission , they scoff at the idea assuming he is dead , but miller is n't so quick to shrug it off .
he knows the only thing that can really save soldiers from death is hope , and now he has the opportunity to make someone 's sense of hope a reality .
the mission to find ryan gives miller 's group a destination , but not direction .
along the way many things happen to them , both good and bad .
a few battles are fought , not to be major accomplishments for the war , but because they encounter german soldiers and have no other choice .
the act of killing itself becomes one of the film 's major philosophical metaphors .
the soldiers do n't mind killing other soldiers in blind battle , but when they come across a lone survivor who begs them to let him go , they can barely stop themselves from killing him in cold blood as some kind of vengeance for their losses .
unfortunately , death is a fact of war , and most films try to avoid it when it comes to the main characters , but here spielberg does n't want us to think these men are invincible .
in fact , only a small amount of color and personality is sketched into each man , and the performances are good enough to make this method work .
although the characters are somewhat typical , the actors maintain control over the material at all time . whether they 're arguing with each other , telling stories of back home , or fighting the germans ,
they never go overboard and always seem believable
.
sure , there 's a zinger here and there , but war does n't change the fact boys will be boys .
if and when one dies we too can feel the loss , even though we hardly knew them .
the final act brings the story full circle with another tremendous , violent battle sequence .
private ryan has been found , but facing four to one odds , can the americans defeat the germans and keep ryan alive ?
that 's not a premise for thrills , it 's symbolic of everything the film has worked for .
it would be wrong to say the film has either a happy or sad ending , it ends the way it must end .
i remember reading a " calvin & hobbes " comic strip where calvin asked his dad something like , " dad , how do armies of men killing each other solve problems ? "
" saving private ryan " is the adult version of that question .

Ex Output:
P


Ex Input:
and i thought " stigmata " would be the worst religiously - oriented thriller released this year .
turns out i was wrong , because while " stigmata " was merely boring and self - important , " end of days " is completely inept on all fronts .
it 's a silly , incomprehensible , endlessly stupid mess .
for a guy like me who grew up watching arnold schwarzenegger at his best , it 's extremely disconcerting to see where the big man has ended up .
for the first time in recent memory , an arnold action movie ( and " batman & robin " does n't count ) is no fun at all .
" end of days " is a major stinker .
the movie opens in vatican city , 1979 .
some catholic priests have observed an ancient prophecy , which says that a girl will be born on that night that satan will have targeted for impregnation .
if he impregnates her between 11 and midnight on december 31 , 1999 , the world will be destroyed .
the pope orders protection of this girl , though some priests believe she ought to be killed .
in new york , that very night , a girl is born to fulfill the prophecy .
twenty years later , we meet jericho cane ( schwarzenegger ) , a suicidal ex - cop with a drinking problem .
now working as a security guard for hire , he is protecting a local businessman ( gabriel byrne ) , who is actually possessed by the devil .
an assassination attempt on the businessman by a crazed former priest leads him to the girl satan is after , christine york ( robin tunney ) .
recognizing elements of his own murdered daughter in christine ( including ownership of the same music box , apparently ) , jericho swears to protect her against the devil and the faction of priests looking to kill her .
there are so many problems with this film
it 's hard to know where to begin , but how about starting with the concept ?
casting arnold in a role like this was a mistake to begin with .
schwarzenegger is a persona , not an actor , so putting him in a role that contradicts his usual strong personality is a bad idea .
arnold has neither the dramatic range nor the speaking ability to pull off a character tormented by conflicting emotions .
in other words , trying to give him dimension was a mistake .
harrison ford , mel gibson , or even bruce willis could have played this role ( they 've all played noble and flawed heroes ) , but not schwarzenegger .
there are several scenes that attempt to establish jericho 's character ; one has him contemplating suicide , another crying over the loss of his wife and daughter , and even one in which the devil tries to tempt him into revealing christine 's location by offering him his old life back .
none of these scenes really work , because arnie is n't up to the task .
the filmmakers would have been better off making jericho a strong , confident character ( like the terminator , for example ) , the likes of which schwarzenegger has excelled in before .
this one is n't at all believable the way arnold plays him .
the supporting cast tries their hardest , and only gabriel byrne makes any impact at all .
as the prince of darkness , he 's suave and confident .
he acts like one would expect the devil to act .
the problem is that the script has him doing things that make no sense ( more on that later ) and that undermines him as a powerful villain .
byrne out - performs arnold in every scene they have together ( including the aforementioned temptation bit ) , but this is problematic when it causes the audience to start doing the unthinkable : root for the devil .
byrne 's speech about the bible being " overrated
" actually starts to make sense , mainly because arnold 's attempts at refuting it ( mostly of the " ' tis not !
" variety ) are feeble at best .
the only problem is , arnold has to win , so in the end , nobody really cares .
kevin pollack
plays jericho 's security guard sidekick and tries to liven things up with some comic asides , but
like most bad action movie sidekicks , he disappears after about an hour .
robin tunney is n't given much to do except look scared .
in fact , all of the supporting players are good actors , but none , save for byrne , is given anything interesting to do .
performances aside , it would be really hard to enjoy this film
no matter who starred in it .
this being an action blockbuster
, it 's no surprise that the worst thing about it is the script , which starts off totally confusing , and when some of it is explained ( and not much of it is ) ,
it 's utterly ridiculous .
why is the devil coming on new year 's eve , 1999 ?
because it 's exactly 1000 years after the year of the devil , which is n't 666 , it turns out .
some nutty priest accidentally read it upside down , so the real year is 999 , so just add a 1 to the beginning , and you 've got 1999 ! if you do n't buy this explanation , you 're not alone .
it 's convoluted and silly at the same time .
the method by which jericho locates christine york is equally ludicrous
( she 's christine , see , and she lives in new york , see . . . )
, and if that were n't bad enough , there 's plenty of bothersome stuff in this film that is n't explained at all .
why can satan kill everyone he passes on the street , but when it comes to snuffing out one drunk ex - cop , he 's powerless ?
is he impervious to only one kind of bullet ?
how come
he ca n't control jericho or christine ?
and how did those gregorian monks deal with time zones in their prophecies ?
a clumsy attempt at a joke is made about this , but it 's never actually explained .
usually , this sort of thing would n't matter in a schwarzenegger flick ( i mean , do n't get me started on the time paradoxes offered up by the terminator movies ) , but this time the plot inconsistencies stand out even more than usual because the action is rarely exciting .
there are several predictable horror film clich ?
s present in " end of days , " complete with the old " black cat hiding in a cabinet " bit ,
not that we ever find out what the cat was doing in there .
it gets so formulaic
that it 's possible for those uninterested in being scared to close their eyes at the precise moment a " boo " will come .
their predictions will rarely be wrong .
the more grandiose action sequences are utterly charmless , partially because we do n't care about these characters ( due to the script 's pathetic attempts at characterization and setup ) , and also because they , too , do n't make any sense
.
there 's a scene where schwarzenegger gets thrown around a room by a little old lady .
it 's good for a few chuckles , but not much else .
supposedly we 're to believe she now has super strength by virtue of being controlled by satan , but the script never sets that up , so the scene is merely silly .
none of this is terribly exciting , because all the action sequences are so badly framed that it 's often hard to tell why it 's happening in the first place , not to mention that they 're edited in full - on incomprehensible mtv quick - cut style .
most of them had me scratching my head , rather than saying , " wow , cool ! "
" end of days " is not only silly and confusing , but it 's also distinctly unpleasant to watch .
the devil apparently does n't operate in the more subtle , i'll - convince - people - to - kill - each - other fashion outlined in the bible , but instead enjoys killing people gruesomely in broad daylight .
this does n't only make him an awfully predictable sort , but it also means that not a single scene in " end of days " goes by without unnecessarily graphic violence , or the odd kinky sexual encounter ( yet another bit that had me scratching my head ) .
if violence is supposed to be shocking , it 's not a good idea to throw so much of it into a movie that the audience goes numb .
scenes are n't connected through any reasonable means , so a lot of the time , stuff gets blown up , or people get killed , and i had no idea why .
reasons ?
to hell with reasons !
let 's just blow stuff up !
is n't it cool ?
nope , not by a long shot .
this film is thoroughly unwatchable .
it 's dull , interminable , and unrelenting in its stupidity .
perhaps arnold needs to make some movies with james cameron to revive his career , because it 's not happening with hack peter hyams here .
" end of days " might have had camp value , if only it did n't top itself off with an overly pious ending that nobody 's going to buy .
if the movie is going to be serious , the filmmakers should have come up with a decent script .
if it 's going to be campy , arnold should n't be taking himself so damn seriously
( i did n't actually see him put up on a cross , did i ? ) , and his character should n't be such a sad sack .
as it stands , " end of days " is just a bad movie , and an awfully gloomy one at that .

Ex Output:

N