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

Example Input: steven spielberg 's " amistad , " which is based on the true story of a group of africans who revolted on board a slave ship , then were captured and taken to america where a legal dispute ensued over who " owned " them , is concerned with several different aspects of this story .
first , the film addresses the issue of the inherent evils of slavery .
second , it deals with the historical involvement of several american politicians in the case , including president martin van buren and former president john quincy adams ( anthony hopkins ) .
last , and most importantly , it examines the cultural confusion experienced by the africans who were forced into slavery and the damage done to their native culture in africa by the slave trade .
" amistad " succeeds at least partly with all three of these elements .
i have to admit that i was a little skeptical as to how much i could really get out of another " anti - slavery " movie .
having seen several other movies and documentaries about slavery , i doubted that there was much i did n't already know about it .
fortunately , i turned out to be wrong .
for one thing , spielberg 's camera never once gets near a southern plantation and instead sticks to the slave ships and the slave traders ' operations in africa , so " amistad " was dealing with a different part of the history of slavery from the very beginning .
and some of the images here are , in fact , much more harrowing than what we usually see in movies about slavery .
one scene in the middle , in which the crew of a slave ship dispose of some of their " excess " slaves by throwing them overboard to drown , has to be one of the most disturbing film images of the year .
spielberg digs farther into the evils of slavery than i was expecting he would , and in fact he probably goes about as far as a movie director can without getting an nc-17 rating .
the stark suffering of the africans is contrasted sharply with the shallow luxury of the politicians , such as president van buren and queen isabella of spain , whose naval officers were involved in the legal dispute and who was only a small child at the time .
exposing politicians as narrow - minded , opportunistic hypocrites is fairly standard stuff , of course , but spielberg and writer david franzoni
do it well enough that it still comes off as something more than just a simple exercise in audience manipulation .
the film also examines the contentious nature of the slavery issue at the time , such that john quincy adams ( and probably other politicians like him ) , who clearly disapproved of the practice , was reluctant to get involved in the case until it was appealed all the way to the supreme court .
the biggest success of " amistad " is probably the characterization of cinque ( djimon hounsou ) , who emerges as the de facto leader of the kidnapped africans and struggles to communicate with baldwin ( matthew mcconaughey ) , the lawyer who represents them in court .
through cinque , we are given a window into the native culture , as he and the displaced africans try to explain to the prison guards what they need for a proper burial of a dead tribe member , or find an illustrated version of the bible and try to understand the story of jesus christ .
cinque sees the dispute with a clarity and simplicity that , again , contrasts with the technicalities and mechanics of the legal process and of the political squabbles .
"
what kind of country is this , where laws ' almost ' work ?
"
he asks baldwin in bewilderment , when he learns that the case must be re - tried before the supreme court .
spielberg 's direction tends a little bit towards the manipulative side at times , such as when he adds a heavy orchestral swell to cinque 's angry outburst in the court room .
still , there is n't enough of this for it to be a serious problem .
the main flaw in this film , which prevents it from earning four stars , is that it seems like spielberg and franzoni ca n't quite handle all of these issues at the same time , so instead they settle for addressing each one separately and simply editing the results into the same movie .
this summer 's contact , for example , dealt with several issues at once , but each of them was somehow present in almost every scene and , most importantly , all of them were resolved at once .
" amistad " tries to pull it all together in the end with a speech from adams , but it somehow feels a little forced , and in any case the speech itself , which lasts almost fifteen minutes , wears out its welcome about halfway through .
perhaps the best way to describe it is this :
" amistad " is three four star films edited into one .
almost every individual scene works , but the final product is lacking the necessary focus and coherence , and thus is less than the sum of its parts .
however , i ca n't honestly say how it could have been done differently , and in any case the story comes through with enough raw emotional power that it is still a very good film , and thus
i recommend it to anyone who can handle the disturbing imagery .
Example Output: P

Example Input: the king and i , a warner brothers animated , musical feature , recycles the classic story of a woman who challenges the heart of a king , with obvious results .
when anna ( miranda richardson ) , a british schoolteacher , travels to saim to educate the king 's ( martin vidnovic ) children , she learns that the king is treating his people unfairly , and must say something to the greedy ruler .
meanwhile , the king 's prime minister ( ian richardson ) , the stereotypical villain , plots to overthrow the king , taking the throne .
the last , and most predictable , main subplot deals with the king 's son ( allen d. hong ) , and his love for a servant , tuptim ( armi arabe ) , and how he conflicts with his feelings , and the ancient laws of saim . not even the lone strong character of anna can save the unbelievably horrible waste of talent , as the king and i 's problems could fill the blank pages of a journal .
i will only note the major difficulties , for it would take pages to elaborate on every detail .
the screenplay , written by arthur rankin , peter bakalian , jacqeline feather , and david seidler , which is based upon the play written by richard rodgers and oscar hammerstein , has some of the worst dialogue written in a film within recent memory ,
as every time the obnoxious king would shout , " etc , etc , etc , " i would cringe .
literally .
speaking of cringing-
i did quite a bit of this during the rather short film , which is a classic display of terrible filmmaking .
besides the repetitive dialogue from the king , on the whole , the songs seem out of place , and unlike the lyrics , are unmagical .
the sole song which is used cleverly is " getting to know you , " which is used as anna shows the children the great outdoors , which they have never been exposed to .
unlike disney animated features , the king and i 's songs do n't add to the film , and are as uneffective as could be .
take the following scenario as an example , as the sheer horror of the king
and i 's music is at its worst .
you 're being hunted by a dragon !
what do you do ! ?
sing a happy song !
martin vidnovic voices the king without effort or emotion-
you hear the saying two negatives do n't make a positive ? believe it !
with the terrible dialogue that the king has , along with his awful voice track , the king is completely unbelievable , only shows mild signs of any personality , and the only thing that changes in the king is that he says " etc . , etc . , etc . , " more and more as the film progresses .
no personality at the beginning of the movie , none at the end .
and where does this character 's personality change ?
hey , i thought anna was supposed to change him !
is n't that the whole plot ?
the prime minister 's hideous sidekick ( darrell hammond ) brings his share of cringes as well
- oh no !
another one of his teeth fell out !
hardy - har - har !
he is supposed to bring laughs for the kidlets , but even at age five i would have cringed while watching him .
by the way this review is going , you may think the reasoning for my hate for this film is due to not liking animated films- hence
why i hate this movie , because the king and i is a disgrace to animation .
animated films , such as 1994 's the lion king and 1998 's the prince of egypt , are among my favorite movies of all time .
the animation team does design their share of well animated settings , so this makes it easier to take my mind off of the annoying king , until i realize that day and night switch back in fourth within seconds .
i have not read the play , or seen the oscar winning , 1956 film adaption , but from what i can tell , the screenplay for the 1999 version completely butchers the play , for the king
and i is never magical , nor interesting .
if it was n't for miranda richardson , who voices anna with feeling , the king and i could earn the title , " worst movie of the decade .
" instead , the king and i will just go down as among the year 's worst .
the bottom line- avoid this movie at all costs .
not even young children , the target audience in this film , will enjoy it . not the slightest bit .
Example Output: N

Example Input: the film " magnolia " can be compared to a simple flower as its title and movie poster suggests .
the dozens of characters introduced and developed are like the petals on the flower .
they all come from the same stem and as the flower begins to develop they grow farther and farther apart .
the numerous characters in the film are all closely connected no matter how different they are from one another socially .
from a humiliated but kind cop to an aging game show host , each one of these characters is suffering the same kind of pain .
they are each seriously lonely and seek the perfect companion to end this loneliness .
whether this companion is a distant family member or a spouse , each character begs for one and spends the whole film searching for the perfect one .
" magnolia " is a clever , well thought out film from prodigy director - writer paul thomas anderson of " boogie nights " fame .
the detailed character analyses and the powerful script make " magnolia " memorable .
however , what really is impressive is that even though there are tons of characters in several unrelated stories , the film is never confusing .
anderson 's control over transitioning from one story to another story is masterful .
he also knows exactly when to cut to another subplot since not one of " magnolia 's " scenes drag on too long .
any three hour film that does not deliver even one uninteresting scene is definitely worth recommending .
from the fascinating beginning to the risky yet surprisingly satisfying ending the film just does n't get boring
.
it is obvious that anderson put a lot of time into connecting each subplot .
this is the ultimate game of six degrees of separation .
every character is connected to every other character by at the most two degrees .
for example , cop john c .
reilly is connected to game show host phillip baker hall through hall 's daughter melora walters who once went on a date with reilly .
the fact that each character is so different from the others yet so similar shows that there are universal pains that all classes , races , and genders suffer .
anderson 's explanation to prove this point is both accurate and convincing .
the only mistake anderson made in trying to connect his characters was by making his actors all sing an aimee mann song simultaneously .
this was foolish not only because it was unbelievable and hilariously erroneous but also
because it had a broadway musical feel to it and this movie is about as far apart from your typical broadway musical than you can get .
the performances in " magnolia " are perfection .
this is a classic example of flawless casting and flawless ensemble acting .
anderson allows many of hollywood 's best supporting actors to blossom at what they do best , character acting .
all of the main characters in each story are perfect because they are able to reveal more emotions and attitudes in their brief time on the screen then most movie stars can do in a feature length film .
worth noting is tom cruise , who stepped out of his usual superficial starring role and into a funny but depressing
tour de force performance .
he was probably noticed more than the other actors in the film by award givers because his role here is so much different and impressive than those in the past ( however any actor in this film could be nominated for best supporting actor without any complaints )
the only problem i had with the acting was that a few of the characters felt seriously edited down such as melinda dillon 's character as phillip baker hall 's wife .
she seemed to be thrown in towards the end
and i felt very little sympathy for her because i had not seen her enough earlier in the film .
" magnolia " uses several effective metaphors to describe its characters .
anderson has the talent to make the audience sympathetic towards numerous people in only a few hours .
to see that anderson is able to perfectly portray
this many different types of people shows that he has a keen sense of diversity .
diversity is what makes a director successful for a long period of time .
i predict a lot of diversity and success from anderson in the future .
Example Output:
P