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

Example Input: a common complaint amongst film critics is " why are n't there more literate scripts available ?
" quiz show gives signs of hope that the art of writing is n't dead in hollywood and that we need not only look to independent films for thoughtful content .
paul attanasio 's script takes what could have been a tepid thriller ( the quiz show scandals of the late 50s ) and delivers a telling parable about the emptiness of the post war american dream and the golden bubble that surrounds and protects tv networks and their sponsors .
the film is riddled with telling symbols
( e . g .
a ' 58 chrysler , a radio announcement of sputnik ) but is never heavy handed . deft direction by robert redford and keen performances by ralph fiennes , john turturro and rob morrow
dovetail perfectly with the carefully honed script .
redford departs from the usually overlight , " cable tv quality " sets and camera work so common in recent 20th century period pieces .
quiz show
perfectly captures the colors and textures of the eisenhower years .
although i was only 4 years old when the " twenty one " scandal broke , enough of the 50s icons survived throughout my childhood for me to recognize the authenticity of redford 's almost tangible palette .
from plastic covered furniture to carefully coifed contestants , the images ring true from that era of rampant consumerism , of a generation that had gone through 15 years of depression and world war without " disposable income , " before the manifestation of its american dream .
the film deftly weaves several themes together , from assimilation and exclusion of jews from " the good life , " to the lengths that a scion of a literary family will go to to match his father 's fame .
though the 50s audience that is " rocked " by this scandal may initially seem naive to us , they should appear all too familiar , with our current national passion for the rise and fall of icons like michael jackson or tonya harding .
charles van doren and herbie stemple were the overnight mega celebrities of their day .
the tv audience is almost a fourth main character , always at the center of the decisions being made on their behalf .
at the film 's end , the credits roll past slow motion footage of that same 50s tv audience , mindlessly laughing at some piece of fluff .
like the distorted mirror that captured a blurred swastika at the end of cabaret , this " mirror " may reflect an image we 're not all that comfortable with .
Example Output: P

Example Input: in one of my many videos i have attained from the local library , casablanca was my third classic in some weeks .
the others being citizen kane and vertigo ( yes , i am trying to see as many of afi 's greatest movies ever made as i can ) .
but , casablanca stood out from the rest for me : it was actually watchable .
what most hail as the greatest american film ever , casablanca is n't so much a love story as a political frenzy with a love triangle thrown in .
it seems that star humphry bogart spend about 85 percent of the movie with various leaders of the nation instead of with ingred bergman .
that annoyed me , as did the ending .
why did n't the plan turn around ? ! ?
surprisingly , i enjoyed the film .
i liked bogart 's character and his acting
( not over the top as most actors in his era ) .
i once read about if you had a choice to be in a movie , which one would it be , and a women said casablanca .
at first i was thinking to myself " why ?
" then , as i watched the film again , i understood why .
the movie is very well done and the script top - notch , although i doubt i understood more than half of the political mumbo jumbo .
casablanca is , in my mind , no classic ( like solaris ) , but it is a good film and stylishly shot
.
hey , hollywood , how about this : a remake with harrison ford and anne heche ?
now that would be a classic .
Example Output: P

Example Input: the general 's daughter will probably be the cleverest stupid film we 'll see this year -- or perhaps the stupidest clever film .
it 's confusing to a critic when
so much knuckleheaded plotting and ostentatious direction shares the screen with so much snappy dialogue and crisp character interaction .
that , however , is what happens when legendary screenwriter william goldman takes a pass at an otherwise brutally predictable conspiracy thriller .
the punched - up punch lines are ever on the verge of convincing you the general 's daughter has a brain in its head , even as the remaining 75 % of the narrative punches you in the face with its lack of common sense .
our hero is warrant officer paul brenner , a brash investigator for the u . s .
army 's criminal investigation division .
his latest case is the murder of captain elisabeth campbell ( leslie stefanson ) at a georgia base , the victim found tied to the ground after an apparent sexual assault and strangulation .
complicating the case is the fact that capt .
campbell is the daughter of general joe campbell ( james cromwell ) , a war hero and potential vice - presidential nominee .
general campbell wants to keep the case out of the press , which gives brenner only the 36 hours before the fbi steps in .
teamed with rape investigator sarah sunhill ( madeleine stowe ) -- who , coincidentally enough , once had a romantic relationship with brenner --
brenner begins uncovering dark secrets from the late captain 's past that make the case ever more sordid .
if only the sordidness were the worst of the general 's daughter 's problems .
scenes of sexual degredation do linger much longer than necessary , their negligible dramatic value overwhelmed by filtered - light sleaze .
director simon west likely thinks he 's covered himself by juxtaposing these images of violence with sweet flowers , but all he does is prove himself dependent on visual cliches , which is the film 's fatal flaw .
it 's a trend he continues for two hours , taking the story 's few virtues and slapping a coat of moron - proof obviousness over them .
characters who may ( wink wink ) turn out to be villains are photographed in ominous shadow ; cutaway inserts of the captain campbell 's still - living face after the corpse is uncovered insure against five - minute attention spans .
west just ca n't help himself from overdirecting every minute of the general 's daughter .
he even turns a scene of footage shown on cnn into an excuse for slow - fade edits .
bubbling up from this overcooked stew are enough tasty lines to distract you from its smell .
the slickest scene finds brenner squaring off with captain campbell 's mentor , a psychological warfare expert named moore ( james woods ) .
there 's something invigorating about watching two smart actors playing smart characters firing honesty at one another .
indeed , travolta gets to sink his teeth into dozens of choice lines based on his delight at provoking authority figures ( to the local sheriff of the georgia county : " should n't you be out night - sticking the colored folk ? " ) .
even the lame device of brenner and sunhill 's sexual history provides a few winning zingers .
goldman 's dialogue can serve up a bigger laugh than you 'll find in most so - called comedies .
dialogue , unfortunately , just is n't enough to make a quality script .
it 's difficult to take a movie about a criminal investigation seriously when the investigators are both too stupid to solve it sooner ( an idiotic inability to recognize the nature of the crime scene ) and too lucky for it to last any longer ( not one but two occasions where brenner catches a vital piece of evidence out of the corner of his eye ) .
by the time the general 's daughter wanders towards its over - wrought , psycho - in - the - rain finale
, west 's heavy hand has obliterated most of what made the film occasionally fun .
it 's silly and pretentious film - making , but at least it provides a giggle or five .
goldman should tear the 15 decent pages out of this script and turn them into a stand - up routine .
Example Output:
N