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

Example Input: _ in brief : _ this film needs no introduction . if you have n't heard of it , then you must have been up in space on a sabbatical , and if you have n't seen it -- well , i suspect you 're in a small minority !
first thing 's first ?
is it all it 's hyped up to be ?
well , yes ?
and no .
it 's a good film , and there 's a lot to like about it , but it 's not without its problems .
when i saw the first trailer for " titanic " , it was when i went to see " bean " last summer , i think , my intial reaction was --
ai n't that downright sick to make a disaster movie out of such a dreadful , real - life tragedy ? !
i mean , what 's happened to hollywood 's script - writers , have they run entirely out of new ideas ?
gads ,
whatever next , i asked myself , how about an action film based on hiroshima starring jean claude van damme ?
i was not entirely filled with anticipation , but then i was n't alone in that respect .
it 's when it came out in the cinema , to rave reviews ( well , mostly ) and
anyone who 'd been to see it seemed disturbingly obsessed by it that i started to take notice !
i did n't see the film until several months after its release ( by which time my sister had seen it about four times ! ) , so i went with a slightly more open mind , but i still did n't think i 'd enjoy it much .
did i ?
yes
and no .
mainly yes , i 'm happy to say .
the first hour or so was beautifully done , not so much because of the scripting
( i 'll talk about that later ? ) but because the re - created ship and sets were stunning to look at , as was cameron 's directing , and the performances of the principal cast were so strong that the " human " aspect of the story , the romance between rose ( kate winslet ) and jack ( leonardo dicaprio ) , was enchanting
.
the film is told via flashback , with gloria stuart playing the elderly rose in the modern day ( you knew that , a ' course ! : - ) ) .
well , it 's an often effective device to use in storytelling -- though sometimes it can fall flat .
does it work here ?
in script form it does n't add all that much to the story .
what does add a lot to the story is gloria stuart , whose stunning performance is the strongest , most moving of the film .
her presence brings a much deeper level of passion , and depth to the story , and though her appearances are relatively brief , the film would have suffered without her . also impressive are dicaprio and winslet , who wholly succeed in rising above the often poor dialogue , and the bond they form is both heartfelt and moving
.
it 's an old story , you know -- forbidden love ala romeo and juliet -- but it works , and jack 's " rescuing " rose ( in both literal and figurative senses ) and teaching her to live life for what counts was pointed and touching .
in fact , i enjoyed the first half of the film a lot , largely because winslet and dicaprio bring such and charm , energy to the romance .
it 's engaging , touching and very enjoyable .
there 's more than a tinge of poignancy to it as well ,
simply because you know it 's not going to be a happy ending .
which leads us to the second half of the film .
we all knew it was coming .
i 'm sure director cameron was looking forward with eager anticipation to it , because as he 's stated in interviews , the real thrust of the story ( for him ) was the sinking , and the jack / rose romance was a merely a manipulative plot device to get you emotionally into the film .
i think that understates the importance of the romance , as i found it far more enjoyable than an hour of watching people die .
the iceberg arrives , and the captain announces that titanic will have sunk in about an hour .
and it is an hour .
my goodness , we do n't miss a second of that hour ?
gratuitous ?
well , perhaps not by today 's standards , i 'm sure there 's been far worse produced under the banner of " entertainment " in other films .
but i certainly was n't prepared for how shocking and graphic the last hour or so would be .
not that i 'd expect the word " understatement " to be part of cameron 's vocabulary ( he who brought us such , umm , vivid films as " terminator 2 " and " aliens " ) .
is it overdone ?
i thought so .
understatement can sometimes work wonders in conveying tragedy .
no , no one expected a happy ending , but i did n't quite expect the horrendously shocking and powerful scenes we were bombarded throughout the film 's second half .
still , whether it was overdone and heavy - handed or not , if it was the shock - factor cameron was after it worked , because i was shocked and moved , in fact i spent most of the last hour in tears !
you really could n't help but get emotionally involved ,
whether it was wishing someone would knock that dreadfully psychotic fiance of rose 's overboard or desperately hoping that rose would rescue jack , or that jack would rescue rose , or that they would both survive .
perhaps the most harrowing scene was when the ship has sunk , and those that sunk along with the ship freeze to death on the water surface .
the bit where rose lets go of jack 's hand , while promising she 'll never let go in her heart was particularly heart - wrenching , and the sight of rescue boats sailing amid the ocean of corpses was a pretty powerful image , to put no fine a point on it .
i loved the ending , however , which was both moving and slightly uplifting following the horror of the past hour and a half .
so , we 've established that the film is powerful and moving , if the last hour was rather excessive . have n't mentioned the script .
plot - wise
it 's ok , though the jack / rose relationship was beautifully developed
,
but i 've a feeling that 's to the actors
credit if anything .
as for the dialogue ?
well , titanic is set in 1912 .
it 's a period drama .
but i saw very little indication of period in so far as the dialogue is concerned .
did they really use phrases like " goddamn it !
" back in the turn of the century ?
i doubt it .
would someone talk like this : " do ya love the guy or what ? " .
i doubt it .
is such dialogue as " i saw the iceberg , and i see it in your eyes now
" not just a bit ? clumsy ?
yes it is .
a little more attention to dialogue would not have gone astray , and cameron himself is to blame ( he wrote the script ) .
stick with directing , dude .
but its more than redeemed by the acting , with dicaprio and winslet on fine form , ably supported by a strong cast .
star of the show was gloria stuart , though --
why did n't she win that oscar ? !
after all , they were throwing oscars at " titanic " left , right and centre , but gloria was perhaps the most deserving nominee . directing - wise cameron does a spectacular job .
like i said , his vision was a bit excessive , but at least he directed it well .
i have n't even mentioned james horner 's beautiful score .
utterly heavenly , though when your dad and sister play the soundtrack a lot you do start to get a bit bored with it !
; - ) i 've finished my rant , which lasted a lot longer than i thought it would !
just leaves a couple of questions ; was it worth all those oscars ?
hell , do n't talk to me about oscars .
bloomin ' farce .
it was deserving in a number of departments , though .
last question ; is it , as some suggest , one of the best films of all - time ?
nope , i do n't think so .
it 's certainly one of the most powerful and memorable films i 've ever seen ,
but i do n't think it quite ranks as one of my all - time favourites .
and as for the fact they 're reportedly making a " titanic 2 " ?
well i guess that 's typical hollywood for you !
Example Output: P

Example Input: long ago , films were constructed of strong dialogue , original characters , memorable plot points , and solid acting .
one of the best examples that hollywood now completely ignore these qualities is found in the new film where the heart is .
this opus about the power of love and the redemption of family follows the tragic , and i mean tragic , life of novalee nation ( natalie portman ) .
hitting the road with her hick , guitar - playing boyfriend in a rusted - out gm , novalee dreams of the blue skies of bakersfield and sipping chocolate milk beneath a plastic umbrella with her unborn baby , due in a month .
stopping off at a nearby wal - mart for a quick rest , novalee 's boyfriend decides to take off and leaves her there .
novalee then decides to secretly hole up in the wal - mart ( because she 's not the brightest bulb in the stagelights ) .
a wacky librarian ( keith david ) comes to her rescue when she goes into labor one night while she is camped in the outdoors section of the store .
then the she moves in with a family , befriends everyone in town -- including ashley judd 's character ( who has five kids and still can work part - time as a nurse )
-- fights off religious freaks , survives a tornado , breaks the heart of the wacky librarian that saved her , receives an inheritance , builds a martha stewart - esque house , becomes an award - winning photographer , and manages to always look like she stepped out of a cosmo shoot , all while not once doing anything with her kid .
this film is terrible .
the directing is awful : it seems director matt williams had an index card with six angles written on it and used every one of them , over and over and over again .
we get pathetic and ugly acting by natalie portman , who can do good work .
a disjointed pacing of key scenes and a time structure so confusing that it would throw steve prefontaine off .
a subplot that actually validates the actions of the boyfriend who abandoned novalee in the wal - mart parking lot .
an embarrassing display of emotions by the characters , making the audience ill .
taking two great comedic screenwriters , babaloo mandel and lowell ganz , and forcing them to write drama on par with oprah 's book club .
altogether , it has the feeling of being trapped at home , watching a very bad television mini - series and wishing it to end , only the remote is broken .
however , the main problem with the film is that it never answers the most poignant question brought up : where is the heart ?
no one ever seems to find it in this piece of junk .
Example Output: N

Example Input: " mercury rising " has numerous flaws , but there is one that really stands out : its central plot device is unnecessary .
that 's right .
the major aspect of the film , that which is supposed to make it different from other routine government conspiracy / action flicks could be dropped from the beginning , and the movie would turn out exactly the same , if not better .
this central device is the fact that a nine - year - old boy is autistic .
his name is simon , and an evil government bureaucrat named nicholas kudrow ( alec baldwin ) wants him dead because he unknowingly cracked a supersecret government code slipped into the back of a puzzle magazine by its programmers just to see if someone could beat it .
simon is intended to be the heart and soul of the film , and we are supposed to feel for him because he is a poor handicapped child thrown into a violent , unfair world against his will , with only a renegade fbi agent played by bruce willis to protect him .
the fact that he is autistic does nothing for the emotional intensity or the plot necessities of " mercury rising .
"
i suppose the original novel upon which the movie was based did much more with this aspect of simon 's character and his relationship with willis , but here it is lost .
miko hughes , the young actor who plays simon , goes through the prescribed motions of being autistic : he walks slowly , drawls his words , kicks and screams when he 's touched , and has a hard time looking at other people .
it 's a difficult role for an adult , much less a young child , to play , and unfortunately hughes never convinces us that he is n't playing like he 's autistic .
unlike dustin hoffman 's performance in " rain man " or leonardo dicaprio 's in " what 's eating gilbert grape , " we are always painfully aware that hughes is acting .
however , unlike " rain man " which used its character 's autism in unique and interesting ways to build a credible and touching story , " mercury rising " could go right about its generic , predictable plot with simon being simply a really smart but really shy kid .
hell , he does n't even have to be shy .
in fact , the movie might have been more interesting if he had had a more active role , rather than just being carted around under willis ' arm .
willis ' character , art jeffries , is a disillusioned fbi agent who has been removed from undercover work and is now doing menial tasks like listening to wiretaps with rookies who are happy to be doing anything .
he becomes involved with simon when he is called to check out a murder scene at simon 's house , where his father has apparently shot his mother in the back and then committed suicide .
of course , we know that is n't the way it happened happen because we saw an evil , square - jawed government hitman with a mean - looking crew - cut knock off the parents .
simon was able to get away , and jeffries finds him hiding in a secret compartment in a closet , which the rest of the chicago police department had overlooked .
jeffries -- who is accused by several characters at different times of being paranoid although his actions never suggest it -- knows there is something more , and he makes it his personal mission to go against everything and everyone in order to protect simon .
this is quite a task because that same hitman who knocked off simon 's parents is crawling everywhere , attempting to kill simon at the hospital , on the highway , and every other place he goes .
late in the movie , jeffries is forced to enlist the aid of a pretty young woman named stacey ( kim dickens ) who he meets at a coffee shop .
of all the hard - to - believe aspects of the movie , this is the worst .
i can believe in the decency of the human heart , but stacey 's character is far too accommodating .
not only does she agree to watch simon while jeffries runs off to solve the mystery , she lets him into her apartment at two o'clock in the morning when she knows the police is after him , and then lets him leave simon in her apartment which means that she has to forgo a business trip that is desperately needed to pay the rent .
the grinding squeals of the rusty plot machine are almost overbearing at this point .
the movie might have been redeemed by some good action sequences , but even here " mercury rising " does n't rise to the challenge .
the movie was directed by harold becker , who has made some good suspense films including " sea of love " ( 1989 ) and " malice " ( 1993 ) , but his talent is nowhere to be found in this latest excursion .
there is one fight on a streetcar between jeffries and another hitman ( played by peter stormare ) that is so ineptly directed , shot and edited , that i had no idea 1 ) exactly where they were on the streetcar , 2 ) who was hitting who , and
3 ) where this hitman came from and how he knew where jeffries and simon were .
the grand finale takes place on the roof of a tall building , and features a harrowing ( yawn ) scene where simon walks along the very edge of the building , not because he has to , but because it 's more suspenseful that way .
taken as a whole , " mercury rising " is an tepid , confused movie that lacks style , wit , and any traces of a sense of humor .
usually willis brings his personal brand of understated humor to his roles , but here he is too straight and serious .
this is because the movie wants to be an action flick and a heartfelt drama at the same time , but it ends up failing on both fronts .
maybe the book was better , but the way it 's handled here is a perfect case study in formula filmmaking guaranteed to bore .
Example Output:
N