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

Input: Consider Input: anastasia contains something that has been lacking from all of the recent disney releases . ..
( especially hercules ) .
.. emotion .
all the wacky characters voiced by celebrities and fantastically animated adventure sequences are n't going to hold anyone 's interest unless there is an emotional core to hold it all together .
not since disney 's beauty & the beast has there been such a compelling animated film with interesting characters and drama that works .
the story of the romanov family , the rulers of russia , and their downfall begins the film .
anastasia , one of the daughters , narrowly escapes the mad monk rasputin ( voiced by christopher lloyd ) with her grandmother ( voiced by angela landsbury ) .
but anastasia gets lost , and grows up with no memory of her royal origins .
the grandmother lives in paris , hoping to someday find her beloved anastasia , the only member of the family to survive the russian revolution .
a young woman named anya ( voiced by meg ryan ) runs across dimitri ( john cusack ) and vlad ( kelsey grammar ) , who are trying to put together a scheme to create an anastasia to fool the grandmother and get the reward money .
they pick anya to pose as their princes , and of course , it is soon revealed that anya is in fact the lost anastasia .
dimitri realizes that he can never win her love as he is a commoner , and meanwhile , rasputin is not dead , and plots his revenge against the last romanov .
the plot is actually quite well structured .
there are a lot of complexities that may have to be explained to the kids later , but it moves along fast enough that they 'll never have time to be bored .
what this really means is that the adults wo n't be bored by it either .
there is a great deal of banter between anya and dimitri that is very funny , and their relationship develops quite naturally as the film progresses .
there is , of course , lots of comedy for the kids , including rasputin 's pet bat , bartok ( hank azaria ) , who is easily the funniest thing in the film . however , the comical scenes never distract from the drama , but are worked into the plot almost seamlessly .
the animation is gorgeous - the characters seem to come to life through the talented animators .
not since beauty & the beast have animated characters had so much life to them .
even without the voices , they act .
the musical number in paris is a show - stopper , with some of the backgrounds rendered in an impressionist painting style .
as with all recent animated features , there are songs , however ,
these songs do more than just provide fodder for top-40 singers to get on the radio ( although there are three of them during the end credits ) .
the songs are all very catchy , and advance the plot , instead of just being showpieces
( except for the paris number , but that 's so much fun , it 's okay .
.. ) . i ca n't reccomend anastasia highly enough .
it 's a wonderful film that ranks right up there with other animated classics .
kids and adults alike will enjoy it , and it 's also nice to have a quality animated feature film from another studio besides disney .

Output: P


Input: Consider Input: warning : spoilers are included in this review . . .
but it does n't really make much of a difference .
deep impact begins the official summer movie season , and it also brings back memories of 1997 .
remember when dante 's peak came out in february ?
a few months later , volcano was released .
the first film was smart , exhilirating , and one of the best disaster films i had ever seen .
the latter film was an incohesive mess that defied logic and wasted talent .
well , it 's deja vu all over again as two disaster films go head to head in competition .
this time , unfortunately , the first comet flick is so bad that people may shy away from armageddon , the upcoming comet - disaster to be released the beginning of july .
of course , the general reaction of the audience was oppposed to mine , and so i am in the minority , as i was when i stood on the side of dante 's peak .
but while watching deep impact , i began to wonder how anyone in their right mind could actually like this film .
apparently many did , and it utterly baffles me . to be completely honest , i have n't had this little fun watching a disaster film in my entire life .
volcano had implausibilities up the wazoo , but it was still rather fun to watch .
deep impact does n't just have implausibilities , it also contains cheap human drama , incredibly horrible special effects , and a poorly constructed plot .
the only thing that gives it a half star above my bottom ranking is a slightly entertaining final fifteen minutes and some good actors making the most of their characters .
deep impact begins in an unnamed year ( the year varies ; advanced technology sets it in the future , but fire in the sky is showing on a local movie theater , pushing it back to 1993 ) .
a line of students is outside at night , peering through telescopes at the dark sky above .
among these are leo biederman ( elijah wood ) and sarah hotchner ( leelee sobieski ) .
leo unknowingly discovers a comet , and his teacher sends a photo of the unknown object to an astronomer , who then is able to determine the correct path of this distant comet in about a few seconds .
he races off to mail the information , but is killed in a reckless car accident .
a year passes , and nothing is heard about it again .
we are then introduced to jenny lerner ( t ? a leoni ) , a reporter for msnbc .
she gets handed a job to investigate a possible cover - up in the government involving senator alan rittenhouse ( james cromwell ) .
she talks to a woman who mentions that rittenhouse was having an affair with a girl named ellie .
after talking with rittenhouse , and unsatisfied with the information she gets , she decides to use the internet for help .
luckily , she knows exactly how to spell the certain " ellie " that she is looking for ( they spell it ele in the film . . .
that girl is pretty darn smart for guessing how it was spelled ) . before she can use the information , the government decides to push her car off the road .
they take her in to meet the president of the united states , president beck ( morgan freeman ) .
beck recommends that jenny keep the information secret for 48 hours so they can confirm it and then hold a press conference .
naturally , she wants to be compensated , and they offer her a front row seat and the chance for the first question .
and so , yada yada yada
, they reveal the comet to the public and their plans : send a massive spacecraft out to destroy it before it can arrive .
they announce a plan called " ark , " which is their only hope for survival .
a computer will select 800 , 000 people at random .
these people are the ones who will go into a large cave underground so that the impact of the comet wo n't kill off the entire human race .
after two years , the dust will settle ( actually , it would take much , much longer -- approximately ninety years , from what i understand ) and the humans could come back to the surface and start over .
the rest of the plot is your standard disaster film procedures , but there is one subplot worth mentioning .
jenny and her father , jason ( maximilian schell ) , have a very touching relationship that forms out of the impending doom .
the final moment involving the two characters is heartfelt and emotional .
it 's a shame that nothing else is heartfelt .
now , of course , we all know that the comet does impact the surface .
the title alone suggests it , and the previews actually show it !
by doing this , absoltuely no tension can be drawn from any attempt to stop the comet because we all know that it wo n't work .
director mimi leder came from her successful tries at direction with episodes of the hit television show " er .
" her major film debut was the peacemaker , a pathetic and heartless action film .
well , this time leder outdid herself , creating a film worse than that one .
suggestion to ms .
leder : please , stay away from the big screen , or at least the action genre .
much of the blame can be placed on leder directly , because the pace is disastrously off
.
throughout the film we are given subtitles that tell us how much time has passed ( it goes from months to weeks to hours ) .
it literally feels like this lapsed time is taking place in real - time --
it 's that boring
.
of course , leder is n't all to blame for it .
screenwriters michael tolkin and bruce joel rubin have crafted a simplistic story that only gets worse with time .
what starts out promising soon turns deadly ( for the audience anyway ) .
chock full of cheesy one liners
( " you know , you are going to have more sex than anyone else in school ! " ) and
stupid characters
, you might think we were back in the 70s again .
only one of the subplots is remotely interesting , while the rest are forgettable and boring
.
and the main plot is so outrageous that you ca n't figure out if this film is supposed to be an action , drama , or sci - fi .
to put it simply : the special effects of this film are a hit and miss situation .
that 's right , 80 % miss , and 20 % hit .
scenes above the earth are well done , and the orbiting ship is majestic .
but the comet is a huge mistake , making it more laughable than frightening .
the concept of even trying to land on a comet is preposterous enough , but that 's forgiveable .
what is n't forgiveable is actually having humans walk on the surface .
give me a break , will ya ?
and of course , the much hyped collision of comet and earth .
well , it is far from spectacular , and it makes independence day look brilliant .
the water rushing towards the land is effective , but once it hits the continent , the effects turn ridiculous .
cgi water is used , and it looks so bad that i heard more laughs from the audience than shrieks
.
in fact , i may even recommend the film for those who want to see how bad effects can actually get these days .
just when we think visual effects ca n't be improved , along comes a film to show that they really can and should be .
one thing has struck a wrong note with me concerning mimi leder 's direction , which also influences the actors .
leder loves to show the actors ' faces before and during moments of terror .
this reminded me of another action director , renny harlin ( die hard 2 , cliffhanger ) .
but harlin succeeds because he shows the faces of the victims in realistic situations .
leder likes to flaunt people 's fears via their faces , but instead of coming off as sympathetic , leder seems more of a sadist .
one moment has an astronaut flying off into space .
this should be enough to warrant a response from the audience , but leder wants to go farther and shows us the person 's face while drifting into space .
this is one of the cheapest ways to ellicit an emotional response from an audience , and i , for one , am not going to be fooled .
on another note , leder 's film only picks up its pace during the last fifteen minutes when the comet actually impacts .
the pace does pick up , and some very emotional moments are shown .
then again , when you watch people cry for their loved ones , it 's obvious it will be emotional .
it 's mostly just a big trick to rope viewers into " feeling " for the characters , but it did n't work for me .
but anyway , the actors do as much as they can with what they are given .
t ?
a leoni ( bad boys , tv 's " the naked truth " ) is the best of the film , and she is given the meatiest role .
her character is made stronger by leoni 's presence , and we grow to care for her .
robert duvall is energetic and fun to watch , but his character is turned into shreds by the plot .
elijah wood also comes off rather successfully , but he still has n't had many good roles ( wood , stick to drama !
you are too talented for this stuff ) .
vanessa redgrave is barely acknowledgeable , and her performance is only enhanced by her strong presence on screen .
maximilian schell is distracting , but he does provide some nice humor .
morgan freeman has been infinitely better than this , and gives one of his most shallow performances to date ( which is quite remarkable for him ) .
leelee sobieski could have been better , but i think she just suffered from a poorly written character .
a special note should go to ron eldard and denise crosby .
eldard is good in his role , but is limited by the plot .
crosby is special to me personally because she was tasha yar from tv 's " star trek : the next generation .
" seeing her was one of the highlights of the film .
overall , a very talented cast virtually wasted .
deep impact is rated pg-13 for disaster related elements and brief language .
this is one of the worst films of the year , and if it is any omen of things to come , this summer could be one of the worst ever .
luckily , the x - files movie is coming up , and hopefully armageddon will be more successful .
it 's a shame that this film will do so successfully because it just is n't worth much .
costing nearly $ 75 million , with special effects done by the illustrious ilm ( which is a huge shocker ) , and with a score composed by oscar - winner james horner ( titanic ) , one might have expected this to be more fun to witness and experience .
well , it 's not .
when the comet does hit the earth , you almost wish it could just take this film along with it .

Output: N


Input: Consider Input: cinema has been around for about a hundred years now .
?
it 's not my job to recap this century every time i talk about a new film , but i 'd like to think that i 'm beginning to understand the art more as i watch more films from before my time .
recently , i 've seen the films of hitchcock , capra , fellini , godard , kurosawa , chaplin , lang , and many others . ?
those men were talented artists , and their films reflect their genius . ?
they are likely to be remembered for .
. .
well , quite a while .
?
i like this film , too .
?
yes , it 's a disaster - slash - action movie .
?
true , its budget is a lot more money than i 'll ever see in my lifetime . ?
and there 's not a doubt in my mind that the only reason it was conceived was to make a lot of money .
?
in fact , i bet the producers of armageddon would have worked towards a lousy film , had they thought it would 've been more profitable .
i certainly do n't care what their intentions were , because michael bay ( the rock ) is such a skilled director that i doubt he 'd ever make a film that is difficult to sit through .
of course , skillful direction does n't complete the package , but the rest of armageddon manages to keep everything together .
the story is well - thought out ( and perfectly paced to provide for an abundance of action sequences that never feel out of place ) ,
the acting is terrific , the script is sharp , and -- get this -- there are characters .
yes , you read that right .
armageddon actually has characters you can care about ! if you do n't like this film , then you have a problem with the genre itself : armageddon is as good as a film like this
can be .
if you 've seen deep impact , then you know the basic framework for the story .
it turns out that an asteroid the size of texas is going to strike the earth eighteen days from the start of the film .
so , it 's up to the u
. s .
government to stop it .
( why the u . s .
is always exclusively saddled with these problems is never fully investigated . )
their plan -- to send a group of experienced oil drillers up to the asteroid , drill down several hundred feet , and detonate a nuclear warhead within .
the head driller is harry stamper ( bruce willis ) .
his group of men is a colorful bunch , including a .
j .
( ben affleck ) , chick ( will patton ) , and rockhound ( steve buscemi ) .
there 's also an interesting triangle formed between a .
j . , harry , and grace ( liv tyler ) , who is harry 's daughter .
a .
j .
and grace are , of course , romantically intertwined , and dad is n't too happy with the situation .
it 's absurd to wish for a complicated story in an event movie or a special effects movie or
whatever it is you 'd like to call armageddon .
it 's not about story -- it 's about viscera and action , and thrills - a - minute , and all that stuff .
it 's incidental , really , that the story is cohesive and even remotely believable , because most people will be too wrapped up in the explosions to give two seconds ' thought to what actually happens .
but bay is the one to congratulate in this case , for he has made a film
so entertaining and so visually sharp
that i doubt any director could have done it better .
i think most of the budget went to cameras alone , because bay films every action sequence from about thirty or forty different angles .
take the spectacular opening scene , for instance , in which a meteor shower obliterates new york .
a meteor flies out of the sky and crashes into a building , which sends fireballs erupting into the air and cars spinning like tops upon other cars .
the action itself might take five seconds in real life , but bay edits so quickly that we get the same scene in six different ways .
i like his quick - edit style , because it 's abrasive and exhausting to watch .
it 's also very loud , and obnoxiously noisy at times .
but it 's fun to be obnoxious sometimes .
the special effects in this film put every other 1998 blockbuster to shame .
deep impact , visually , has absolutely nothing on armageddon , and to offer a comparison between the quality of this film and godzilla is simply laughable .
special effects are very important in a film like this : if they 're not good , then the image is not convincing , and the film does n't work .
everything here looks bright and explosive
-- from the little meteors bursting through skyscrapers , all the way to the shots of the earth through the jutting rocks on the ominously approaching asteroid .
the effects that do n't look totally real are still a pleasure to behold , and i credit everyone involved for creating the first blockbuster
so nice - looking that it actually qualifies as art
.
of course , all of this would add up to little more than an above - average light show , if i did n't get the feeling that bay cares as much about his characters as he does about his action .
the film is two and a half hours long , and not all of that is spent submerged in numbing action .
much of the film is dedicated to developing the various characters ' subplots .
i wo n't suggest that these are complex characters , but their problems are real , and the emotions are n't put forth in a sentimental and overbearing way .
in fact , there are three or four scenes here that had me pretty choked up , and that 's a lot more than i can say about deep impact , which was banking on the feel - good parts of its story .
bruce willis is terrific , and i 'm glad to see him bigger than life again ( recent turns in films like mercury rising have been very disappointing ) .
tyler and affleck are great together , and make a convincing couple -- all of the scenes between them work on a comfortable level .
patton , who is a magnificent actor , thankfully is not wasted here , and the minor subplot revolving around his ex - wife and son is very moving
.
the comic relief from buscemi and peter stormare ( who plays a crazy russian astronaut ) is nifty , and keeps the film lively and funny
.
i was n't challenged to think real hard while watching armageddon , and i do n't mind too much .
but the film does n't insult my intelligence -- it 's pitched perfectly to entertain , which is what all it really wants to do .
it 's not mindless and escapist , but well - crafted cinema .
it might have been created for the wrong reasons , but men like michael bay have my respect for showing me that they are interested in making something good , in spite of the producers and the budget .
i 'm not saying that films like this are risky moves .
what i am saying is that armageddon is a big , loud , expensive motion picture that reminds me that art often comes in the strangest of forms .


Output: P