In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or 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:
jean - luc picard ( patrick stewart ) and the rest of the crew of the u .
s .
s .
enterprise are back for their third outing in the ninth film based on the 1960 's series , star trek .
gone are kirk , spock and mccoy and in their wake in the very able and very talented cast from star trek : the next generation .
as usual , a crisis is brewing and it is up to the crew of the enterprise to make the galaxy safe again .
this time out the united federation of planets and an alien race led by f .
murray abraham are trying to move some colonists off a planet against the colonist 's will .
it turns out that this planet is the fountain of youth and the federation and their alien buddies feel that is should be used for the good of everyone and not just a few hundred colonists .
of course picard feels that this sort of treachery is wrong , so he disobeys direct orders and vows to help protect the colonists .
insurrection is a lighter movie than the last two star trek films .
the film focuses on the lofty question of whether the rights of society as a whole outweighs the rights of a small group .
in this respect it gets back to the roots of star trek by disguising social commentary as science fiction .
it does n't do a bad job , other than it tries to inject too much humor into the story line .
many of the jokes are your typical inside star trek - fan - only jokes , while many of the others just fall flat .
the other criticism that i had with the story was that it ignores common sense .
there are only a few hundred people on this whole planet , why do they have to be moved ?
the explanation is that the planet has to be bombarded with deadly radiation so that this fountain of youth effect will be strong enough to help heal f .
murray abraham 's aliens who number only a couple of dozen .
so the basic story line is bad enough in that we have a few hundred being booted out for a few billion , at least that 's plausible .
but in reality we have a few hundred being moved for the benefits of a few dozen , which makes no sense whatsoever .
the other little hiccup in logic is the inclusion of worf ( michael dorn ) , the trusty klingon .
worf was on star trek : the next generation , so they want to include him in the films .
no problem so far .
worf is now a character of star trek : deep space nine , so the writers have to find a way to have him show up .
in the last star trek movie , first contact , the included worf in a credible fashion , in this one , the writers are so lazy that the completely gloss over why he is even in the movie .
what little explanation they do give is so small that you would have missed it if you were n't hanging on every word on the screen .
my minor problems with the movie aside , star trek : insurrection does have an overwhelming number of good points as compared to its bad ones .
while many of the jokes do miss the mark , many are pretty good , even for non - trekkies .
the special effects are among the best for the star trek series .
the action is plentiful and well done .
this is a very good - looking movie .
it should come as no surprise to anyone who ever watched star trek : the next generation that the acting is first rate .
it is very obvious that these actors have been working together for over a decade .
they interact with each other with a skill that few other ensemble casts can muster .
most star trek fans probably will not be disappointed with this latest film in the series .
if you 've always hated star trek , there is nothing here that is going to change your mind .
star trek : insurrection is not the best film in the series , but it is good enough to dispel the long standing tradition of the odd numbered films in the series being far inferior to the even numbered ones .

Ex Output:
P


Ex Input:
cradle will rock is the latest effort from director / actor tim robbins .
while he may have had an oscar worthy film back in 1995 ( dead man walking ) ,
he gets a little overconfident and sloppy here .
the story is confusing , and filled with many subplots , so i 'll try my best and explain it as simply as possible .
the film is based on a " mostly " true story about a federal theater in the 1930s , that produced a play ( the cradle will rock ) that apparently was offensive to some , so the government shuts it down .
it 's during the time of the depression , and all this theater wants to do is entertain and cheer up those who do not have jobs , or are poor .
between this conflict lies what seems like 10 subplots , about those who work in theater , or those associated .
also along the way are some other messages mashed together to create an even more overwhelming experience .
tim robbin 's just keeps piling on political views , and characters , that we just give up on the film , or in some cases walk out .
for robbin 's it may be a nice achievement , but to me it seemed more like a friendly get together with slightly more sophisticated dialogue , and fancy outfits .
i thought the main reason for seeing the film would be for the outstanding cast ,
unfortunately are all uninteresting , except for a few .
let me recap what each important character does , so please bear with me
( it 's the least you can do , especially if you were considering seeing this ) .
i 'll begin with those involved with the play .
there 's orson welles ( angus macfadyen ) who of course is the director of the play , the producer john houseman ( cary elwes ) , marc blitzstein ( hank azaria ) the writer of the play , emily watson , a woman who gets her break by playing the main part in cradle will rock .
outside the play there 's the : ventriloquist ( bill murray ) who wants a relationship with a federal theater clerk ( joan cusack ) , another subplot involving a painter diego rivera ( ruben blades ) who 's unhappy that his painting is too be destroyed by nelson rockefeller because he feels it to be an outrage ( john cusack ) .
there 's a few other actresses and actors who have their own stories ( susan sarandon , philip baker hall too name a few ) but those that i mentioned , were the most significant to the story .
anyway , most of these talented hollywood stars were completely wasted , except for emily watson , who does another great job , and one of my personal favorite actors john cusack , who always delivers through thick and thin .
now although most of the film was weak to say the least , there were some nice moments and some involving subjects , but all this is overblown
.
sure the free speech segment was a nice feature , but not when it becomes repetitive .
the whole film is like this , and it 's basically nothing but a headache
.
on the brighter side , tim robbin 's direction was masterful .
his camera direction seemed reminiscent to the works of paul thomas anderson 's latest magnolia , only smoother in my opinion , but even that ca n't make a movie that much better .
although it has it 's moments ( not many of them , but they 're there ) , cradle will rock stays true to it 's title , because the cradle rocked too far and tipped over .

Ex Output:

N