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

Example Input: one would think that david duchovny , star of the cult favorite " x - files " would be very careful in choosing his leading man cinema roles .
at least one would hope so .
one would be seriously incorrect .
eugene sands ( duchovny ) is a surgeon so dedicated to his craft that he becomes addicted to amphetamines to stay awake and work more .
it turns out to be a bad plan when he loses a patient and his license while under the influence .
ten months later , in a seedy bar to score synthetic heroin , the doctor gets a chance to ply his trade when assassins gun down a customer . using a plastic water bottle and bar tubing , sands operates and saves his life .
smalltime hoodlum raymond blossom ( timothy hutton ) is impressed with the cutlery skills on his associate .
he kidnaps and then offers down - and - out eugene a position in his organization .
blossom needs a doctor to patch up gunshot victims that would be problematic at a hospital .
sand 's temptation is that this will give him a chance to practice medicine again albeit illegally , big chunks of cash to fuel his habit and close proximity to the gangster 's womanfriend claire ( angelina jolie ) , this film 's babe factor .
the would - be big time operator is desperately in need of help .
on the run from russian mobsters ( the bad guys that seem to be all the rage in this year 's films ) and trying to cut a pirate software deal with the chinese mafia , blossom is surrounded by blood .
after a few medical misadventures , the physician grows disenchanted with his employment .
an encounter with a couple of psycho surfer dudes who threaten to blow him away unless he " fixes " their dead buddy cements his feeling that he is in the wrong line of work .
when the fbi visits and forces him to become an informant , there is no question that he needs to be somewhere else .
oddly enough , these seem like they could be exciting scenes .
the film disproves that assumption .
then a bunch of other uninteresting things happen .
writing this only two days after seeing the film , its a struggle to remember the events .
you can take that as a solid lack of recommendation .
for all the coolness that duchovny exhibits in " x - files " , it 's a surprise that his big screen presence is
so lacking in charisma .
the doctor is particularly bland and dull .
even the cold turkey bit which is rife with dramatic possibilities come across as banal .
a little chocolate and minor sweats get him through heroin withdrawal .
like virtually everything else in the film , it 's a missed opportunity .
the fox mulder detachment does n't work here .
oscar - winner hutton 's manic mobster is much more difficult to get a handle on .
played partially for comedy and partially as crazed killer , blossom almost becomes real , but then sinks into goofiness .
most of the time hutton looks as if he 's searching for his character and coming up empty .
jolie also makes a few false moves towards creating a three - dimensional human being before giving up and turning into scenery .
the most interesting aspect of her performance is watching her pouty lips threaten to take over the screen .
the rest are n't any better .
michael massee 's eccentric fbi agent never revs up .
one of blossom 's henchmen steals a few moments of the show as a quirky gunman reminiscent of val kilmer 's doc holliday in " tombstone " .
his two - gunned blasting as he does a bizarre dance is the high point of the film .
but that 15 seconds is n't worth sitting through the other 90 minutes .
first time film director andy wilson ( known for his work on the british television series " cracker " ) appears to be attempting to jump on the " pulp fiction " bandwagon .
the best of these movies combine a sense of style and flash with significant substance .
the second - rate ones concentrate on just one of these aspects .
" playing god " does neither well .
the basic idea of the film is solid .
and then it goes nowhere .
even worse , it plods back and forth , up and down a long and winding road before
it ends up nowhere .
fox fails yet again in his search for intelligent life .
Example Output: N

Example Input: capsule : where are you tonight ,
leni rienfenstal ?
starship troopers is an expensive , hateful and unenjoyable piece of violent pornography -- and bad pornography , at that .
it is not good cinema , not good storytelling , and not even stupid fun
: it 's so cynically , calculatedly bone - headed that even the least demanding members of the audience i was with were alternately bored and revulsed
.
it 's one of the worst movies
i 've seen in a long time .
why am i calling this movie pornography ?
pornography , in the abstract , is anything which is calculated to appeal to the baser instincts .
i remember reading a review of full metal jacket which described the climact moment at the end of the movie , where private joker has to shoot the downed vc sniper , as " a near - pornographic eternity " .
i did n't agree with that assessment , but i could see what was being implied : the reviewer felt as if the audience was being incited to stand up and pump their fists and shout " do ' er , man , do ' er ! " that sentiment is echoed ad nauseam throughout starship troopers .
it 's * literally * like a giant recruitment film that has gone berserk .
it tries frantically to enlist our emotions but it winds up only being dull or sickening .
the film takes place in our future , when earth has come under attack by some alien species that does n't appear to have intelligence .
to counterattack , humankind does the single stupidest thing imaginable : instead of nuke the planet from orbit , which they 're clearly capable of , they send down grunts with m-16 rifles .
this is n't heinlein , it 's a bad wwii movie , one where all the most obvious points of satire are ever poked and prodded in combat scenes that are noisy , repetitive , and ultimately tiresome .
( one scene has a journalist on a battlefield , filimg soldiers being slaughtered , and ends with groaning predictability : said cameraman gets skewered , too . )
the soldiers and their commanders are consistently idiotic .
they do not possess a germ of tactical intelligence or even common sense .
they do n't even behave like soldiers in a bad * movie * , and therefore we do n't care about them .
we hated the tom berenger character in platoon , but he * mattered * , and therefore we were curious to learn about his fate .
here , we do n't even hate the bugs -- what 's there to hate ?
hating them would be like cursing a hurricaine .
if there 's anything really hateful there , the movie does n't know how to give it to us .
the screenwriter ( ed neumeier -- perhaps a better appelation would be " screen typist " ) and director ( the increasingly talent - impaired paul verhoeven ) have not found any way to make the characters or the story serve each other .
one of the subplots concerns a woman pilot who 's great at getting out of tight situations , and does it again and again and again .
once or twice is fine .
by the fifth or sixth time , it 's worn out its welcome .
there 's never any sense that these people are really thinking their way out of anything , or really being tested to show their mettle .
also , the movie is irritatingly selective with how effective the bugs are to earthling weaponry .
if a bug has one of the humans screaming in its grasp , then five guys can stand around it and blast away on full auto without doing a damned thing .
but if one human gets cornered , he lays waste to whole platoons of bugs with one clip .
uh - huh .
the very worst feature of the movie is its repulsive quasi - fascist flavor .
i say " quasi- " because while the movie uses many of the trappings of fascism ot eroticize its action -- the gear , the uniforms , etc . -- the movie does n't have the nerve ( or the brains ) to be genuinely fascist , or intelligent about the subject .
the bumpers between scenes , which are apparently intended to parody wartime recruitment propaganda are propaganda -- just so clumsy and oafish that they wind up making the bugs look relatively innocuous in comparison .
like the rest of the movie .
there 's more , i suppose , but it 's not worth it .
the acting is bland
, neither arsenic nor gravy ; the music disposable ; the camerawork turgid
.
the heartbreaking thing is that it makes independence day look like a masterpiece .
Example Output:
N