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

Example Input: and now the high - flying hong kong style of filmmaking has made its way down to the classics , and it is n't pretty .
this time out the nod to asia goes by way of france in the excruciating bland and lukewarm production of the musketeer , a version of dumas 's the three musketeers .
by bringing in popular asian actor / stunt coordinator xing xing xiong -- whose only prior american attempts at stunt choreography have been the laughable van damme vehicle double team and the dennis rodman cinematic joke simon sez -- our musketeers are thrown into the air to do their fighting .
the end result is a tepid and dull action / adventure rip - off that stinks of indiana jones and bad asian kung fu .
the story is so simple my grandmother could have adapted the screenplay .
d'artagnan ( justin chambers ) is the vengeful son of a slain musketeer .
he travels to paris to join the royal musketeers and find the man that killed his parents .
in paris , he meets the cunning cardinal richelieu ( stephen rea ) , who is trying to overthrow the king , and richelieu 's man - in - black associate febre ( tim roth ) , the killer of his folks .
he finds the musketeers in paris disbanded and drunk , so he rounds up aramis ( nick moran ) , athos ( jan gregor kremp ) and porthos ( steven spiers ) to free the musketeer 's wrongfully imprisoned leader treville from the king 's prison .
d'artagnan and his new frisky love interest / chambermaid francesca ( mena suvari ) play footsy and coo at each other as the cardinal hunts down the musketeers until finally the queen ( catherine deneuve ) ends up being captured by the menancing febre , forcing the musketeers to regroup , with d'artagnan leading the charge , and save the day .
director peter hyams ( end of days ) obviously wanted to blend eastern and western filmmaking styles , but here it 's a disaster .
one problem is that , in reality , most eastern films have taken their lead from western ones .
jet li 's high risk is a rip - off of die hard -- not the other way around .
ironically , there is awfully little swordplay or action in the film at all -- maybe ten minutes of swashbuckling spread over five scenes .
most asian action films carry the bulk of their production with 20- to 30-minute action sequences , because they know the scenes have to carry the picture .
the musketeer instead weighs itself down with a predictable and monotonous screenplay by gene quintano ( sudden death ) , horrible acting
by stephen rea and tim roth , and the prosaic attempt of justin chambers ( the wedding planner ) to deliver his mousy self as a leader .
chambers ' d'artangnan is n't a musketeer -- he 's a mouseketeer ! and hyam 's use of candles and torches to light the grime and filth of 17th century paris are well - noted , but that 's the only standout in
an overall flat production .
Example Output: N

Example Input: "
what 's your favorite new york moment ? "
" this one 's climbing the charts .
" starring john cusack , kate beckinsale , eugene levy , molly shannon .
directed by peter chelsom .
rated pg-13 .
there 's no doubt that 95 % of romantic comedies follow a distinct pattern
: guy sees girl , guy wants girl , guy goes through unreasonable obstacles to get girl , guy gets girl .
in rare cases , the genders are flipped .
predictability is a given .
rarely , though , is a romantic comedy as cheap , as obvious , or as pointless as serendipity , a film that uses its " theme " as an excuse for its plot contrivances .
" lightweight " does n't begin to describe it .
this is like anti - gravity .
it begins in a new york city bloomingdale 's , a product placement that rivals cast away 's fedex for sheer blatancy .
jonathan trager ( john cusack ) and sara thomas ( kate beckinsale ) both go for the same pair of gloves .
after going through the perfunctory motions , jonathan gets to keep the gloves and the two of them go out for ice cream , followed by ice skating .
jonathan falls hard , and sara is charmed . when she writes her name and number down on a piece of paper , a truck rumbles by and blows it out of her hand .
she takes this as a sign from fate that they should n't be together ; jonathan is flabbergasted . to pacify him , she comes up with an idea : jonathan will write his number on a 5 dollar bill , which she will promptly spend .
when she gets home , she will write her name and number inside a book ( " love in the time of cholera " ) and sell it to a used bookstore .
if the bill gets back to her or the book to him , it will mean that they are meant to be together .
three years later .
both sara and jonathan are now engaged to other love interests .
both realize they are n't content .
both go looking for the other .
what happens now is so absurd that i 'm almost tempted to recommend the film for the sake of seeing it .
the two of them run circles around each other in a set of incredible " coincidences " that i would describe as contrivances if it were n't for the film
oh - so - cleverly dismissing that criticism by building its plot around " serendipity .
"
of course , since the movie is about fate , the screenwriter can do anything he damn well pleases .
i 'm not buying it .
there 's no suspense in any of this because we know exactly what 's going to happen , but serendipity insists on drilling its purportedly " adorable " non - story into our heads .
instead of " will they meet ?
"
the question we 're asking is " when will they meet already ? " to make matters worse , every " coincidence " is telegraphed from a mile away ; by the last reel
i was bored enough to actively look for signs that something else " incredible " was going to happen .
cusack is fine and beckinsale , at least , is n't saddled with another lumbering , clunky screenplay ( she 's had bad luck , what with brokedown palace and pearl harbor on her resume ) , just an inanely pointless one .
serendipity also relieves the tedium with the amazing eugene levy , who plays a snarky bloomingdale 's salesman .
what 's the interest in watching a movie that spirals around and around a predestined
( no pun intended ) conclusion ?
serendipity wants to tug at the heartstrings , but it only tests our patience .
Example Output: N

Example Input: starting with the little mermaid and most recently the lion king , the walt disney company once again proved that they could not only consistently make modern day animated classics , but were particularly in touch with what the general viewing public -- particularly kids-- wanted to see .
therefore , it 's with some surprise that as a big fan of the above mentioned movies
i was so disappointed with pocahontas .
despite some innovation and risk taking , the story is surprisingly straightforward and dramatized in broad strokes , as are its characters .
a group of englishmen lead by the evil governor ratcliffe come to the new world in search of gold with no regard for the " savages " that live there .
the natives look upon the english with just as much fear and distrust .
only the love between the beautifully structured pocahontas and the dashing captain john smith can prevent a terrible clash .
the ending , as it turns out , is not entirely a happy one and is one of the film 's finer moments .
the characters are mixtures of stereotypes and lack any real depth .
governor ratcliffe , for instance , is a snobbish , single - minded bore whose mere appearance is supposed to bring about hisses .
captain john smith is a blond hunk who , while " slightly " misguided , is good at heart .
pocahontas herself is the typical disney heroine who is practically being forced to marry a man who everyone but her likes and finds the man of her dreams just in time .
she even comes complete with insignificant best friend .
again , against tradition , talking animals are n't used , but a lusty , wizened , talking tree is .
this is an odd compromise , but it 's one of the few elements that really work .
the animals are a delight , and what brief time their interactions take place brings the only humor and fun to a rather bland presentation .
maybe it would have been a better film if we saw the story unfold through their eyes .
the talking tree , who seems to have a thing for john smith , is the only other character that can hold our interest and is perhaps the best developed of the bunch .
the music , a welcome delight in the later disney films , is
mostly a let down here , with the exception of the catchy and motivational , " colors of the wind .
" mel gibson , as the voice of john smith , has a solid singing voice and should have been used more .
the opposite holds true for the governor ratcliffe led songs ; the singing is even more grating than his simplistic character .
i was rather bored through what turned out to be a shorter than expected running time .
even the children in the audience seemed restless .
while there 's no stopping a kid from seeing something that they want -- or disney wants them to --
most i believe will be disappointed .
perhaps the biggest problem is that disney has strayed from their familiar fable and fairy tale themes to history .
it 's all right to change or embellish fantasy to suit a movie 's entertainment value , but doing so to historical facts does n't work nearly as well as creating nagging questions in the viewer 's minds and plot holes that are never filled .
even the artwork , another disney strong point
, varies greatly in quality , making any story problems even more obvious .
as mentioned above , there were many questions that stayed with me while viewing the film .
for instance , if john smith was truly such a world traveler and had so much experience with " savages , " why did he so quickly change his previous " kill as many indians as i can " attitude . if he was such a nice guy after all , he should have changed his ways long before this . or how about pocahontas ' amazing english speaking ability when this had supposedly been the first time she had seen white men ?
i can understand making the native americans speak english for the benefit of the audience , but simply saying that they had met a missionary years earlier would have cleared up a lot ; history was modified in the film anyway .
as it is , i wonder if it does n't give kids the wrong impression
.
in short , the film is too simplistic for adults and contains too much romance and not enough action or humor for the younger set .
while disney tried valiantly in many ways to break with some of their firmest traditions , they end up failing on too many levels .
Example Output:
N