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

every now and then , reviewers are faced with the films that are hard to be properly reviewed .
most of the time it happens with films that leave so overwhelming impact , either good or bad , that in the end reviewers must work hard to express his thoughts or feelings .
but , sometimes it can happen for rather trivial reasons .
i love trouble happened to be one of such occasions for the author of this review .
the impression left by the film was n't overwhelming - on the contrary , there were hardly any impression at all , since
i had real trouble keeping myself awake while watching it . which surprise me to this day , because the movie theatre was full , i was close to sound speakers , the show was n't late and i did n't lack sleep before the show .
such things happen very rarely to me , and , after many years , the closest thing to solution to this mystery is probably the quality of the film itself .
the plot revolves around two rival chicago reporters - old peter brackett ( nick nolte ) and young , aspiring sabrina peterson ( julia roberts ) .
two of them are assigned to cover the train collision . as soon as they meet , they start scooping each other , but during the process they both discover sinister plot involving cancerogenic milk , and also the romantic feelings they have for each other .
the plot in this film is rather secondary to its real raison d ' ?
tre - romantic pairing reminiscent of classical screwball comedies starring spencer tracy and katharine hepburn .
movie author , director and screenwriter charles shyer , who had some experiences with turning the screwball spirit into modern setting with father of the bride , tries again , this time pairing old nick nolte with young julia roberts .
however , although there is some chemistry between the two , soon it stops to arouse any interest .
it probably happens due to poorly executed genre mix , that collides light - hearted romantic comedy with
rather uninteresting plot suitable to pure action thrillers .
shyer as director fails to make the proper transition between the two , and fails in both areas , making the story cliched and predictable
.
the end result is rather forgettable effort , which convinced me not to watch movie again .
i 'll give it the benefit of the doubt , though .
N

synopsis : in this movie , steven spielberg , one of today 's finest directors , attempts to spice up the 1800s story of a long courtroom battle over the fate of prisoner cinque ( djimon hounsou ) - - a young angry man from sierra leone who was kidnapped into slavery - - and his fellow prisoners .
cinque and friends have landed a ship on the shores of america after escaping spanish slave traders , but since the americans do n't speak cinque 's language , the black men are hauled into court to determine whether or not they are legally slaves .
technically , since the international slave trade was outlawed at that time , people like cinque could n't be kidnapped into slavery ; one had to be born a slave to be legally considered a slave .
lawyers baldwin and adams ( matthew
mcconaughey and anthony hopkins ) must prove cinque and the others were captured into slavery , rather than born slaves , in order to get them out of prison as free men .
three lengthy court cases are portrayed with spielberg 's trademark panache - - flashy beginning , lots of facial close - ups , big music , and dramatic imagery .
a final speech by adams is followed by an anticlimax where subtitles show what eventually happened to the various characters .
opinion : making a fictional movie is easier than making one about real life .
in fiction , one invents purposeful , clear - cut good guys and bad guys , puts the fictional characters in conflict , and takes the tale to its exciting conclusion .
real life , however , consists of long stretches of boredom with a few dramatic moments and characters who stand around , think thoughts and do nothing , or come and go before events are resolved .
spielberg gives us a visually spicy and historically accurate real life story .
djimon hounsou and anthony hopkins turn in excellent performances .
P

what i look for in a movie is not necessarily perfection .
sometimes a movie has such strong ideas that despite whatever flaws it may have , i will prefer it to a better - made film that is not as thought - provoking .
the thin red line is flawed
but it provokes .
terence malick returns to filmmaking 20 years after days of heaven and produces this meditative look at war .
unlike this year 's saving private ryan , which dwells on war as a necessary evil and explores the moral ambiguities thereof , the thin red line simply says war is waste .
while that might seem obvious to some , only after experiencing the film do you realize how profound a waste it is .
saving private ryan has an underlying and practical acceptance that war will occur and it has a great cost ; the thin red line says idealistically avoid this at all costs .
one message is not necessarily more correct than the other .
it just depends on one 's point of view .
in malick 's film , war is set in a tropical paradise , and john toll 's cinematography is beyond lush .
the setting poses the question , why are we fighting in the face of such beauty ? in saving private ryan , the capture of a german soldier presents the moral quandary of whether to let him go .
in the thin red line , the japanese present the moral quandary of war in the first place .
they are just like the americans -- frightened and angry , grieving and praying .
all that separates them is war .
the flaw in the thin red line comes in the voice - overs .
unbelievable as coming from the characters and sometimes pretentious , sometimes corny , the voice - overs tell us what the images before us already do and are completely unnecessary .
dispensing with them , malick could have achieved a tarkovskian grandeur .
instead , he gets distracting self - consciousness . aside from that , malick 's direction is stunning .
the tracking shots across windswept hills and around transports speeding toward shore are extraordinary .
sean penn , elias koteas , and nick nolte give the best performances .
penn is subtle as a sergeant trying to hide his humanism , koteas is genuine as a compassionate captain , and nolte startling as a colonel whose blood vessels are about to burst if he can not win his battle .
john travolta and george clooney are the worst in cameo roles .
ultimately however , the thin red line 's interest is not in the characters and it is not in drama .
it has been frequently criticized for its lack of dramatic structure , but malick clearly has different things on his mind .
has no one ever thought that getting dramatic entertainment from war is exploitative ?
what malick is working with is theme , and in that , the thin red line is most provoking .
P