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

Input: Consider Input: historical epic as a genre was almost banished from hollywood in early 1990s .
for many critics , scholars and , most importantly , film producers , it was a thing of the past - something that could have attracted crowds only in the era of black - and - white television and non - cgi special effects .
but in 1995 , same as in the case of dances with wolves five years ago , there came the man who decided to use of all his energy and talents of actor , producer and director in order to revitalise that particular genre .
and , same as in the case of dances with wolves , he was awarded for his effort with " oscars " .
the name of the film was braveheart , and the name of its director and main actor was mel gibson .
the plot chronicles the life of scottish warlord and folk hero william wallace ( 1272 - 1305 ) .
in his time , english king edward i " longshanks " (
played by patrick mcgoohan ) has almost completely subdued entire british isles , including scotland , whose proud inhabitants are now subjected by " ius primae noctis " and various other forms of humiliation and oppression by english knights .
although english had killed his father many years ago , young scottish commoner william wallace ( played by mel gibson ) does n't care about politics and wants only to have peaceful life with his new bride murron ( played by catherine maccormack ) .
murron 's death changes that and wallace takes arms and , together with small but dedicated band of followers , begins guerrilla campaign that would systematically destroy almost every english garrison in the country .
through time , more and more people join his ranks and in 1298 wallace 's rag - tag army scores surprising victory against english knights in the battle of stirling bridge .
but the newly won freedom is endangered by the internal squabbles between scots themselves , especially nobles under pretender robert the bruce ( played by angus macfadyen ) , who would n't like to have a simple commoner as a national leader .
braveheart was only the second film in the directorial career by mel gibson , so it would n't be fair to compare it to the better known genre classics directed by david lean or anthony mann .
however , even when we apply such criteria braveheart is more than decent historical epic that takes new and refreshing approach to the genre .
the most noticeable element of this approach is naturalism .
while older hollywood films set in medieval europe used to give fairytale - like vision of picturesque castles , splendid costumes and knights in shining armour , gibson shows us the extremely unpleasant world of poverty and feudal injustice where might made right and life was hard , short and brutish .
this general unpleasantness is especially underlined in the scenes of battle , where hand - to - hand combat is naturalistically displayed in all its gory details , never seen since verhoeven 's ultra - naturalistic flesh & blood .
compared with this naturalistic approach , most of old hollywood epics look like stage plays .
braveheart also employs humour at the right places , not only to make bloody realities of medieval british isles more bearable to sensitive audiences , but also to underline its down - to - earth atmosphere , so different from previous historical epics .
what makes braveheart " larger than life " is his protagonist .
mel gibson obviously invested plenty of his energy and talent in bringing the mythical figure of william wallace and , as a result , character of 15th century poems is transformed into superhuman being that resembles late 20th century comic book hero .
wallace is more than superior to his enemies , both physically and mentally , yet he is able to show his sensitive , more vulnerable side .
naturally , when the character is based on epic poems , most of historical accuracy is going down the drain ( which was the case with almost every historical epic from hollywood in 1990s ) .
however , even those who do n't particularly care about history or are willing to give poetic license to scriptwriter randall wallace might think that he went over the top in idolising wallace , especially in the second part of film when scottish superhero manages to seduce princess isabel ( played by sophie marceau ) and make her a child .
because of that the disbelief is hardly suspended , and final scenes are n't as effective as they should be .
mel gibson as an actor is truly wonderful , and he is also helped by small army of very good british and irish actors .
most memorable of them all is patrick mcgoohan , whose cold , calculated and evil medieval monarch is one of the most effective villains seen in contemporary cinema .
brendan gleeson ( who would later become famous for his role in boorman 's general ) is also very good
as wallace 's trusted companion , as well as ian bannen is effective as leprosy - stricken king john balliol .
david o'harra is very entertaining as wallace 's irish ally , and angus macfadyen brings a lot of anxiety into his conscience - stricken character of robert the bruce .
women in this film have rather thankless roles , especially marceau as one - dimensional french princess .
catherine mccormack as wallace 's wife was more interesting , but she was eliminated from the picture early on .
from the technical point of view , the film is also very good .
photography by john toll brings a lot of scottish natural beauty to the screen .
on the other hand , the musical score by james horner employs too much of modern - day instruments for period piece set in medieval times .
although mostly welcomed by critics and audiences alike , braveheart was often criticised for homophobia and other forms of extreme conservatism .
the main reason for that was the fact that gibson , among many historical facts , chose to be faithful only to those related to sexual orientation of " longshank " 's son prince edward ( played by peter hanly ) .
he is not only presented as a villain , but also as one of the less competent in villain 's camp - and portraying of homosexuals as villains or inferior to heterosexuals is almost unforgivable sin in " politically correct " hollywood . to make things even more obvious , good guys in this film are the total opposite of effeminate and incompetent edward - rugged macho men of mountains who are more practical and efficient because they tend to employ conservatives ' common sense instead of fashionable theories of ivory tower liberals .
however , although the message of this film might look right - wing , it owes more to leftist ideology of various national liberation movements in 20th century .
according to that ideology , oppressed classes ( workers , peasants ) are better suited to fight for national freedom because their members has less to lose in that struggle and , as such , they are more radical , less willing to make compromises and more efficient ; on the other hand , privileged classes ( aristocracy , bourgeoisie ) are more likely to betray the cause of freedom and be in cahoots with foreign oppressors in order to keep their privileges .
this marxist worldview is presented in braveheart without any subtlety .
in the end , whether the audience is patient enough to discover hidden meanings or simply wants to enjoy entertaining historical epic , braveheart is more than adequate choice for all fans of this recently resurrected genre .

Output: P

Input: Consider Input: what would inspire someone who can not write or act to pen and star in a movie ?
a better question , what would inspire a studio to produce said movie ? if you have an answer , let me know .
foolish , the new movie written by and starring master p is a jaw - droppingly horrible film , one with no redeeming value
socially , cinematically or otherwise .
comedically it has some potential , but only in its stand - up comedy moments , which i can turn on comedy central for .
master p stars as fifty dollah '
( beat that ! )
as a mobster ( i think ) who is trying to start a comedy club / act with his little brother foolish ( eddie griffin ) .
but the two of them have to deal with an angry mob boss ( played by andrew dice clay , for the very first time entertaining ) , a stubborn club owner and family problems ( the latter in foolish is a perfect example of roger ebert 's " idiot plot ,
" if everyone here was n't an idiot , there would be no problem ) so what does foolish have to offer beside a bunch of idiotic character names ?
not a hell of a lot .
as i have mentioned , master p can not act or write
.
he acts like the rapper that he is .
the occasional despair that his script requires him to exhibit is excruciatingly forced , as are his warm and fuzzy scenes with his little bro .
as for his script -- well , i suppose he delivers what one would expect from a musical artist with no previous screenwriting experience .
if you have n't yet figured it out , that is not saying much .
co - star eddie griffin ( really the star of the show ) is quite a different story .
the fact of the matter is that griffin , whose most significant screen outing to date is probably the mildly successful tv show malcolm and eddie on the fledgling upn network , is an extremely talented comedian , stand - up and otherwise .
he has much in common with chris tucker ( rush hour , money talks ) in how quickly and effortlessly his speech flows from his lips .
he spouts profanity with impressive dexterity ( to the extent which that can be done ) , and
while i hope that does not become his trademark it works in a few scenes in this movie .
and indeed , i laughed at a few stand - up scenes here , but from a feature - length movie i expect more .
foolish provided me with no reason to care for these characters .
every scene which has any potential for dramatic impact is effectively diffused by either a stupid joke ( in a scene where tension escalates between the two brothers , foolish blurts out towards his jewelry - sporting sibling " you lay one hand on me and this cemetary is going to be a gold rush " ) or something even more idiotic such as foolish smashing his own car ( to which i said , a bit too loudly for the occasion
" huh ?
" ) after getting slightly upset with his wife . believe me when i say that there is nothing in foolish that warrants parting with your hard - earned $ 8 .
you 'll get more laughs from watching 30 minutes of comedy central or any virtually any sitcom if you do n't have cable .
eddie griffin fans may enjoy this derivative ( although offensive ) yarn , but everyone else should stay the hell away . & # 137 ;

Output: N

Input: Consider Input: martial arts master steven seagal ( not to mention director ! ) has built a career out of playing an allegedly fictitious martial arts superman who never gets hurt in fights , talks in a hushed tone , and squints at any sign of danger .
he 's also the most consistent individual in hollywood today , since all his movies suck .
they basically represent his egotisitical tendencies about his art ( that is , martial art ) .
i 'm sure the guy 's good , and he seems like a nice guy on talk shows , although a tad haughty , but these movies he makes are all the same : a guy who is basically indestructable , is maybe wounded supposedly mortally , then comes back with a vengeance and goes buddha on all the baddies asses ( although i kinda liked " under siege " ) .
of course , this one , as a change , has a " message " that is drilled into our mind .
..
of course , after he blows up a lot of stuff and kills a bunch of people .
so why do i watch his crap ?
i usually do n't .
i will never , and you can hold me to this
, i will never pay to see this man 's movies , unless , and only unless , he 's in a supporting role ( i. e. " executive decision " )
and i 'd definitely pay if he dies
( i. e. " executive decision " ) .
but this one has a special place in my heart .
this does n't mean it 's good or that i even liked it .
this was the last movie i watched with my deceased uncle , and we had one hell of a time ripping it apart a la " mystery science theatre 3000 , " and this was a couple years before i had heard of " mystery science theatre 3000 .
" in this one , seagal plays a worker for a mining factory set in alaska and run by the greased - up typical shallow villain , this time played by an oscar - winner to give the movie some more clout - michael caine .
it seems that caine wants to do something with his oil factory that includes him dumping oil all over inuit land .
around the 20 - 30 minute point , seagal speaks up to him in what seems to be the typical speech to all the vain entrepeneurs ( what with his new " fire down below , " another " message film " ) , and caine has him bumped off .
..
or does he ?
seagal is rescued by some inuits , and falls in love with one of them , played by joan chen , who can act , hypothetically , but , for some reason , not here .
one of caine 's cliched henchmen ( played here with a lot of overacting by john c. mcginley ) shoots the cheif of the inuit clan , and chen and seagal go on a voyage to take down the oil factory .
..
literally , of course .
at one point , seagal gives a wonderfully hysterical speech about how he does n't have any options but blow stuff up .
he even goes as far as to say , " i do n't want to kill someone , " and in the same breath , he asks some guy where the arsenal is .
i have no problem with violence .
i 'm a huge john woo fan , but he paints his films with suspense , skill , style , depth , characterization , and just plain cool violence .
in the films of seagal , the suspense mainly consists of the baddie attacking him stupidly , and him either wounding or killing them .
at some points , they use the cliche of the talking villain , where the villain has the advantage , can shoot seagal , but begins talking by either telling him his big secret plan , or saying a corny line , to which seagal says something hokey back , and has had enough time to devise of a way to do away with them , and does .
this would be okay if there were any suspense or if it did n't take itself seriously at all , like in the case of this summer 's " con air .
"
but seagal is serious about his skill , and of course , his message .
i would n't mind if this was a message film in the way that they present it to you with evidence .
but seagal has no idea how to present a film where the message is subtle , not pounded into the viewer 's mind .
the villain is totally shallow and cartoonish
, thus we ca n't take him and his motives seriously , and while seagal talks about being kind to the environment , he also goes ahead and blows up a square mile of rig , and kills some workers who were just doing his job .
then at the end , he spends a good 10 minutes giving a speech , just in case you did n't get the message from the trailers .
what seagal does n't realize is that no one takes his films seriously
( although maybe a couple do ) and any message he has is no only redundant , but does n't comfortably fit in his film , which is filled to the brim with hokey violence , crap suspense , stupid melodrama , and characters who have about as much emotional depth as a petri dish . as far as seagal and his acting , he 's rather boring .
he squints , he kills . period .
nothing else .
oh ,
yeah
, there 's corny one - liners
( " i 'm gon na reach out and touch someone ! " ) .
of course , he 's the star , and we 're supposed to root for him and all ,
so he makes all the villains unbelievably stupid and a bunch of jerks .
michael caine , who 's a great actor , is just supposed to yell and look cold .
he does it well , i guess , but this is no " alfie .
" of coure , no one was expecting that caliber of performance from him .
his big henchman , john c. mcginley is kinda boring as well , but is not horrible .
and we even get a small performance from that god of drill sergeants on celluloid ,
r.
lee ermey ( from " full metal jacket " ) as a hired assasin squad leader who gets to say the obligatory speech about how dangerous seagal is , just for the movie trailers and for seagal 's ego .
and also , look for billy bob thornton as one of ermey 's assasins .
anyway , to conclude this all , to judge one of seagal 's movies is to judge all of them ( except for " under siege " and " executive decision , " though the latter is not really a " seagal movie " ) .
they all have this same formula , they all have the same action , same villain , same plot , but this one has that message , which makes it more excrucitating to watch .
i mean , if you do rent it ,
and i do n't reccomend you do
, make sure you just skip the last 10 minutes .
but i have to put it to seagal for creating a film so bad , that the last film i viewed with my uncle was a pleasurable one .
my ( extra star for the fun
it is to watch and mock )
Output: N