Given the task definition and input, reply with output. In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.

cinema has been around for about a hundred years now .
?
it 's not my job to recap this century every time i talk about a new film , but i 'd like to think that i 'm beginning to understand the art more as i watch more films from before my time .
recently , i 've seen the films of hitchcock , capra , fellini , godard , kurosawa , chaplin , lang , and many others . ?
those men were talented artists , and their films reflect their genius . ?
they are likely to be remembered for .
. .
well , quite a while .
?
i like this film , too .
?
yes , it 's a disaster - slash - action movie .
?
true , its budget is a lot more money than i 'll ever see in my lifetime . ?
and there 's not a doubt in my mind that the only reason it was conceived was to make a lot of money .
?
in fact , i bet the producers of armageddon would have worked towards a lousy film , had they thought it would 've been more profitable .
i certainly do n't care what their intentions were , because michael bay ( the rock ) is such a skilled director that i doubt he 'd ever make a film that is difficult to sit through .
of course , skillful direction does n't complete the package , but the rest of armageddon manages to keep everything together .
the story is well - thought out ( and perfectly paced to provide for an abundance of action sequences that never feel out of place ) ,
the acting is terrific , the script is sharp , and -- get this -- there are characters .
yes , you read that right .
armageddon actually has characters you can care about ! if you do n't like this film , then you have a problem with the genre itself : armageddon is as good as a film like this
can be .
if you 've seen deep impact , then you know the basic framework for the story .
it turns out that an asteroid the size of texas is going to strike the earth eighteen days from the start of the film .
so , it 's up to the u
. s .
government to stop it .
( why the u . s .
is always exclusively saddled with these problems is never fully investigated . )
their plan -- to send a group of experienced oil drillers up to the asteroid , drill down several hundred feet , and detonate a nuclear warhead within .
the head driller is harry stamper ( bruce willis ) .
his group of men is a colorful bunch , including a .
j .
( ben affleck ) , chick ( will patton ) , and rockhound ( steve buscemi ) .
there 's also an interesting triangle formed between a .
j . , harry , and grace ( liv tyler ) , who is harry 's daughter .
a .
j .
and grace are , of course , romantically intertwined , and dad is n't too happy with the situation .
it 's absurd to wish for a complicated story in an event movie or a special effects movie or
whatever it is you 'd like to call armageddon .
it 's not about story -- it 's about viscera and action , and thrills - a - minute , and all that stuff .
it 's incidental , really , that the story is cohesive and even remotely believable , because most people will be too wrapped up in the explosions to give two seconds ' thought to what actually happens .
but bay is the one to congratulate in this case , for he has made a film
so entertaining and so visually sharp
that i doubt any director could have done it better .
i think most of the budget went to cameras alone , because bay films every action sequence from about thirty or forty different angles .
take the spectacular opening scene , for instance , in which a meteor shower obliterates new york .
a meteor flies out of the sky and crashes into a building , which sends fireballs erupting into the air and cars spinning like tops upon other cars .
the action itself might take five seconds in real life , but bay edits so quickly that we get the same scene in six different ways .
i like his quick - edit style , because it 's abrasive and exhausting to watch .
it 's also very loud , and obnoxiously noisy at times .
but it 's fun to be obnoxious sometimes .
the special effects in this film put every other 1998 blockbuster to shame .
deep impact , visually , has absolutely nothing on armageddon , and to offer a comparison between the quality of this film and godzilla is simply laughable .
special effects are very important in a film like this : if they 're not good , then the image is not convincing , and the film does n't work .
everything here looks bright and explosive
-- from the little meteors bursting through skyscrapers , all the way to the shots of the earth through the jutting rocks on the ominously approaching asteroid .
the effects that do n't look totally real are still a pleasure to behold , and i credit everyone involved for creating the first blockbuster
so nice - looking that it actually qualifies as art
.
of course , all of this would add up to little more than an above - average light show , if i did n't get the feeling that bay cares as much about his characters as he does about his action .
the film is two and a half hours long , and not all of that is spent submerged in numbing action .
much of the film is dedicated to developing the various characters ' subplots .
i wo n't suggest that these are complex characters , but their problems are real , and the emotions are n't put forth in a sentimental and overbearing way .
in fact , there are three or four scenes here that had me pretty choked up , and that 's a lot more than i can say about deep impact , which was banking on the feel - good parts of its story .
bruce willis is terrific , and i 'm glad to see him bigger than life again ( recent turns in films like mercury rising have been very disappointing ) .
tyler and affleck are great together , and make a convincing couple -- all of the scenes between them work on a comfortable level .
patton , who is a magnificent actor , thankfully is not wasted here , and the minor subplot revolving around his ex - wife and son is very moving
.
the comic relief from buscemi and peter stormare ( who plays a crazy russian astronaut ) is nifty , and keeps the film lively and funny
.
i was n't challenged to think real hard while watching armageddon , and i do n't mind too much .
but the film does n't insult my intelligence -- it 's pitched perfectly to entertain , which is what all it really wants to do .
it 's not mindless and escapist , but well - crafted cinema .
it might have been created for the wrong reasons , but men like michael bay have my respect for showing me that they are interested in making something good , in spite of the producers and the budget .
i 'm not saying that films like this are risky moves .
what i am saying is that armageddon is a big , loud , expensive motion picture that reminds me that art often comes in the strangest of forms .
P