In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
--------
Question: in arguably the most anticipated movie this century , george lucas has achieved a very mixed reaction to a sure blockbuster .
despite the fact the script and plot is a bit of a let down , the entire movie on the whole can be considered a milestone in technical excellence , in the sound and special effects department .
in terms of characters , by far the most outstanding and interesting is queen amidala ( natalie portman ) , whose mature performance far exceeds
her tender 14 years of age .
she is one ?
hot ' babe who defines true ? woman leadership ' .
she not only has a presence , but knows how to take command of the situation and save her planet from ruination .
no thanks to the jedi knights who although led by the force , lack leadership qualities in terms of thinking up a plan to do anything .
the young obi - wan kenobi ( ewan mcgregor ) who has a bad hair day in every scene , gets to kill a bad guy in the end , but lacks a love interest to make him a desirable sort of hero .
in fact all the jedi knight are a bit asexual - there must be something about the force which makes them all hermits and loners .
i mean it would be interesting to see yoda 's girlfriend for a change , if he has one .
not much better is qui - gon jinn ( liam neeson ) who mostly broods , and
has a better hair do than obi - wan , but only to find the young anakin skywalker and make the biggest mistake of his life .
also fascinating is george lucas ?
metoclorian ' theory , which claims that micro - organisms live within our cells and tie us to the fabric of the universe .
and it is the high concentrations of these organisms in an individual which make them particularly powerful in the force .
more humerous are the claims to the immaculate conception of darth vader , no doubt a concept stolen from the christian faith , except there will be no christmas to celebrate the birth of this dark emissary of the force .
overall
an experience which is not to be missed because of the very fact that it 's predecessor almost command a viewing of this inferior successor .
by all means not the pinnacle of the star wars phenomena but an adequate addition to the clan . watch out for the next one , it should be one steamy encounter between queen amidala and anakin skywalker - who i believe should be portrayed by ?
leonardo di caprio .

Answer: P

Question: rated : r for strong violence , language , drug use , nudity , and some sexuality .
starring : wesley snipes , anne archer , michael chaykin , donald sutherland , marie matiko .
running time : 117 minutes directed by : christian duguay
i 've never fully understood wesley snipes 's career .
he has his ups and downs , but mostly the downs .
his best movie was one of the best of 1998 and that movie was entitled " blade " .
he has had his typical action movies , " boiling point " , " passenger 57 " , but his new movie " the art of war " should just be called " rising sun 2 : the art of war " cause basically it 's a semi - remake of the same plot , with a different cast , and forced to be a ridiculously unbelievable thriller , that is high on style and low on substance .
wesley snipes plays a james bondish type secret agent working for the u . n . after a chinese ambassador is killed , he is on the track of the killer , trying to find out who it is , how it happened , where the killer was , and what to do .
anne archer plays his " boss " type person of the u . n .
and she has hired snipes to track down the killer .
well snipes is mistakenly framed as the killer , and is now an outlaw , kidnapping a chinese woman with him , and having her help him along the way .
all this leads to a finale that is so dumb , and so stupid that is it unbelievably dumb , and the stunts , dialogue and acting
all ruin this movie .
wesley snipes is n't one of my favorite actors because of the fact that the character he plays in every movie is the same character he plays in the movie before .
the only good role snipes has really had was in 1998 's " blade " .
i walked into " the art of war " expecting a good , high octane thriller , and all i got was a pile of mush .
the only real ' good ' thing the movie has is action , and plenty of it , but i noticed it is badly filmed , the camera is so shaky you can not even tell what is going on .
the ending finale is so worthless and pitiful , that it even tries to mock " the matrix " , laughably funny , it is undeniably stupid .
christian duguay 's direction is also not that great .
his camera angles and sense of style are all in place , but sadly his lighting and editing are all badly done .
even the whole " matrix " ending was n't even good .
the stunts and action are badly filmed , and badly choreographed .
his placing of the characters , and the assination of the chinese ambassador , and the plotting of the movie are so predictable and laughable , that it just takes all the fun out of the entire movie .
anne archer who is usually good in her roles
, turns in a horrible job here .
she is sour , downbeat , and dreadfully dull with her forced dialogue , and dumb moves .
even donald sutherland as a co - star ca n't save this movie from being a bust .
so for an overall opinion : " the art of war " is a total waste of time .
it 's not entertaining , nor exciting , or even action packed .
it is a pointless movie , and makes absolutely no sense at all .
if you really want to see a good version of " the art of war " , rent the wesley snipes and sean connery action vehicle of the same kind " rising sun " , it is n't a great film either , but at least it 's better than this .

Answer: N

Question: the computer - animated comedy " shrek " is designed to be enjoyed on different levels by different groups . for children ,
it offers imaginative visuals , appealing new characters mixed with a host of familiar faces , loads of action and a barrage of big laughs ( including numerous gags related to body functions and yucky substances , apparently a requisite in contemporary family films ) .
for adults , it 's a fractured fairy tale packed with rude jokes that will sail over the heads of the kids .
all in all , " shrek " is a snappy ride , although there are a couple of points i found disturbing .
but first the basics .
based very loosely on a 1990 children 's story , " shrek " follows several momentous days in the life of the title character , a rotund green ogre voiced by mike myers in that pleasant scottish accent
he is so fond of using .
shrek is a grumpy fellow living a solitary life deep in the swamp , until a local nobleman disturbs his peace .
petty tyrant lord farquaad ( take away the " awk " in the middle
and you have the basis of a string of impolite one - liners ) owns the land on which shrek resides .
he proceeds to turn the ogre 's yard into an ellis island for storybook characters when he banishes the fanciful beings from his castle .
as a result , shrek finds himself surrounded by legends like the three blind mice , pinocchio , the big bad wolf , the seven dwarfs , and the three bears , to name but a few .
an enraged shrek storms to the castle , only to find farquaad ( john lithgow ) ready to bargain .
lord obnoxious wants to become king and the magic mirror from " snow white " has shown him the way .
all he has to do is rescue a damsel in distress and make her his wife .
the mirror unveils three choices in a presentation straight out of " the dating game " ( when snow white is shown , the cheeky announcer purrs , " even though she lives with seven men , she 's not easy !
" ) farquaad selects the lovely princess fiona ( cameron diaz ) and offers shrek a deal :
if the ogre snatches fiona from the dragon - protected , lava moat - filled castle in which she is held captive and brings her to the throne , the lord will allow the fairy tale pests to move back on his grounds .
shrek reluctantly agrees and sets off on his quest , accompanied by a motor - mouthed donkey ( eddie murphy ) determined to make the green grump his best friend .
they finally hook up with the princess , only to learn she is not the helpless maiden they expected to meet .
for the matter , the dragon offers a few surprises as well .
the movie references a great many other flicks , from " babe " ( " that 'll do , donkey .
that 'll do " ) to " the graduate .
"
but the lion 's share of the jokes come at the expense of the wonderful world of disney .
the public - domain characters made into icons in various disney films take their hits ?
pinocchio is referred to as a " possessed toy " and when shrek spies a sleeping snow white in his cabin , he bellows , " get that dead broad off the table ! " ?
but the biggest slams come when shrek visits farquaad 's royal domicile , which closely resembles a certain magic kingdom , from its souvenir stands and queue lines to a display of animatronic figures that sing the palace rules in a relentlessly peppy tune that sounds a lot like
" it 's a small world .
" which brings me to disturbing point number one .
i laughed at all the disney swipes , but found the mentality behind them a bit sad .
the acrimony between dreamworks honcho jeff katzenberg and disney big wheel michael eisner is well known .
for years the two companies have tried to sabotage each other 's film and video releases by issuing similar competing productions on the same day .
and now we have katzenberg using an entire movie to attack his former employer .
here 's a suggestion for the two boys : grow up !
put the past behind you !
there 's room in the sandbox for both of you and if you farquaads ca n't play nice , then go to your rooms !
the other area i found troubling came in the portrayal of lord farquaad .
beyond all the irreverence , " shrek " actually has a message : people should learn to look beyond physical appearances , because true beauty lies within .
it 's a lovely notion , but the film betrays its own moral by incessantly taking cheap shots at farquaad 's diminutive stature .
do we really need a family film reinforcing the idea that mocking short people is acceptable ?
the pompous , selfish behavior of farquaad is enough to make him a target for zingers .
adding short jokes is simply mean .
still , " shrek " is a rollicking good time .
the computer animation is mostly impressive
( although several key characters look like animated rubber squeeze toys and the human movements are often jerky ) , the voice work is strong ( particularly from eddie murphy ) ,
the laughs come fast and furious , and the moral , tainted though it may be , is a good one . to trot out a clich ? , " shrek " is fun for all ages .
parents , though , should remind their young ones during the ride home
that taunting others because they are short , tall , skinny , fat , etc . is a bad thing .

Answer:
P