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

[Q]: steven spielberg 's " amistad , " which is based on the true story of a group of africans who revolted on board a slave ship , then were captured and taken to america where a legal dispute ensued over who " owned " them , is concerned with several different aspects of this story .
first , the film addresses the issue of the inherent evils of slavery .
second , it deals with the historical involvement of several american politicians in the case , including president martin van buren and former president john quincy adams ( anthony hopkins ) .
last , and most importantly , it examines the cultural confusion experienced by the africans who were forced into slavery and the damage done to their native culture in africa by the slave trade .
" amistad " succeeds at least partly with all three of these elements .
i have to admit that i was a little skeptical as to how much i could really get out of another " anti - slavery " movie .
having seen several other movies and documentaries about slavery , i doubted that there was much i did n't already know about it .
fortunately , i turned out to be wrong .
for one thing , spielberg 's camera never once gets near a southern plantation and instead sticks to the slave ships and the slave traders ' operations in africa , so " amistad " was dealing with a different part of the history of slavery from the very beginning .
and some of the images here are , in fact , much more harrowing than what we usually see in movies about slavery .
one scene in the middle , in which the crew of a slave ship dispose of some of their " excess " slaves by throwing them overboard to drown , has to be one of the most disturbing film images of the year .
spielberg digs farther into the evils of slavery than i was expecting he would , and in fact he probably goes about as far as a movie director can without getting an nc-17 rating .
the stark suffering of the africans is contrasted sharply with the shallow luxury of the politicians , such as president van buren and queen isabella of spain , whose naval officers were involved in the legal dispute and who was only a small child at the time .
exposing politicians as narrow - minded , opportunistic hypocrites is fairly standard stuff , of course , but spielberg and writer david franzoni
do it well enough that it still comes off as something more than just a simple exercise in audience manipulation .
the film also examines the contentious nature of the slavery issue at the time , such that john quincy adams ( and probably other politicians like him ) , who clearly disapproved of the practice , was reluctant to get involved in the case until it was appealed all the way to the supreme court .
the biggest success of " amistad " is probably the characterization of cinque ( djimon hounsou ) , who emerges as the de facto leader of the kidnapped africans and struggles to communicate with baldwin ( matthew mcconaughey ) , the lawyer who represents them in court .
through cinque , we are given a window into the native culture , as he and the displaced africans try to explain to the prison guards what they need for a proper burial of a dead tribe member , or find an illustrated version of the bible and try to understand the story of jesus christ .
cinque sees the dispute with a clarity and simplicity that , again , contrasts with the technicalities and mechanics of the legal process and of the political squabbles .
"
what kind of country is this , where laws ' almost ' work ?
"
he asks baldwin in bewilderment , when he learns that the case must be re - tried before the supreme court .
spielberg 's direction tends a little bit towards the manipulative side at times , such as when he adds a heavy orchestral swell to cinque 's angry outburst in the court room .
still , there is n't enough of this for it to be a serious problem .
the main flaw in this film , which prevents it from earning four stars , is that it seems like spielberg and franzoni ca n't quite handle all of these issues at the same time , so instead they settle for addressing each one separately and simply editing the results into the same movie .
this summer 's contact , for example , dealt with several issues at once , but each of them was somehow present in almost every scene and , most importantly , all of them were resolved at once .
" amistad " tries to pull it all together in the end with a speech from adams , but it somehow feels a little forced , and in any case the speech itself , which lasts almost fifteen minutes , wears out its welcome about halfway through .
perhaps the best way to describe it is this :
" amistad " is three four star films edited into one .
almost every individual scene works , but the final product is lacking the necessary focus and coherence , and thus is less than the sum of its parts .
however , i ca n't honestly say how it could have been done differently , and in any case the story comes through with enough raw emotional power that it is still a very good film , and thus
i recommend it to anyone who can handle the disturbing imagery .
[A]: P

[Q]: uncompromising french director robert bresson 's " lancelot of the lake " achieves the exact opposite effect of sir thomas malory 's " morte darthur .
" instead of enshrining the legend of king arthur and his knights of the round table , it dethrones them by revealing arthur as a weak , ineffectual leader and the knights as a group of jealous , bickering men who failed to live up to the legends prescribed to them .
chivalry has no place in " lancelot of the lake , " except as that of a dying ideal .
bresson begins his tale as the knights of the round table are returning , decimated , after failing merlin 's command to retrieve the holy grail , the mystical cup that was filled with christ 's blood .
bresson immediately gives us his impression of the essential meaning of the grail quest : bloodshed and failure .
the opening sequence is a series of clumsy , disjointed fights amongst anonymous knights -- a head is hacked off , a stomach is impaled , a skull is split open , skeletal remains hang from trees , and
burning bodies smolder in the ruins of a flaming house .
since the film starts with camelot in near - ruin , and takes only an hour and a half to arrive at its inevitable conclusion , it does n't carry the grand , tragic resonance of other arthurian films .
we never get to see camelot at the peak of its power , therefore there is no real downfall to witness .
but , then again , it is not the name of camelot that is evoked in the title of the film .
rather , it is lancelot , and bresson is more interested in the internal battle within his heart , than the external downfall of a kingdom .
lancelot has always been a tragic figure in the arthurian tales , and bresson uses him as the central figure to explore the battle between the spirit and the flesh .
the greatest of all knights , he was flawed only in his love for arthur 's wife , queen guinevere , and it was that illicit affair that eventually caused the downfall of camelot .
even when lancelot attempts to end the affair with guinevere ( laura duke condominas ) , he only finds himself falling back into her arms against his better judgment .
he knows it means the destruction of the idealized kingdom , but he is powerless in his passion .
when sir mordred ( patrick bernhard ) accuses lancelot of the affair , other knights , including sir gawain ( humbert balsan ) spring to lancelot 's defense .
it is this battle within the knights that is the eventual undoing of the round table ; the flesh wins out over the spirit , and the consequences are dire .
bresson is an intensely personal filmmaker most interested in the interiors of men 's hearts and minds .
" lancelot of the lake " is filled with his particular trademarks : a stripped - down , minimalist style , flat , expressionless dialogue , and a grand use of natural sounds in place of music .
he uses background music only twice in the film , during an opening narration segment and during the opening credits .
the music here is a heavy drumbeat and accompanying bagpipes , but the rest of the film is scored with natural sounds that punctuate the film 's thematic elements : the incessant clanking and creaking of heavy armor , the neighing of horses , the rhythm of hooves beating down dirt roads , and the natural chirping and whispering of the forest .
like most of his other films , bresson employed nonprofessional actors who recite the dialogue in emotionless , flat voices .
all the actors he used in " lancelot of the lake " had never acted before , and with the exception of patrick bernhard , they never acted again .
never once do they raise their voices or put any emphasis on a given word .
instead of using vocal inflection , bresson strove to create emotion through images .
in some ways , this technique works ; in other ways , it does n't .
the final montage of arthur 's men battling each other is quite marvelous , and the final image of the knights in shining armor reduced to a literal scrap - pile sums up the entire film in one moment .
however , other times bresson 's uncompromising methods are distracting and questionable .
for instance , during an important jousting contest , bresson films the majority of the action so that the only things visible are the horses ' legs .
he does this repeatedly , opening each shot with the same few notes from a bagpipe and the raising of a different flag .
while there might be symbolic value in this , the resulting experience of watching it can be bothersome .
nevertheless , " lancelot of the lake " is a fascinating cinematic experience boldly made by a master filmmaker .
bresson 's style may not be for everyone , but one has to respect his strength as an artist .
by re - evaluating the arthurian legends and making them his own
, he turns " lancelot of the lake " into something rare in modern cinema : a truly personal film .
[A]: P

[Q]: it might surprise some to know that joel and ethan coen , who have brought such unabated lunacy to our movie screens as " raising arizona " and " the hudsucker proxy , " made their feature film debut with " blood simple , " a grim and often gruesome tale of revenge , murder , and literally fatal misconceptions in rural texas .
it bears some resemblance , story - wise , to the coens ' recent " fargo , " but even the darkly satirical humor and the enjoyably quirky characterizations that characterized that film are scarce here ; " blood simple " is pretty much cold and brutal from beginning to end .
the premise of " blood simple " is really just a slight variation on the standard love - triangle / revenge scheme : sleazy bar owner julian marty ( dan hedaya ) hires a shifty private detective ( m . emmet walsh ) to kill his wife abby ( frances mcdormand ) and her illicit lover ray ( john getz ) .
things start to go haywire when walsh decides instead to fake the murder with photographic trickery but , upon collecting the money , becomes uncertain as to whether or not marty is capable of keeping his mouth shut about the scheme .
to reveal any more details of the story would be to give away too much , but what ensues is a series of bloody ( and i do mean bloody ) confrontations , each triggered by one or more characters misunderstanding what is actually happening .
every act of violence or deception in this film makes sense when seen through the perpetrator 's eyes , but we , the audience , are made privy to the " big picture " and thus can recognize that each misdeed is somehow either unnecessary or directed at the wrong person .
this aspect of the story , along with the intense atmosphere of repulsion and brutality - one gets the sense that if guns and , in one case , shovels , were not available , some of these characters would claw each other to death - are the most effective components of the film .
the coens might have done well to title the film " fear and loathing in texas .
"
some have labeled " blood simple as a modern - day noir , but , while i am not an expert on either genre , it seems more like a horror movie than anything else .
the coens seem much more interested in the plot twists and the atmosphere of confusion and paranoia than they do in the characters , and the final sequence is nothing more than a showdown between the one ( relatively ) innocent character and the only one of the murderers left alive .
that said , " blood simple " is a very good horror movie ; the fear and suspense here are genuine .
the coens also add plenty of quirky touches that nudge the weirdness meter upwards , such as when a character enters an empty room and accidentally steps on a gun , discharging it as it skitters across the floor , or when a murder attempt unfolds in a way such that abby mistakes her attacker for another character who has in fact been killed earlier in the film .
that said , " blood simple " is not exactly flawless .
for one thing , the motivations for the killings are still a little thin at times ; i can understand that the characters had tracks to cover ( or at least thought they did ) , but i found it a little hard to accept that all of them would so quickly resort to murder .
and although they at least didn ?
t have anyone get hacked to death with a knife , the coens also are n't quite immune to horror cliches ; they indulge in a prolonged dead - guy - seems - to - have - come - back - to - life - but - then - we - find - out - it's - only - a - dream scene that had me rolling my eyes .
the film also ends so quickly after the final confrontation that i found myself wondering if they had simply run out of film .
"
blood simple " is not quite the masterpiece of neo - noir that many seem to think it is , but it 's a decent movie and it showcases the coens ' ability to handle suspense and violence in a visceral but non - exploitative manner .
i would firmly recommend it to all " coen - heads " as well as anyone looking for something original in a thriller .
[A]:
P