In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
--------
Question: it seemed like the perfect concept .
what better for the farrelly brothers , famous for writing and directing comedies with offensive subject matter , than to make a movie about a guy with a split personality ?
it 's exactly the sort of thing the brothers relish : poking fun at something serious ( in this case mental illness ) , throwing all care to the wind to get a laugh .
jim carrey 's signed on too ?
even better .
the national alliance for the mentally ill even helped out by levying complaints against the brothers ' new film before its opening , claiming it was misrepresenting the condition of split personality , labeling it incorrectly as " schizophrenia , " and so forth .
such a protest seemed like just the sort of thing that would , of course , only add more fuel to the farrelly brothers ' fire , proving that some people just could n't take a joke , and that the farrellys would be helping the more enlightened viewers to yet another dose of their brilliantly subversive comedy .
yes , it all seemed perfect , but one thing went wrong : their movie is n't funny .
it 's not for lack of trying .
the farrellys utilize in " me , myself & irene " their most high - concept premise ever : carrey plays charlie baileygaites , a man who after being dumped by his wife for a midget limo driver , decides to bury all his aggressive feelings deep down inside and never release them .
this , of course , means all his neighbors exploit his entirely too - forgiving nature , making his job as a rhode island state trooper increasingly difficult .
soon enough , charlie 's repressed aggression manifests itself into a second , independent personality named hank , a deep - voiced , boorish ogre unafraid of taking the assertive actions his predecessor had been unable to muster .
this guy is n't above crashing a car through the wall of the barber shop in which he 's been insulted , or holding a little girl 's head underwater because she refused to stop jump - roping in the street .
then things start getting lost in the most complicated plot the farrellys have ever attempted , and the film runs off its tracks .
some have suggested that this is n't a problem , because the farrelly brothers ' brand of humor does n't require plot to work .
they 're wrong , of course : plot was greatly instrumental in building up the kind of rollicking comic energy that infused the farrellys ' last effort , 1996 's " there 's something about mary .
"
( 1999 's " outside providence " was technically an earlier project . )
the brothers ' earlier film was n't funny merely because it contained outrageous gags ( despite what some newsmagazine articles would have you believe ) , but rather because its most outrageous gags were entirely unexpected .
in " mary , " the farrellys managed several times to pull off a neat sleight - of - hand trick : they 'd have you thinking the story was going one way , then reveal its real direction in delightfully surprising fashion .
" me , myself & irene , " by contrast , seems to have been made by folks who looked at " mary " and saw only the surface grossness , missing all of the subtle machinations that really made it work . having been produced by the same guys who made " mary , " " irene " seems like an even bigger disappointment .
the brothers pile on the offensive humor , taking shots at race , midgets , albinos , mental illness , and all manner of bathroom jokes .
but they have n't come up with a way to make any of it fresh most of " me , myself & irene " comes off as rote , by - the - numbers , adolescent comedy .
the plot , with carrey forced to drive alleged fugitive irene p . waters ( renee zellweger ) , who 's in more trouble than anyone knows , back to new york , has an ending that 's entirely predictable from the get - go .
( think charlie and irene will fall in love ?
yeah , me too . )
the farrellys then introduce scores of different characters , and none of them ever manage to do anything you have n't already expected them to do , no matter how outrageous their actions might be .
compared to the curveballs the farrellys are used to throwing , this stuff is almost entirely soft - tossed , presenting an obvious problem : when gross - out humor loses its shock value ,
it 's no longer funny , merely gross .
the jokes that do work are milked over and over until their effectiveness runs dry .
take , for example , the subplot involving charlie 's three black sons ( anthony anderson , mongo brownlee , jerod mixon ) .
the incongruity of it all is funny for a while , with three burly black men discussing higher math in ghetto language and white - bread carrey mouthing said language with an entirely too - pleasant smile on his face .
but by the end of the film , they 're still doing the same schitck it has n't been elevated to another , funnier level , and it has n't been dropped either .
that 's too bad , because it ceases to be amusing about halfway through .
" me , myself & irene " reeks of wasted opportunities .
there ought to be more focus on how other people react to charlie 's new personality , and on how charlie deals with the consequences of hank 's actions .
this does n't really happen nearly every supporting character learns about charlie 's condition early on , so they do n't have any opportunity to be surprised by it .
the film throws what looks like a patented farrelly curve in a scene towards the midway point ( involving an albino companion charlie and irene pick up called , appropriately , " whitey " ) , but the script does n't go anywhere with it , instead leaving the thread twisting in the wind before awkwardly tying it up during the climax .
jim carrey is a gifted comedian , both physically and vocally , but
he 's left with nothing much to do here
except contort himself in a manner similar to steve martin in " all of me .
"
it 's a great showcase of flexibility and split - second role - shifting , but none of it is terribly funny .
carrey does n't pull any stunts we do n't expect him to pull , and the farrellys ' script does n't give him anything else to pull : the situations in which he must perform the role - shifting are n't set up in any meaningful way .
perhaps carrey can take solace in the fact that his supporting actors fare no better .
zellweger 's irene is not a strong female lead mary in " mary " may have been part adolescent fantasy , but she was also intelligent and strong - willed .
irene is nothing in particular , as the film never makes clear whether she 's ditzy , clever , or neither . as such ,
she gives us nothing to latch onto as the only " sane " person in the film .
chris cooper is stuck playing exactly one note as a corrupt fbi agent , and his character is entirely too straight - laced for a movie like this .
he , like the others , does absolutely nothing unexpected .
after viewing the shapeless mess that " me , myself & irene " eventually dissolved into , i was stuck wondering whether or not the farrellys had outsmarted themselves .
maybe their kind of comedy can only work for so long until audiences get wise to it and stop being shocked .
but i do n't believe it -- good filmmakers find ways of surprising their audiences even after people have grown attuned to their style .
if the farrellys are indeed good , smart filmmakers ( and i still think they are ) , they 'll rebound just fine .
even after that happens , though , i 'll still consider " me , myself & irene " to be a high - caliber misfire .

Answer: N


Question: field of dreams
almost defies description .
although it 's about baseball , it 's not a baseball movie .
although the film is extremely spiritual , it 's not about religion .
and although field of dreams is melodramatic , it 's not a tearjerker .
to really understand what field of dreams is all about , you have to see it .
in the film , kevin costner plays ray kinsella , a baseball fan , ' 60s berkeley graduate , and iowa farmer .
one day as he is standing in the middle of his expansive corn fields , ray hears a voice ; it tells him : " if you build it , he will come .
"
then ray has a vision and somehow concludes that if he builds a baseball field in the middle of his corn , shoeless joe jackson will arise from the dead to play ball once again .
and even though it depletes his family 's savings and his neighbors think he 's crazy , ray clears away the corn and builds a baseball field , complete with bleachers and flood lights .
"
if you build it , he will come .
"
and lo and behold , shoeless joe does come -- bringing with him several of his dead teammates .
and then ray hears the voice again ; it tells him to " ease his pain .
" ray thinks this means that he must travel to boston to meet terence mann , an influential and radical novelist from the ' 60s who has since stopped writing and dropped out of society .
with great aplomb , james earl jones plays the disillusioned author who joins forces with ray and embarks with him on a magical and spiritual journey .
the cast in field of dreams is excellent ,
especially kevin costner in the lead role .
costner gives a quiet , subtle , and moving performance as a man who before building the baseball field had done nothing crazy or spontaneous in his entire life .
costner gives ray just the right mix of enthusiasm and idealism to make us believe in his mystic visions and swallow this wondrous fairy tale .
amy madigan gives a fine supporting performance as ray 's feisty and loving wife , who against her better judgement supports her husband 's crazy ideas .
in her most impressive scene , madigan vehemently argues against book burning at a p .
t .
a . meeting , displaying the sincere passion of a ' 60s berkeley radical .
ray liotta is appropriately eerie and awe - inspiring as the ghost of shoeless joe , the legendary batter who was suspended from baseball for his involvement in the 1919 chicago " black sox " scandal .
and finally , burt lancaster is memorable
in a small , but important , role as a small town doctor whose professional baseball career was limited to only one inning .
field of dreams is a touching fairy tale full of life , wonder , mystery , spirit , and humor .
it , for the most part , succeeds in capturing our emotions and suspending our disbelief .
ray kinsella 's spiritual quest in pursuit of his dreams proves to be moving and miraculous .
but while field of dreams generally avoids excessive melodrama , it unfortunately does at times go overboard , and by the end it gets down - right sappy .
in general , however , field of dreams is an emotionally satisfying fantasy -- one i can recommend to everyone but unromantic cynics .

Answer: P


Question: the job of the film critic is to see a movie and write a review of it that tells you what it 's about and why it 's good or bad .
i feel kind of embarrassed to admit this , but i after having seen " get carter
" i really ca n't tell you what it 's about although i could go on and on about how and why it 's a bad movie .
" get carter " falls into that category of ?
movies that continue to be made for reasons unknown to anyone outside of a hollywood executive board room .
you might call them the " steven seagal / mickey rourke / jean - claude van damme / wesley snipes school of mediocre action / crime thrillers .
"
you know - the potboilers that are heavy on fistfights , shoot - outs and car chases but really light on plot and character development .
they have stories where the so - called hero just keeps running into characters who have some connection to one of the other characters who are all antagonists without a reason for being in the movie other than to give the protagonist someone to fight , chase or shoot at .
sylvester stallone stars as jack carter , a las vegas - based mob enforcer who returns home
* for his brother 's funeral .
he believes his brother ?
richie was " taken out " and did n't die from a dwi accident .
carter 's one of the most cliche bad - asses ever captured on celluloid .
his face alone is pretty intimidating and there 's quite a few scenes in which he leans on both regular citizens and criminal lowlives simply by staring them down and speaking with confidence in his " rambo - on - testosterone - therapy " voice .
stallone 's performance in this movie is so forced and unnatural
he does n't realize he 's mocking himself .
the actual story involves carter 's investigation into his brother richie 's death .
he 's in a town that 's not his
but somehow the local top dogs know him very well .
mickey rourke co - stars as one of these characters , a sort of crime boss who has something to do with running a porno web site and blackmailing a young internet tycoon
( played by alan cummings looking and acting a lot like pee wee herman ) .
there 's also another plot involving richie 's mistress , a secret cd - rom with some convicting and disturbing evidence on it and something terrible involving one of carter 's still - living relatives .
i 'm rolling my eyes
just thinking about trying to critique all this in a way that could be remotely comprehendible .
i could just rip the screenplay to shreds , plus the direction or the editing or the production values but that would require discussion of nearly every scene in order to explain it all .
i do n't like to put spoliers in my reviews either intentionally or accidentally .
yes , " get carter " is just that complicated and complex .
and what 's worse is that it 's not this intricate to make it seem smart like " the usual suspects " for example - just the opposite .
you get the feeling whoever wrote this script
did it in short intervals spaced far apart
and they probably did n't remember what had already happened and did n't figure out how each scene would lead in to the next one or how the major plot points would work towards the climax .
all you really need to know is that most of the film is just scenes of carter tracking down one scumbag or supposed witness after another , asking them what they know , getting information and then realizing that if he was n't a complete idiot he could have figured it out in the first five minutes .
although the supporting characters are equally stupid themselves since they tell him everything which comes back to haunt them in one violent way or another .
making a movie entirely about criminals does n't necessarily mean they have to be unlikable and cliche cutout characters .
mel gibson starred in " payback " a few years ago
that had a story not unlike this one but had such a good screenplay you could n't help
but like him even though he was just as bad a guy as jack carter .
so ultimately " get
carter " fails for pretty much every selling point it has
. carter is not a likable character and you really do n't care if he gets revenge or not .
the action sequences are not at all exciting or original .
the enemies and their massive conspiracy are not threatening at all ( c'mon , you know who 's going to win every brawl and shoot - out and car chase ) .
in the end you do n't feel nearly satisfied with the results .
the filmmakers did a good job in doing everything as unoriginal as possible .
*
the city is never mentioned by name
but i assume it 's seattle since all the cars have washington license plates
and it 's always raining .

Answer:
N