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

Example Input: synopsis : lifelong friends rafe ( affleck ) and danny ( hartnett )
join the us air force and are stationed at pearl harbor , hawaii .
rafe goes to england to fight alongside british pilots and is seemingly killed in action .
danny falls in love with rafe 's girlfriend , evelyn ( beckinsale ) , but rafe survives and returns to confront his former friend .
meanwhile , the japanese sneak attack is imminent . . .
review : " pearl harbor " is a perfect example of movies as product rather than as art .
it is little more than a crassly - calculated attempt to woo the masses , enticing them with big stars , big effects , and a big setting -- but no heart .
it is difficult to criticise the actors , because they do everything the movie demands of them . sadly ,
this amounts to barely more than reciting dialogue of such sheer banality that it makes one eager to see the script randall wallace wrote with his right hand at the same time as he was writing " pearl harbor " with his left .
the plot here is pure cliche , and the wartime setting simply a convenient backdrop .
there is no genuine exploration of what pearl harbor meant to the united states , and no insight into its vital role in inciting that country to join world war ii . instead , there is just an assembly - line love triangle , some empty patriotic rhetoric , and a laughable attempt to placate japanese viewers via the inclusion of some reticent imperial commanders ( when one intones , " i fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant " , i nearly fell out of my seat ) .
to the movie 's credit , it does include a fantastic portrayal of the attack itself , an exciting and dizzying hour which plunges viewers into the war .
if only the remaining two hours had been crafted with such skill , perhaps this memorial day non - event would have been worth watching .
Example Output: N

Example Input: carry on at your convenience is all about the goings - on in the factory of a toilet manufacturer , wc boggs ( kenneth williams ) .
once they have won an order to manufacture 1000 bidets in two months and charles coote ( charles hawtrey ) has designed a suitable model , the factory employees set to work but are interrupted by union representative vic spanner ( kenneth cope ) and friend bernie hulke ( bernard bresslaw ) who call them out on strikes on the slightest pretext .
meanwhile , chief foreman sid plummer ( sid james ) is growing tired of his wife beattie ( hattie jacques ) and her budgie .
he would much rather live next door with fellow boggs worker chloe moore ( joan sims )
but once he discovers that the budgie can predict the winners of horse races , he is over the moon and flush with money .
his daughter , myrtle plummer ( jacki piper ) , is going out with wc 's son lewis boggs ( richard o'callaghan ) and this causes conflict on the staff day out to the seaside when vic spanner vies for her attentions .
in the end , if the strike does not cease , boggs will have to close down his factory , but the support of a group of women led by coote 's wife - to - be and spanner 's mother , agatha spanner ( renee houston ) , try to resolve the situation .
also , sid realises that his budgie has caused him nothing but trouble since it started predicting horse race winners .
there are some good performances , as usual , from sid james and kenneth williams in their standard roles .
charles hawtrey is third billing but only appears in a few scenes .
his part is mildly amusing .
richard o'callaghan is appealing as bogg 's stuck - up son , patsy rowlands is funny as miss withering , bogg 's assistant , and renee houston is terrific in her small part as agatha .
however , sole acting honours go to hattie jacques as beattie plummer .
although her character is not directly involved with the main storyline , she manages to input a great deal of pathos and feeling into her character .
a marvellous performance from a marvellous actress .
the film suffers from annoying performances by bernard bresslaw and especially kenneth cope .
in his carry on debut , cope
overdoes his role as spanner making him so annoying as to be unfunny .
joan sims returns as the love interest ( instead of barbara windsor ) .
sims ' ' usual ' part as the downtrodden wife was taken by hattie jacques .
additionally , bill maynard as fred moore is very poor .
this carry on movie tries it best to entertain the viewer : - the locations and wealth of characters are appealing . however ,
the toilet humour becomes tiresome very quickly and some of the performances leave a lot to be desired .
this movie does not know where it is going .
it was made in 1971 and talbot rothwell the scriptwriter seems to be in two minds whether to go for ' bluer ' jokes or to maintain the ' innocent ' jokes success of most of its predecessors .
that is why this film suffers .
a minor carry on film whose major asset is the performance by hattie jacques .
the new ' minor - regulars ' such as o'callaghan and piper are not able to enliven the movie and the toilet humour becomes humourless after a while .
Example Output: N

Example Input: 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 .
Example Output:
N