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

Example Input: be warned . .
brit love story in the offing .
effeminate , mild - mannered karl is about to take a beatng from a bunch of ruffians at school as he bathes himself under a shower , his genitals tucked between his legs in the manner of a posing transvestite .
he is only just saved by prentice , who appears in all respects barring his protective attitude towards karl to be your average street - wise punk - in - the - making .
the ensuing scene ends up with both boys being ridiculed and then unfairly expelled from the school .
they do not see each other for another eighteen yeas .
in that time , prentice has matured into a somewhat loveable , if brash and bull - heaed goon who screws up his jobs and relationships while gamely clinging onto perennial adolescence via lether jackets , motorcycles and punk rock music .
karl
, on the other hand , has grown up to become kim , a drabby , insecure woman who works as a verse writer for a greeting card company .
chance brings the two together , and love , such as will inevitably blossom in your quirky british romantic comedy , is what this skewed little story is largely about .
if at this point you think you 're going to get any cheap laughs with that gender - bending theme ( see the birdcage , to wong foo .
. .
, priscilla queen of the desert ) ,
you can just go home and brood on your own maladjusted sexuality you low - life deadbeat .
kim is a post - operative transsexual , thank you very much . . .
a new - born woman for all purposes , with confusions and sensitivities that deserve treatment with a touch of delicacy .
personally , give me those cheap laughs any day .
i 'd rather enjoy obvious camp than endure the shallow exploration of a soft- hearted transsexual love story .
different for girls comes up with a promising enough proposition , but does nothing that surpasses the merely workmanlike with it .
by refusing to make the audience really uncomfortable with the notion of kim and prentice 's relation- ship , or at the very least feel uncomfortable for them ( prentice for example , does n't seem to give hiself all that much grief when he becomes attracted to kim despite being a fight - picking , beer - drinking , macho kind of guy , and kim , for all her insecurities and fears is always saved any truly disturbing victimisation in the film ) , and instead drawing them into a basically wimpy love story , the film manages to lobotomise itself .
lightweight comedy as it 's doomed to be , it could 've still have hacked it with the requisitive endearing couple .
but this does n't either , since even mrs doubtfire is sexier than steven mackintosh 's kim foyle , and as either sex , he 's just plainly a simpering wanker
nobody should like .
prentice does though , and that 's never explained .
but then rupert graves gives us so heroic performance as prentice , the guy who never grew up ( and
if there is a bafta prize for most convincing portrayal of a rabid fan at a buzzcocks ' concert , he should win that too ) that i guess there 's no reason to explain why he 's so screwed up .
if oddly enough you grow to like this show
, you 'll be wanting your happy ending , and the film wo n't fail you there either .
snide underling at kim 's office gets her come - uppance .
misogynistic police officer who beats up prentice gets his come - uppance .
the couple prevail against a disagreeable society and come together in kim 's apartment .
kim 's sister and her impotent sarge - type husband kiss and make up after a tiff ( tv movie sub - plot with incidental juxtaposition ) .
and best of all , kim sheds her insecurities and learns how to ride the motorcycle and wear leathers , making prentice ride pilion .
awwww .
terrific closure .
happy ending .
but just what is it that 's differnt for girls
anyway ?
if you figure that one out , let me know .
the flying inkpot rating system :
* wait for the tv2 broadcast .
*
* a little creaky , but still better than staying at home with gotcha !
*
* * pretty good , bring a friend .
*
*
* * amazing , potent stuff .
*
*
*
* * perfection . see it twice .
Example Output: N

Example Input: you 've got mail is a timely romance for this impersonal , computer - driven decade .
two people who 've never met confide in each other via e - mail without revealing their true identities .
nora ephron 's contemporary update of the shop around the corner retains the basic plot : two people who despise each other unwittingly become enamored with each other through their anonymous correspondence .
ephron , who co - wrote the film with her sister , delia , as well as directed it , knew what she was doing by reteaming tom hanks and meg ryan as the at - odds couple .
ryan is kathleen kelly , owner of a small children 's bookstore , while hanks is joe fox , who heads up a chain of mega bookstores ( think barnes & noble ) .
their charm and chemistry are the glue that binds this film , even through some of the script 's rough spots .
for the ephrons invested so much effort in their protagonists that they give short shrift to the talented supporting cast , including parker posey , greg kinnear , jean stapleton and steve zahn .
yet no one is really going to complain because the ephrons know their audience - and what the paying public wants is hanks and ryan .
and the two are kept busy .
one , the other or both are in nearly every scene .
hanks has his decent guy routine down pat , yet each time he does it ,
it seems effortless , spontaneous and fresh .
ryan
smoothly moves between spunky and vulnerable , with a sexy touch of winsomeness added to the brew .
their scenes together sparkle , even though they lack the nostalgic romanticism of sleepless in seattle .
and the shadow of that earlier hit hangs over you 've got mail like dried - up mistletoe .
the sparks created by the earlier movie are , by necessity , not evident here .
true , these are two people seeking true love , but you 've got mail is more comic and less poignant than its predecessor .
the ephrons ' script is witty and sharp .
however , as a director nora ephron is a bit uneven .
some scenes drag , while others , especially when hanks and ryan are revealing their souls via e - mail , are crisp and tidy .
also , the script gets sloppy toward the end with characters merely disappearing from the story .
a nice , romantic soundtrack adds to this date - night special .
overall , you 've got mail is a lush and cute outing , taking advantage of the star appeal of its two leads .
it 's a nice holiday movie , one for holding hands and snuggling . committed to lifelong learning through effective communication
Example Output: P

Example Input: there should be a requirement that a potential viewer be under a certain film iq in order to see " mission to mars .
"
there are probably quite a few people who are going to enjoy it , and most of them will probably be those who have seen very few films of its kind .
but there are those who will not , and those will most likely be people who have already seen one or more of the following movies :
" 2001 : a space odyssey , " " armageddon , " " apollo 13 , " " the abyss , " " close encounters of the third kind , " " e .
t .
the extra - terrestrial , " " alien , " and " aliens .
" why ? because
there is not one original idea in " mission to mars .
"
all of it is cribbed from other films ( and in most cases , better films ) .
if this is the sort of thing you do n't mind , you might like the film .
of course , there are other reasons not to like " mission to mars , " the main one being a script written by people who seem to assume their audience is filled with people who have n't used their brains in some time , and who do n't intend to start during the film 's running time .
" mission to mars " manages to be both stupid and boring at the same time .
the plot , cribbed greatly from " 2001 , " concerns a team sent to mars , the first manned trip ever made to the red planet .
luke graham ( don cheadle ) leads the team , jointly formed of americans and russians .
the team encounters a mysterious monolith that emits a strange pulse ( this being nothing like the pulse - emitting monolith in " 2001 " -- that one was on the * moon * ) , but when they try to study it , a giant sand tornado comes out of the top and swallows them ( all except luke , who survives long enough to send a garbled message back to the rotating space station , which looks strangely like the rotating space station in " 2001 " ) . a rescue mission is planned with husband & wife team woody blake ( tim robbins ) and terri fisher ( connie nielsen ) , obligatory pilot with a troubled past jim mcconnell ( gary sinise ) , and extra crew member phil ohlmyer ( jerry o'connell ) along for the ride .
after some zero - gravity dancing , they run into problems when one of their engines is blown , forcing them to attempt a desperate landing aboard a supply vessel .
now stranded on mars with minimal supplies , the team must decide whether or not it can risk entering the monolith or if they should return home .
after all , that monolith just might contain information about how life originated on earth .
" mission to mars " is one of those films that makes a critic wonder where to start when talking about all the things that are wrong with it , so let 's start with one of the things that does work : director brian de palma manages to create some eerie tension in a few scenes during the middle of the film .
that 's it .
everything else fails .
the failure is n't de palma 's fault ; he 's working from an atrocious script .
only during the sequence aboard the ship ( looking an awful lot like the jupiter vessel in " 2001 " ) where the rescue team 's air begins running out and they must frantically search for the hole and patch it up does " mission to mars " come to life .
a scene where they attempt to save a comrade floating away into space also provides some tension , until you realize that the entire danger / more danger / attempted rescue sequence has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the film ; it 's just a contrived way to generate thrilling scenes .
take it out , and the plot is n't affected in any way .
the sequence also suffers from a few plot holes
( as does the rest of the film ) : why is the ship 's computer ( which sounds strangely like hal from , uh , " 2001 " ) able to detect a hole in the main chamber but not one in the engine ?
why did tim robbins ' character have to go outside the ship when the solution easily presented itself from inside ?
should n't the astronauts be better trained to deal with a hull breach ?
why are the characters such idiots ?
because the script makes little attempt to properly develop them .
all the " conflict " is clumsily delivered in excruciatingly obvious exposition in the opening scene ( which rips off orson welles and robert altman by utilizing a long opening tracking shot ) during which the characters repeatedly tell each other about things all of them should already know : " jim , it 's too bad you ca n't go on this mission because you were determined ' psychologically inadequate ' because your wife died right before you were to go on the mission together
" -- does anyone really talk like this ?
ca n't we find out these things in a less grating matter , like maybe in a flashback ?
the whole film is like that .
the filmmakers are not content to merely show us something and assume we know what 's going on ; they must * tell * us exactly what we 're looking at * every * time .
sample dialogue from the film : ( shot of mars ) astronaut
a : " look , there 's mars " astronaut b :
" you sure that 's mars ?
" astronaut a :
" yeah , that 's mars all right .
" astronaut c :
" hey , are you guys looking at mars ?
" that exchange is n't actually in " mission to mars , " but i would n't be surprised if it were .
for all their cribbing from kubrick , spielberg , james cameron , and even ron howard , the makers of this film have n't learned to do something all those directors did very well :
show and do n't tell .
de palma used to know how , but seems to have forgotten .
this is mentally - challenged filmmaking ; they assume the audience wo n't get what 's going on , so they explain everything five times over .
fourth - graders may appreciate this , but more learned viewers will have their intelligence insulted .
the principal actors sleepwalk their way through " mission to mars , " never managing to do away with an apparent " i 'm just here to get a paycheck " attitude .
cheadle stumbles over his awkward lines .
armin mueller - stahl manages to thoroughly embarrass himself in an unbilled cameo .
robbins puts his game face on and phones in his standard " decent guy " performance . and sinise hams it up with " wistful " facial expressions while watching tapes of his dead wife ( played by kim delaney , who only has one scene during which she still manages to deliver some ridiculous dialogue in a heavy - handed monologue about the meaning of life ) , and especially during the stolen - from - no - less - than - three - movies ( a lollipop to whoever names them ) conclusion , which combines endless , obvious explanation and sub - par cgi effects with gagging sentimentality and is sure to alienate any viewers who had been enjoying the show up until then .
and of course , these aliens from mars who facilitated the evolution of life on earth are entirely different from the aliens in " 2001 " who facilitated the evolution of life on earth ; those aliens were from an * unknown * world .
it could be said that fans of brainless action films might enjoy " mission to mars , " but such a comment ignores the fact that the film is also incredibly slow - going .
leisurely pacing might have helped a film with a little more substance to it , but all of the substance of " mission to mars " has been stolen from other films , and those other films dealt with their ideas in a much more thoughtful fashion and generally contained more engaging characters .
supposedly we 're intended to choke up when one character decides not to return home at the end of this one ( totally different from the one - character - decides - not - to - return ending of " armageddon " ) , but i suspect most people will either be laughing or groaning .
me , i alternated between the two .
there is only one good thing about the way " mission to mars
" finally ends : the fact that the movie is over .
Example Output:
N