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

Example Input: according to the publicity material , with this movie the directors " hope to restore good old - fashioned bowling to its rightful place in the mainstream of american consciousness .
" hmm .
you never know , they just might be on to something .
what with the rise of geek chic , lounge music and seventies fashion , the ever - contrary kids of the nineties might just latch on to bowling as another terminally unhip bastion of tackyana to claim as their own .
but then , i doubt if kingpin will have anything to do with it .
it 's cheesy all right , but connoisseurs of bad taste will find this film exudes that bland smell of stale jokes rather than the invigorating stink of true kitsch .
that 's a shame , because , in the first ten minutes
or so the film promises to be a lot more .
woody harrelson plays the hotshot bowler on the rise , roy munson .
the movie opens in the fifties with roy 's dad dishing out the reader 's digest / gumpian wisdom in scoopfuls , shifting to the 70s for a hilarious spoof of saturday night fever .
the sardonic tone of the proceedings is much enhanced by the presence of bill murray , as the delectably slimy big ern mcracken .
it 's thanks to murray that the first quarter of kingpin seems so good
- he gives the wry , derisive edge to this otherwise rather unfocused comedy .
mccracken dupes munson into a hustling job , then abandons him to an angry mob who mangle roy 's hand .
then it 's fast forward 17 years later when munson is a fat , balding loser with a prosthetic rubber hand .
he 's hopeless until he meets ishmael ( randy quaid ) ,
an amish amateur bowler that munson takes on as protege .
so together they set out for the million dollar bowling tournament in reno , picking up pretty hustler claudia ( vanessa angel ) on the way .
with the exit of bill murray , the filmmakers seem to have only one direction to go , and that 's . . .
dumb and dumber .
yes , indeed , kingpin is brought to you by those modern proponents of laxative humour , peter and bobby farrelly , the directors of the aforementioned jim carrey vehicle .
so , prepare for much slaparound comedy with flying rubber hands , distended nipples , ridiculous hair and bull semen .
get set for stock fish - out - of - water situations when city - boy roy puts on a beard and tries to blend in with the amish community , or when suaku straitlaced ishmael takes on smoking , striptease and unchristian neighbour - socking .
now , do n't get me wrong , there 's nothing wrong with cheap humour , and i had my fair share of lavatorial laughs with woody and randy .
the trouble is that these jokes are n't bold or funny enough to drive a movie that bumbles along without much sense of direction .
it lurches from sports movie to amish - mocking to road - trip to sentimental melodrama , ( pausing for a broadside spoof of indecent proposal , and many shameless plugs for the accompanying pop soundtrack ) , never quite getting it all together .
some gags fall flat from a lack of build - up , while there are bits and pieces in the movie that simply do n't do anything .
why the long , unfunny fight in the car park ?
why two of these ?
why does that guy wear mascara , or that guy have a glass bowling ball with a rose in it ?
the film is full of these half - thought - through ideas that give the impression of any old gaffer , grip or makeup artist throwing in random stuff and saying , " would n't that be funny ? " .
well , no , actually .
the actors do n't do the movie much favours either .
woody harrelson comes off okay , plausibly acting dumb , smart , cynical or innocent when the implausible script calls for it , but randy quaid is a ceaseless ham , and vanessa angel has no talent ( like schwarzenegger , she seems more convincing playing a computer - creation than a human -- take the tv series weird science . . .
please ) .
even murray hams it up when he reappears in the movie 's climax .
all in all , a fairly useless attempt at comedy , and a certified no - hoper at kickstarting the bowling renaissance .
we 'll have to look to a reinspired john waters , or perhaps somebody from down under ( " strictly bowling " , anyone ? ) for the definitive bowling comedy .
the flying inkpot 's rating system :
* wait for the video .
*
* 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: whether or not i would be considered a trekker probably depends on whom you would ask .
i have been a fan of both the original series and its recently retired follow - up , as well as the even- numbered entries in the film series .
however , i have never been one of those folks who store away trek minutiae and get into debates over the relative merits of spock vs .
data .
somewhere along the line , the " star trek " film series began to seem more and more directed at those in the latter category , and star trek :
generations may be the natural conclusion of this direction .
its production values may be high , but the writing is frequently appalling , and instead of a script has a collection of references , in - jokes and ill - defined characters .
generations opens in the late 23rd century , where members of the original enterprise crew , including captain james t .
kirk ( william shatner ) , are present for the christening of the latest ship to bear that name .
no sooner is it out on its maiden voyage than a distress signal brings them to the nexus , a mysterious ribbon of energy .
among those rescued from the nexus is long - lived alien
dr .
soran ( malcolm mcdowell ) , but he is none - too - pleased at being back in the real world .
seventy - eight years later , soran is still trying to get back to the nexus , and again encounters an enterprise ,
this one led by captain jean - luc picard ( patrick stewart ) .
soran 's plan involves destroying a star with an inhabited planet , and the only hope for saving 230 million people is the historic meeting of two enterprise captains .
i do n't think it is an insult to fans of " star trek " to suggest that to a certain extent , the particulars of a plot are not really the most important elements in a " trek " film .
it 's about a chance to visit with old friends , and if they are involved in a truly interesting story it can be considered gravy .
but even that interpretation assumes that characterization has to be consistent , and in generations that just does n't happen .
data ( brent spiner ) is particularly victimized by this sloppy writing .
in the film 's major sub - plot , data decides to use a chip which will give him human emotions , a chip he has had in his possession for over a year .
what is his motivation for taking this drastic and perhaps dangerous step ?
he does n't get a joke .
once the chip is in place , spiner gets to have a lot of fun with data 's new emotions , but the point is that he 's no longer the data we know .
if the rest of the " next generation " cast fares any better , it 's only because they 're on the screen
so little that they 're simply window dressing .
but then again , this story is n't really about the new crew .
it 's about kirk and picard , the cowboy and the politician , sharing the screen .
the huge surprise is that william shatner blows patrick stewart away .
perhaps because he knows this is his last go - round in the part that made him a legend , shatner looks like he 's having the time of his life ; stewart , on the other hand ,
borders on the deferrential , and is saddled with the same lackluster motivations as everyone else in the cast .
stewart 's edginess is indicative of what may be a very bad sign for paramount 's hopes to turn the new cast into the same kind of franchise the original cast was : these are clearly the not ready for big screen players .
by contrast , the prologue which features scotty ( james doohan ) and chekhov ( walter koenig ) is the highlight of the film .
these characters have become part of the popular mythology , and when they take over the enterprise in a moment of distress , it 's a moment of high energy .
only thirty years of history can create a moment like that , and that 's time this new crew does n't have .
it certainly does n't help that the plot they are stuck in is so convoluted and badly constructed that you need to leave a trail of bread crumbs to find your way out again .
it 's also loaded with little gags all aimed at those who are familiar enough with the series to turn to all their friends in a shared nudge of recognition .
i wonder whether anyone who is coming in cold to the " trek " universe at this point would be anything but
baffled and bored
by what is going on .
and what a waste of malcolm mcdowell , who could have been a great monomanical villain but should have been given a much more compelling reason for his obsession .
there are plenty of details both scientific and of continuity to pick at , but to do so would be to ignore generations ' major flaws .
however , i would like to make one recommendation : seatbelts .
not just for the enterprise crew , although you 'd think by the 24th century space travel would n't involve rolling around on the floor during a battle .
no , i think the audience might need them more .
this journey is one bumpy ride .
Example Output: N

Example Input: if only austin powers : the spy who shagged me had been just half as original , zany , silly and totally enjoyable as its predecessor , it would have easily been one of this summer 's biggest pleasures .
if only .
in fact , the spy who shagged me is the exact opposite of the original ; instead of refreshing the audience with one clever parody after another ,
the filmmakers bombard us with used - up , tired jokes taken directly from the first one . take the scene where austin powers ( again played by mike myers , but with only a fraction of the giddy enthusiasm he displayed previously ) confronts a henchmen on the side of a cliff .
after being pushed off the ravine , the bad guy is of course assumed dead .
but suddenly , we hear a pleading voice coming from down below ; he 's only injured .
a similar scene played very well in the original international man of mystery , but here i was insulted by it .
did the filmmakers really believe the audience would laugh at a rip - off ?
apparently i overestimated the intelligence of the average movie - goer , considering that the film has pulled in over $ 200 million in domestic theatrical grosses alone .
do i hear the sound of a franchise heading our way ?
having said that , though , i still can not deny the film its merits .
the basic plot was delightfully silly enough to sustain my interest somewhat ; dr .
evil ( mike myers , in the second of his three roles ) , having constructed a time machine , goes back to the year 1969 in an attempt to snatch austin power 's " mojo
" ( do n't you just love that word ? )
whilst he is cryogenically frozen .
when austin gets wind of this ( after a great intro explaining the absence of elizabeth hurley 's vanessa kensington ) , he too travels back in time to re - claim his sexual drive , accompanied by the hot - to - trot felicity shagwell , played by heather graham .
this sounds stupid , i know , but in the movie it starts to make some kind of weird , off - the - wall sense , and it worked for me .
then there 's mini - me ( verne troyer ) ,
a . . .
petite clone of myer 's dr .
evil , exactly 1/8 in size .
troyer 's persona alone gains the film
an extra half - star , contributing to one particularly hilarious scene where he attempts to nibble on his own mini - mr . bigglesworth .
just try to ignore the fact that , at 2'8 ' ' , he would make dr .
evil 's height rise to just over 21 feet .
no matter .
however , there are only about four hearty laughs throughout the entire hour and a half (
the most notable being the now infamous tent scene ) , and that just is n't enough to warrant even a minor recommendation .
if there is in fact an " austin powers 3 " , they should just kill off secret agent powers and put the emphasis on dr .
evil and mini - me .
unconventional , yes ,
but there 's no denying that it 'd make for a better movie .
Example Output:
N