In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
--------
Question: of all the films i 've come to see this year ( 1997 ) , i think only chasing amy had as many " laugh - out - loud " moments
.
i 'm not saying that i was hysterically rolling on the floor while watching waiting for guffman , but my mouth burst open with at least a delighted guffaw at least every couple of minutes .
and i think i 'm the kind of person that laughs least at movies , even when i find them funny .
usually all you can get out of me is a warm smile , so to get me laughing out loud , and so frequently , is a really good sign .
waiting for guffman is the story of blaine , missouri , a town celebrating
it 's 150th anniversary , and the musical that is being put on for the big event .
the play is being directed by corky st .
clair ( christopher guest , who also wrote and directed this " mockumentary " as well as co - writing several original musical numbers ) , the effeminate broadway hopeful determined to make this production a smashing success .
teaming up with st .
clair are a handful of blaine residents : allan pearl ( eugene levy ) , a jewish dentist who spent his youth not as the class clown , but sitting right next to him and studying him , ron and sheila albertson ( fred willard and catherine o'hara respectively ) , a married couple setting their sights on hollywood , libby mae brown ( parker posey ) , the dense but fun queen of the dairy queen , and a few others .
everybody in this movie is brilliant , absolutely so , but levy particularly stands out .
these characters are portrayed with such saddening realism that you ca n't help but love them , as pathetic as they really are .
although levy stands out , guest , willard , o'hara , and posey are all wonderful and definitely should be commended for their performances ! if there was an oscar for an ensemble performance , this is the group that should sweep it .
some humor was a tad uneven from the rest of the film and , even after starting very humorously , they nearly lost me with the tad - too - long intros . as delightful as it was , it began to get monotonous .
thankfully , just as your about to say " ok , maybe i should run to the bathroom " , they finally get past the intros and onto the rehearsal scenes .
like a play , this film gives a very three - act feel , the intros ( funny , but almost too long ) , the rehearsals ( even funnier ) , and finally , the actual performance of the play ( excellent ! ) .
like i said , each character really shines , even when done with a subtle approach .
you ca n't really watch these people and not think they 're real people !
even they way they talk , with awkward pauses and stumbles that do n't feel staged at all , you feel like you 're watching a real , albeit funny , documentary .
and even with silly lyrics , the original songs when the play is finally put on , are absolutely wonderful !
as a word of note , despite it 's " r " rating , waiting for guffman is really quite clean .
this rating came from a brief , very brief use of the grand - daddy of all swear words .
even if that really bothers you , let me say that it 's not presented in a vulgar , cheap - laugh way .
it 's actually quite humorous and tastefully done !
it might be hard knowing what to expect with waiting for guffman .
it 's silly humor , but it 's also so dry , subtle , and intelligently done that you 're not insulted by it .
it 's always really nice to see a comedy that is n't all slapstick and vulgarity , and this film is one of the better ones of the better ones !
i 'd recommend seeing it !

Answer: P


Question: this is the worst movie i 've viewed so far in 98 .
the avengers = silly = man dressed in a bowler hat + woman wearing tight leathers
> evil scientists dressed in teddy bear suits + greater evil , sir august de wynter wearing kilt .
the question is what could have gone wrong with a potentially great idea with big name cast ?
the same question was probably asked of last year 's stinker batman and robin .
i feel the production got a little too smug ,
the script a little to smart and direction was somehow lost in the chaos of random events that collided together to form a movie .
my greatest criticism rests on the fact that there was no chemistry between emma peel and john steed ( thurman and fiennes ) ?
something that was a vital element of the 60 's tv serial of the same name .
the dialogue goes on and on about tea and other finer british perks , but does not allow much room for character development and interaction , except to perhaps grate on the viewer 's nerves .
one wonders why the dynamic pair bother kissing in the end except for pure english formality .
connery as sir august , does not fair better than thurman or fiennes .
his dialogue is as erratic as stormy weather , mostly embarrassing and poor quality .
if there is a movie you would prefer never to see , i believe the avengers would be a good choice .
for one thing , you will not have to witness a product that is far inferior to the three high profile names that is associated with the title .
i can not understand how something
so poorly produced could have been released , but i put it down to one of those freak happenings in nature , like lightning you ca n't see it coming until it hits you .

Answer: N


Question: 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 .

Answer:
N