In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
--------
Question: some movies ask you to leave your brain at the door , some movies ask you to believe in the impossible to really have a good time .
playing god asks just one simple , eensy , teensy thing so it can fully entertain you ,
it 's accomplished in just four easy to follow steps : crack open your skull , scoop out your brain , squish it under your foot several times and reverse steps two and one .
congratulations , you now have all the necessary requirements to fully enjoy a whole lot of nothing .
some movies fail at the box office but you manage to see why the producers thought it could have been a good movie , others are simply good ideas that are badly executed .
then there 's playing god , which enters the esteemed category of movies which seem to have grown from the union of a drunk director , actors satisfied in the knowledge that this horrible flick will have no lasting impact on their careers and a bunch of rip - offs
( or homages as they like to call it ) from other , better movies that end up looking like an unflushed toilet .
harsh ?
maybe .
justified ?
hell yes !
this is a movie that is not just satisfied in ripping off other movies but feels the need to remind us of that fact every ten minutes .
for example , a gunman bursts into a garden with the two guns in his hands firing away .
this does look moderately kool , but the camera lingers on the actor for so long you can almost hear the director yelling : " oooh , look look !
john woo !
two guns blazing !
slooooow motion ! "
and if that was n't enough , you can also hear the script grunting under the effort it must take to try and make every single line of dialogue sound like something deep and meaningful like in a tarantino movie .
poor timothy hutton gets to deliver most of the corny lines , you have to admire the effort he puts into it , this guy deserves better .
unlike most movies this one does not suffer from " stupid bad guy " syndrome , just to make things a little different this time
we get stupid heroes .
example : duchovny manages to distract a bad guy by making him go into the bathroom to get some bandages .
now the bad guy is , like , stoned , man , so he leaves his shotgun next to our hero .
( term used as loosely as possible ) survival instincts and a good dose of common sense seems to suggest grabbing the shotgun , which our hero does , but only after contemplating it for about thirty seconds .
even when he does grab it he seems unsure how to hold it , going so far as to actually wonder if he should place a finger near the trigger .
mind you , i 've never fired a shotgun in my life but believe you me that the bad guy would be missing most of his vital organs , be he stoned or not .
some will argue that our hero does not have a killer instinct , the hell with that !
two fbi guys have just been shot in front me , along with one bad guy and the other looks like he might go ballistic at any second .
solution ?
boom !
i 'll take the time to feel sorry about it later
thank you very much .
another prime example of the idiot hero syndrome
: our boy duchovny needs to reach his girl before something bad happens to her .
he knows the head bad guy has her on the tenth floor of a building and that he might be running into a room full of people with itchy trigger fingers .
he still has his shotgun , bring it along
you say ?
no thanks , i 'll just ditch it in the back of my car .
and the real kicker is this : when he reaches the room and people start shooting at him he has the nerve to look surprised ! while we are on the subject of getting shot , why in hades were those fbi guys sitting with their backs to the door ?
i 've got no formal training but
even i know you never sit with your back to the door .
ask mr .
wild bill , the first and only time he did not sit with his back to a wall cost him his life .
this is the major problem with this movie , any mook could have thought of a hundred ways to make it better .
is it so much to ask that hollywood actually put a little common sense into their characters ?
for instance : our heroes hide at duchovny 's summer home , now the bad guys could come knocking at any moment .
ok , this time our hero does get himself a gun and has it at his side most of the time .
but see , our hero is a drug addict and guess what ?
he chooses now to go clean and suffer through dt .
oh sure , he 'll be really impressive when the bad guys come calling .
going clean is really honorable of him , but i would have waited until i did not need to be conscious or being able to fire a gun .
for an enjoyable performance by timothy hutton , plot holes the size of godzilla , getting our intelligence insulted and several " oh come on !
" moments .

Answer: N


Question: i think that any competent member of the human race who 's ever seen a movie -- any movie -- could probably predict just about every turn in the wedding singer .
even though i try very hard to not predict films as i 'm watching them ( especially not romantic comedies ) , the plot of this particular film just advanced before me seconds , and sometimes minutes , before i actually saw it happen on screen .
but i do n't care .
not even a little .
my reasons for this are simple : 1 ) adam sandler is great .
2 ) drew barrymore is great .
3 ) the movie is so funny .
there are parts that left me gasping for air because i was laughing so hard
.
i have n't laughed this hard in a movie since austin powers .
sandler plays robby hart , a wedding singer who once had dreams of being in a rock band and writing his own music .
in the opening scenes , he seems like a happy - go - lucky wedding singer , at least partially enjoying his profession and doing a rather good job of talking down a really drunk individual ( steve buscemi ) who decides that his brother 's wedding is a good place to tell the whole world that his life , up to that point , was utter pointlessness .
a week later , at his own wedding , he is left standing at the altar by his ex - fianc ?
e , linda ( angela featherstone ) .
with his life in complete disarray , he meets julia ( barrymore ) , a waitress .
she is engaged to glenn ( matthew glave ) , and is to marry him in about three months .
julia and robby become good friends when she enlists him to help with the wedding plans .
soon ( and predictably ) it becomes pretty clear that glenn is a jerk , and that robby and julia really love each other .
oh sure , it 's trite .
and if anyone making this film expected us to , like , feel suspense or something while watching the wedding singer , then they truly underestimated their audience .
what makes the story bearable , aside from the terrific costumes and 80s music , are the performances .
barrymore is simply adorable here
( i 've never seen her look so close to the way she did in et ) .
not only is she pleasant to look at , but her acting job here really is a good one -- and it does n't hurt that the character is likable and adequately well - written .
and the jerk , played in full - force by graves , is just as despicable as any villain in any romantic comedy i 've ever seen .
naturally , the true star here is sandler .
i think the guy is flat - out hilarious .
he can say something that just is n't funny , and his delivery makes me laugh
.
his comedic performance here equals that of happy gilmore , but in this film he goes much further and proves to me that he can , indeed , hold his own as a leading man in a romantic comedy .
whereas his roles in his previous films kind of had sandler playing sandler , the wedding singer gives him a character that , for the first time , he actually has to fit into . as far as i 'm concerned he succeeded , and this film is testimony that he does , in fact ,
have some range in his talents .
and
the movie is just so funny .
perhaps the best moment is when he sings a song for julia that he claims is a little uneven because he began writing it while in a good mood and finished it after his fianc ?
e abandoned him .
this is the part that literally had me groping for a breath of air .
and while the film , like all romantic comedies , takes a hiatus from laughs towards the end because the plot has to finish up , there are more than enough truly hilarious moments in the first hour that make up for any slumps in progress during the second half .
my formal complaints for the wedding singer are n't very important .
the film is predicable , but who cares ?
the characters are extremely likable , the movie is ridiculously funny , and
the experience is simply enjoyable .
in addition to this , i ca n't imagine anyone seeing the preview and not wanting to see the film .
in that order , i conclude that it is pointless for me to even have written this review .
i just want everyone to know that i laughed .
a lot .

Answer: P


Question: hey , i 've got a great idea for a movie !
ok , here it is : we 'll get tim allen to pull angry faces for about two hours or so !
what 's that ?
sounds too boring ?
ok , how about this
then : we still have tim allen pull faces for about two hours , but half of them are angry looks and half of them are " i 'm in pain !
" looks !
what 's that ?
that still does n't sound funny to you ?
how about if we through in some " ewwwww !
" looks ? still not funny ? if you answered " no , that does n't sound funny " , then ( ding ding ding ! )
you 're absolutely correct ! for richer or poorer is a moronic farce about a rich married couple ( played by tim allen and kirstie alley ) who seek refuge in an amish community after their bumbling accountant ( wayne knight , best know as newman on tv 's " seinfeld " ) gets them in trouble for tax evasion .
what ensues is a badly scripted and horribly directed 114 minutes of cinema hell .
what makes this all wrong is that nobody seems to have what the film needs . . .
namely , talent !
backing up , the married couple is brad and caroline sexton ( allen and alley ) , a popular snobby duo who seem totally in love to everyone else , but in reality are on the brink of divorce .
just as their marriage seems to be hanging from it 's final thread , brad discovers that his accountant , bob lachman ( knight ) , has been engaging in illegitimate deals in the sexton 's names .
the irs catches on , but since everything points back to the sexton 's and not lachman , there is nothing much to do . . .
except run away and join an amish community .
first time screenwriters jana howington and steve lukanic give us a couple of chuckle - out - loud moments , and even some decent laughs here
and * way
* over there ,
but there is so much to cringe at in this horribly made film that you 'll likely miss the laughs while regurgitating popcorn .
alley is absolutely unwatchable , and the chemistry between her and allen is about as believable as my chemistry homework from tenth grade ( which , i inform you , was total b .
s . ) .
allen and alley
are in no way convincing as tycoons , nor are they very convincing as an amish couple ! this entire movie is one bad ill - conceived notion that should have been curtailed from the very beginning !
the amish in this movie are also flimsy and unconvincing .
it 's such a trite , stereotypical script
that i imagine the actors that were cast ( noticing that they 're all predominantly tv figures ) were probably the only ones they could get !
bryan spicer 's directing does n't help one bit , either .
in fact , listing spicer 's filmography ( which includes the first " power rangers " movie and the big screen adaption of mchale 's navy ) is more of an insult than a r
? sum ? !
now that i 've pretty much run for richer or poorer into the ground
, i will let you in on the best thing about it .
it bumped seven films up a notch on my " worst of " 1997 movie list .
that 's right , thanks to this film ranking at number 3 for the year 's worst
, six films are now not seemingly as bad , and a smile like yours , previously inhabiting the number ten spot , now does n't have to suffer the ridicule of making my bottom ten list .
if you look at it in that respect , for richer or poorer will end up making someone happy after all !

Answer:
N