In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
--------
Question: i still ca n't figure out why people went in droves to see this movie .
now before you go assuming i 'm some sort of high brow snob , who ca n't appreciate a little dumb humor , let me say that i love cheap humor .
i thought there 's something about mary was one of the funniest films that i have ever seen and it was certainly one of the best films of 1998 .
low brow adolescent humor can be a lot of fun , the problem with the waterboy is that it is just low brow and adolescent , there is no humor component .
i wanted to like the waterboy , i really did .
i think i only laughed maybe 2 or 3 times throughout the entire movie .
actually , i smiled a couple of more times on top of that .
not a great record for a 90-minute film .
the problem with the waterboy is the same as most other adam sandler movies .
those responsible for this mess seem to think that the sheer fact that sandler walks around using a goofy voice and playing dumb the entire movie is a substitute for actual funny material .
nothing could be further from the truth , as matter of fact , sandler 's idiot voice started to get on my nerves at points in this film .
it 's really a shame too , because this film had the potential to be very funny .
i personally believe that sandler is probably a very talented comedian , it 's just that so far he has n't been able to find the right film to showcase his talents .
if his only talent is making goofy voices and playing morons , my guess is that his career in the movies will go down the same road as the vast majority of the former stars of saturday night live .
most of whom are now happily no longer in the entertainment industry .
sandler plays a 31-year - old , somewhat mentally challenged , waterboy for a college football team .
the team 's somewhat mentally disturbed coach ( henry winkler ) realizes that his waterboy has a great deal of pent - up rage , which , if harnessed properly , would make him a force to be reckoned with on the football field .
you can figure out the rest from here .
sandler joins the team and this once lowly waterboy becomes a football star .
as i said , the film had a great deal of potential .
the idea was a decent one , but the main potential of this movie is a result of the cast .
all of whom are very good , just hamstrung by really , really , lousy material .
even sandler , annoying goofy voice and all , has enough charisma and natural comedic ability to overcome some of his bad material .
even as unfunny as his character is , i still found myself rooting for him throughout the film .
but it is the supporting cast that i feel most badly about .
if their material had been just a bit better , this film could have been such a funny movie .
fairuza balk plays sandler 's leather - wearing biker - chick love interest and does a great job playing sleazy and sexy at the same time .
winkler is great as the coach who uses a " coaching for dummies " -style book to help him get through games .
the real standout though , is kathy bates .
even with some of the worst material of her career to deal with , she is still a treat to watch in her role as sandler 's overprotective and overbearing mama .
even with the performances of bates and winkler , there is absolutely no way i would recommend this movie .
although i get the distinct impression that without them , this film would have ranked in negative numbers for me .
which is sad , because i ca n't really put my finger on a particular element of the movie and single it out as the cause of the disaster that it became .
it 's obvious that those involved , specifically the actors , tried very hard to make what they thought was going to be a funny movie .
it 's just too bad that 99 percent of all of the jokes fell flat .

Answer: N


Question: i can imagine how good krippendorf 's tribe must have looked on paper .
it does not surprise me in the least that a group of extremely talented actors , led by the great richard dreyfuss and a good director ( todd holland ) , all wanted to make this film .
in fact , it is only the expertise by which this excruciatingly bad script has been executed that keeps me from suggesting that you stay as far away from krippendorf 's tribe as possible .
in retrospect , i can imagine how bad this film could have been .
i shudder at the possibilities of awfulness
had it starred an actor less able than dreyfuss .
dreyfuss plays james krippendorf , an anthropologist who is granted $ 100 , 000 by his university to find an undiscovered tribe in new guinea .
halfway into his two - year expedition , his wife ( apparently ) dies .
i say apparently because when or how she dies is never truly established .
later , we find out that much of the grant money was spent on big - screen tvs and other such pleasures .
so , when krippendorf finds out what happens to professors who do not use their grant money wisely , he decides to construct an elaborate lie .
he makes his own tribe , using his three children as actors in a video .
he simply makes up certain incredible facts about this tribe ( which he calls the shelmickedmu ) .
audiences at krippendorf 's lectures are amazed by his findings that the shelmickedmu practice circumcision .
and proof that the typical family unit is led by a single father is truly amazing to the anthropological community .
like all films like this , the lie becomes more and more complex , and the suspense is generated with us wondering at what point it is all going to fall out from under our hero .
dreyfuss is a funny , talented man , and he is funny in this film .
he has lots of positive energy and , unlike most comical actors , really manages to play people like this realistically .
this film also requires a lot of physical humor that i 've never seen dreyfuss perform , and he does a great job .
jenna elfman , who plays veronica mecilli , a scientist who wants in on krippendorf 's work , is also very funny and appealing here .
and the kid actors are great , as well .
but we 're talking about the script from hell .
this is one of those stories that requires such extreme suspension of disbelief that they might as well have established that the story just takes place in an alternate universe where things like this can happen .
but the ridiculousness of the story is not really
what is so bad about it .
all the cliches and the irritating plot devices could have easily been overcome by dreyfuss and crew .
no , the script is plagued with so many clueless stereotypes and mean - spirited characters that i was in disbelief as i watched .
furthermore , the manor in which all of this material is covered up is truly shameless .
take , for instance , the scene in which krippendorf gets veronica drunk so he can tape them having sex .
they get all decked out in the tribe getup , complete with paint to darken their skin .
krippendorf does this because he needs footage of the mating rituals of his tribe .
now , i saw this scene coming from a mile away , but i said to myself , " no , that would be far too tasteless .
there 's no way they 'll do that . . .
oh god !
"
they did do it .
it 's there .
i was almost more appalled by the fact that this did n't bother the other audience members with whom i saw this film .
i found it deplorable .
and when krippendorf is forced to admit that he did it , he simply apologizes without the slightest hint of conviction in his voice .
the film is filled with scenes like these .
they not only insult the audience , but they insult the types of people that the film portrays .
it would take some truly professional work to create videos convincing enough to fool an entire community of scientists , yet krippendorf
does it easily in an afternoon .
and watching dreyfuss stumble over a completely unprepared speech is funny and entertaining , but i think that most members of the on - screen audience would be able to see that he is making everything up as he goes .
if i were an anthropologist , this film would insult me immensely .
moving right along , the film plays off every stereotype our culture has ever learned regarding african tribes .
sure , dreyfuss dressing up like a chief is really funny , and it allows for some entertaining scenes , but the heart of this material is deeply clueless as to the themes and thoughts that it provokes .
it is because of dreyfuss as an actor that i was able to watch this film .
his character here is not a good subject for a film because he is a shameless liar , and never once does he show any kind of penance for what he does .
i suppose it was interesting to see the formula defied in this case , but for the purposes of good taste , i would have expected something .
no , this man sets a terrible example for his kids and colleagues , and the writer of the film ( charlie peters ) did n't include a single scene in which krippendorf takes his kids aside and tells them that what he is doing is very bad .
in fact , it 's his eldest daughter that frequently tells him that he is doing the wrong thing , and he continually shrugs off her warnings .
i suppose it 's important to admit that this is a funny film .
dreyfuss and elfman , and many of the contrived and insulting scenes , add up to a picture that is anything but boring .
and if you 're less serious than i , you probably will enjoy it .
i , however , ca n't get past these elements .
krippendorf 's tribe is being marketed as a family comedy , but this is the kind of film that teaches the kids of our society faulty lessons that they should n't be learning .
with a little more insight into its story and themes , this could have been a good movie .

Answer: N


Question: it 's not a bad thing to update old stories .
it 's done all the time in the oral tradition .
the difficulty with this film is not that the tale has changed , it 's that it 's dry .
the new cinderella , danielle ( drew barrymore ) is not sitting around waiting for her prince to come .
she 's a woman of the late twentieth century albeit situated in sixteenth century france .
when her father dies , she stays on in his house even though she is mistreated by her wicked stepmother rodmilla ( anjelica huston ) .
she works by day , but reads sir thomas more by firelight at night .
although the story is updated , you know the plot .
danielle meets prince henry ( dougray scott ) , goes to a ball disguised , is later found out and they live happily ever after .
the movie is often like watching a filmed play .
theater in real life is engrossing .
theater on the screen is usually lifeless .
there does n't seem to be much going on .
the camera can be a star of films .
here it 's a
co - conspirator .
danielle 's convictions are compromised .
a socialist and a feminist , she pretends to be royalty to get her man .
a kind woman , her last act in the movie is one of revenge .
the most enjoyable characters are the most cartoonish .
the fairy godmother stand - in , leonardo da vinci ( patrick godfrey ) is fun to watch as the eccentric old man who advises danielle .
huston is enjoyable in her over - the - top wickedness .
in all fairness , my companion loved the film .
maybe it 's one of those " chick flicks " that men do n't like .
it is certainly a date film .
nearly the entire audience was couples .
oh well , maybe it 's good for something .

Answer:
N