instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
vegas vacation is the fourth film starring chevy chase and beverly d'angelo as the heads of the hapless griswold family .
as with the other three films , their two children , rusty and audrey , are played by a revolving series of actors .
this time ethan embry and marisol nichols fill the roles .
also back , is cousin eddie ( randy quaid ) , the slob relative who seems to bring problems wherever he goes .
in vegas vacation clark griswold ( chase ) decides to take the family on vacation to las vegas so that he and wife ellen ( d'angelo ) can renew their wedding vows .
it is at this point when comedy is supposed to ensue .
apparently the filmmakers thought that putting the griswolds into las vegas would be so funny on its own that they would n't bother to write any jokes into the script .
at least that 's the way it looks when watching this turkey .
about half way through vegas vacation i began to have serious doubts as to whether there would actually be a single laugh in the entire film , since there had been none up to that point .
by the end of the movie i had actually snickered a couple of times , and i had smiled at a couple of gags .
i might add that none of the funny ( and i use the term loosely ) moments came as a result of anything chase , d'angelo or quaid were involved in .
they might as well have stayed home for as much as they contributed to this film .
the two best things in this movie were ethan embry and marisol nichols as the griswold kids , who manage to have a couple of their own adventures .
rusty becomes a vegas high roller , providing most of the film 's best moments .
every time chase and quaid were involved in a gag , it just made it more and more apparent that they should have stopped this series after the third film .
which brings me to the best moment of the film .
the griswolds are driving down the highway and holiday road ( the theme from the original vacation ) begins to play .
christie brinkley and her red ferrari ( also from the first movie ) drive by .
it was a cute moment , but all it really did was remind me just how funny the first film had been , and just how far that this series has fallen . too bad .
answer:
N

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:
susan granger 's review of " america 's sweethearts " ( columbia / sony ) what a waste of a talented cast !
billy crystal and co - writer peter tolan have concocted a sly , provocative premise and , as the opening credits roll , it 's obvious that they 're attempting an old - fashioned romantic comedy .
the story involves a veteran publicist ( billy crystal ) who is summoned to orchestrate a press junket in las vegas when an arrogant director ( christopher walken ) holds a megabuck movie hostage in his editing room , refusing to show it to anyone .
he figures that by giving the journalists juicy hints of a possible reconciliation between the film 's once - married - but - now - estranged stars , gwen and eddie ( catherine zeta - jones , john cusack ) , they 'll be so distracted that they wo n't remember they did n't see the movie or
it was n't what they expected .
( and crystal thought of this long before a sony exec concocted the phony critic / david manning quote scandal ! )
for help , he turns to gwen 's personal assistant / sister ( julia roberts ) .
but the laughs are few and far - between .
crystal 's glib , cynical flack is n't wickedly funny enough with a few amusing one - liners .
after six months under the care of a depak chopra - like guru ( alan arkin ) , cusack 's character 's too emotionally fragile , lacking the necessary charisma .
zeta - jones 's vain , narcissistic diva is undeveloped and one - dimensional .
only hank azaria , as zeta - jones 's much - macho spanish lover , and stanley tucci , as a studio exec , and roberts manage to whip up any farcical froth .
basically , we do n't like these ego - driven , stereotypical characters , let alone root for them to unwind their romantic entanglements , and joe roth 's direction is predictable , formulaic and telegraphic
.
on the granger movie gauge of 1 to 10 , " america 's sweethearts " is
a contrived , shallow 4 . as a screwball satire , it 's strictly superficial .
answer:
N