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

i 'm a dedicated fan of writer kevin williamson 's work .
he always finds a clever way to spice up old material with witty dialogue and fresh ideas that stem from his inventive brain .
with teaching mrs .
tingle ,
his directorial debut , williamson has reached the end of his rope .
what used to be intelligent about his films is hopelessly stale here .
the components are all there , including an encouraging premise that all high school students can relate to . but where are the thrills ?
the laughs ?
both are supposedly absent from this draggy exercise in elaborate revenge .
and what a shame that is .
i loved the scream films
- heck , i even enjoyed the sci - fi goofiness of the faculty .
kevin williamson was the reason horror films were such a big draw at the box office .
teaching mrs .
tingle , a black comedy that will leave a gaping void in his optimistic followers , may put an end to his reign .
or perhaps it will encourage him to spend more time perfecting a script than to worry about his directing duties .
i still have my faith , but
i fear the name of kevin williamson may soon be a forgotten echo of the past .
the title character of his pet project is a vicious , uncaring history teacher who is played deliciously over - the - top by british actress helen mirren .
mrs .
tingle is basically every student 's worst nightmare : a heartless human being bent on distributing poor marks to even the most hard - working of her pupils .
the principal ( michael mckean ) is horrified of her , and she is unanimously despised among her fellow staff members .
i enjoyed the fact that everyone in the hallway quickly steers out of her way .
mirren 's performance is one of the very few delights in this distressingly hollow black comedy that goes down like a flat soft drink
.
in other words , it 's a poor substitute for williamson 's best work .
the plot is a big problem here .
material that could have been enjoyable is rendered totally ridiculous by poor handling on the part of the director .
the likable katie holmes plays leigh ann , an over - achiever hoping to get a college scholarship .
but typical mrs .
tingle says her history project , which she worked on for countless hours , is laughable .
later on while studying in the gymnasium , a classmate ( barry watson ) offers her a photo - copied duplicate of mrs .
tingle 's final exam .
leigh ann 's best friend ( marisa coughlan ) encourages her to use it .
alas , the old hag herself finds the three scheming , and snatches the test , and prepares to talk to the principal in the morning .
in the morning .
.
. how convenient !
the three students head to mrs .
tingle 's house , attempting to set the facts straight and clear leigh ann 's name .
things get out of hand , and the teacher gets knocked unconscious in a tussle .
the plan is to tie her to a bed and try to get some reasoning out of her .
of course , not everything goes entirely to plan .
besides pointless sub - plots involving the football coach ( jeffrey tambor , horribly wasted )
, there is little by way of actual progress .
there is no urgency to the situation ; little tension or laughs are involved .
the humor is completely inconsistent .
after many of the jokes , the theater was so silent i could have heard a fly sneeze .
you continue to await some momentum in the story , something that could possibly revive the slow pace .
a moment like that never arises .
williamson also does a handsome job of wasting some of the key supporting players , including the talented mckean and larry sanders ' vet tambor .
and the beautiful vivica a . fox has one lifeless scene as a caring guidance counselor , and then williamson disposes of her character entirely .
on the plus side , holmes and coughlan are admirable ( with the latter giving a frighteningly believable exorcism impression ) , and molly ringwald has an amusing cameo appearance as a substitute teacher .
while everything is pretty lifeless , teaching mrs .
tingle remains watchable .
there are a few promising ideas that pop up now and again , but anything remotely interesting is squandered by the inane script .
mirren is easily the best reason to keep watching .
she is convincingly evil and fun to watch , but even her gifted delivery ca n't save individual scenes that flounder in boredom .
if there is one word for the movie surrounding her , it would be ' disappointing ' .
basically , kevin williamson is his worst enemy here .
his uneventful direction prevents any aspects of his screenplay to be appreciated ( not that his writing here is especially good ) .
we will see , when rookie screenwriter ehren kruger writes the third installment in the scream franchise this christmas , whether williamson is for real .
N

i have no real tangible proof of this , but i swear that there are a lot of producers in hollywood who adamantly believe that if you take a bad script , written by a bad writer and give the project it to an equally bad director , then it is actually possible to make a good movie . using their logic , all that really needs be done to change the bad movie into a good movie is cast a bunch of super - famous actors and provide an almost unlimited production budget .
this is the only way i can fathom how 20th century fox hired jon amiel in order to direct this eighty million dollar waste of my time
( not counting the time it took me to get to and from the theatre ) .
now , before i continue to ferociously attack what 's wrong with this film , i just want to point out that one of the reasons it fails so miserably is because it does have the potential to be an exciting thriller .
catherine zeta - jones plays virginia baker , an insurance investigator tracking down an infamous art thief named robert macdougal ( sean connery ) .
if you 've ever seen any hollywood blockbuster before , i really do n't have to spend too much time on frivolous plot details : the two team up for various jobs , stealing various things for various purposes .
the problem we come to is that we 've all seen this a few billion times before and this film does n't break any new ground in the big - budget / hollywood / action genre .
the result is that the entire production feels contrived
.
i 'm going to be completely honest here : pretty much the only thing keeping me awake throughout the run - time was looking at catherine zeta - jones .
now while this may be a compliment for ms .
zeta - jones , it certainly is n't for either the writers or the director , who are not nearly as clever as they think they are .
just about the most profound thought they can inject into this film is when they have macdougal lecture baker on the semantic difference between " entrapment " and " blackmail " .
with an eighty million dollar budget , you 'd think that entrapment would at least feature edge - of - your seat action scenes or breathtaking special f
/ x . well , you 'd be wrong .
the action that is present in this film takes place in a huge skyscraper and is relatively unspectacular .
unfortunately for all those involved with entrapment , die hard narrowly beat it to the screen by ? 11 years .
the reality is that after 15 minutes of watching this picture , you know exactly what 's going to happen , despite rather pathetic attempts in the screenplay to throw in plot twists .
many scenes seem to exist merely as a reason to outfit zeta - jones in extremely tight - fitting clothing .
one particular scene features baker crawling around trying to avoid laser - beams while she tries to steal an ancient chinese mask .
nothing wrong with that , but she entered the room from the floor and knew exactly where the mask was -
so why did n't she and macdougal tunnel in directly under the mask instead of the other side of the room ?
i 'll tell you why : because it 's a great excuse to photograph zeta - jones ' posterior as it slides underneath those beams ( and it also allows a second scene of the exact same thing - the rehearsal ) .
ving rhames also makes an appearance in this movie , and though he has great screen presence ( although so do connery and zeta - jones ) and the most interesting character in the film , not even he can rescue this film from the depths of the boring film abyss
( a concept i invented just to describe this picture ) .
one last complaint : entrapment is littered of instances where macdougal will just slip into a shadow or behind a building , or he becomes obstructed by a moving vehicle and then in the next shot , he 'll spontaneously disappear in ninja - like fashion .
i can picture amiel patting himself on the back , thinking to himself " it 'll leave the audience wondering for days
: how did he do that ?
"
we know jon , it 's called editing .
N

the catch phrase for disney 's rocket man is one spoken by fred z .
randall ( harland williams )
, the bumbling idiot computer programmer turned astronaut who continuously wreaks havoc everywhere he goes .
"
it was n't me !
" he proclaims over and over as the aftermath of his stupidity brings about looks of disgust from the others .
well when it comes to this movie being as horrible as it is , williams ca n't take all the blame , but he sure ca n't justify himself with his own simple tag line either .
fred has dreamed of space travel since he was a young boy , turning the clothes dryer into a mock space shuttle and staring out wide - eyed at a poster of the earth .
as a 30-year - old , fred has n't grown up much , but at least he 's somewhat closer to his goal , now designing astronaut software for nasa .
when an astronaut for an upcoming mission to mars becomes injured , nasa calls on the person who knows the programming inside and out to fill the void . . .
fred .
yes , although he 's an obviously klutzy moron , nasa does n't think twice about throwing him into a rigorous training program so he can assist one of the most important events the space program , and time itself , has ever known .
for the first part of the film , we watch as fred takes on the training program much like an amusement park .
he laughs , he screams , but he never once breaks a sweat or views the preparation as anything more than child 's play .
his passive approach to the program eventually leads to many record - breaking feats , much to the dismay of cocky counterpart , mission commander captain overbeck ( william sadler ) , who once held the records .
overbeck will regretfully accompany fred and two others to the red planet , one being astronaut julie ford ( the stupids ' jessica lundy ) , and the other being a chimpanzee who is much more civilized than our antagonizing protagonist .
from here on out , we are subjected to one lame gag after another , dealing with snot , laxatives , and flatulence .
you know , standard kid movie material .
almost sounding like a poor james stewart impressionist , williams is awful in his first starring role .
we get the feeling that if jerry lewis and pee - wee herman were related and produced an inbred offspring , williams would be it .
while he 's not as annoying as other actors who cater to zany , stupid comedy , he 's just as unlikeable .
to say it more understandably , jim carrey might annoy you more , but this guy is even less funny .
why ?
because while he possesses the stupidness needed to pull off such a role , his performance is too understated and boring .
classic comedic dunces were generally oblivious to their own idiocy .
stan laurel , for example , was so innocent in all his trouble - making that we were immediately fond of him .
peter sellers , as inspector clouseau , was so self - assured and confident that when he did something as simple as trip , it was humor at
it 's best .
williams , on the other hand , ca n't garner the pity he needs to make us love him in all his anti - glory .
as for the rest of the cast , including some bigger names in smaller roles ( beau bridges and shelley duvall ) , nobody is worth watching whatsoever
.
this is just another example of the fast - food equivalent of cinema : mass - produced , less than mediocre , over priced , and hard to stomach
.
giving it one - and - a - half stars is * extremely * generous , but even i 'll admit to laughing a few times .
the amazing thing is that even in a theater packed with little kids , laughter was something rarely heard - even from the children !
i must admit that it gave me more respect for the kids when they did n't crack up over every little thing .
then again , maybe they were asleep .
some people might think critics are harsh on kid movies , claiming adults are n't the targeted audience and therefore are n't meant to , and wo n't , enjoy them .
sadly , it 's also true that kids will enjoy almost anything if it 's presented right .
a two - hour still shot of a dog with a cartoonish voice over
could entertain a lot of toddlers out there , but would that make it as artistic as beauty and the beast , which could easily do the same thing ? and saying that a parent 's perspective is n't important is quite a poor theory to have when they 're the ones who take the kids to these films in the first place .
N