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

[Q]: it should have been a classic .
a great cast of respected supporting actors .
an interesting premise of loser comic book characters .
however , " mystery men " proved to be one of the great disappointments of 1999 .
the jokes were bland and hackneyed from talents who have previously made audiences laugh with their unique rituals .
the number of cliches and shallow characters made the film difficult to sit through seriously hurting its attempt of having a fast paced premise .
the script tried to deliver a series of small jokes throughout the film but without a big laugh - out - loud joke and mediocre small jokes , it failed miserably at being entertaining at all .
the jokes were not funny for a number of reasons .
they had been used a number of times before in previous films , the best ones , which were mediocre to begin with , were ruined in the trailer , and the expectation of laughing at clever , unique gags from clever unique comedians when there were none to laugh at greatly damaged the film .
" mystery men " might have worked if it was an ensemble cast of newcomers trying to break into the business .
but with veterans doing this kind of junk , it really questioned whether their other work was as funny as originally thought .
thankfully most actors in this movie will appear in five other movies before the new year arrives to help viewers forget this little movie .
the film follows a band of wannabe superheroes living in a wannabe gotham city who are ridiculed by their fellow citizens and villains because of their clumsiness and failure to save they day and capture the bad guy .
the fact is these pathetic losers are not needed because their city already has a successful superhero , captain amazing , who has recently captured every evil - doer in the city .
captain amazing ( played terribly by an uninspired greg kinnear ) , because of his success in the past , is worried that he will lose popularity .
after freeing one of the most notorious bad guys in the city ( geoffrey rush , overacting just a bit too much ) to keep himself busy , things get out of hand when captain amazing is captured .
it is up to the wannabe superheroes to save the day .
by the time this section of the plot is finished , the interest for what happens ( if you have n't already figured it out ) is very low .
there are very few scenes which catch the viewers complete attention .
the first scene in the film , which shows the wannabes trying to save the day , feels like it was seriously edited down .
right when it was beginning to become slightly funny seeing these actors get humiliated at an old folk 's home by some masked goons , captain amazing comes in and saves the day ? or ruins the movie .
instead of editing this scene , more editing should have been done in areas such as the unnecessary romance between mr .
furious ( ben stiller ) and monica , a waitress ( claire forlani ) or the vast majority of the film , which is the heroes talking at a coffee table about how their day was .
a simple rule : more silly action is needed in order to make a silly action movie work .
another major problem with " mystery men " is that every actor in it seemed very uncomfortable and consequently gave terrible performances .
the film depended on its cast to work fluently together , like a bunch of old friends working together in an amiable reunion .
however , most characters seemed like they did not even want to be in this film or at least the script made it seem this way .
to pull one of the actors in this film randomly out of a hat , paul reubens , who disappeared from acting to everyone 's joy , returns here leaving very little to be impressed about .
as a wannabe who uses flatulence for a weapon , all of his jokes must therefore be fart jokes .
fart jokes that have all been heard before and will inevitably be heard again in future films thanks to the success of " american pie " and " there 's something about mary . "
" mystery men " drags on towards the end to a point where anything else in the world is more entertaining .
anyone with a brain knows each one of the heroes is going to be successful at their talent in the end and each one is going to contribute in a helpful way .
so why continue to watch ?
this film is far from a worthy guilty pleasure .
" mystery men " indeed does this and every time a character succeeds another one congratulates him and says " i knew you could do it ! "
" mystery men " fails in every category it attempts to pass .
what makes this film so bad is that it had the potential to be wonderful and unforgettable .
terrible acting , terrible script , and a terrible waste of time
changes opinions about all of these actors .
"
i 'm unpredictable ! " an overexcited ben stiller shouts out .
no ben , you 're the complete opposite .
[A]: N

[Q]: 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 .
[A]: P

[Q]: " something is fishy in the state of universal .
" about ten years back , with the unexpected success of mad max and the road warrior , post - apocalypse nitty - gritty survival yarns became popular at the movies .
we 've always had movies of this nature ; on the beach , the end of the world , damnation alley , the ultimate warrior , and so on .
to date , the most smoothly done were straightforward " haircuts " of the classic western plot , like the lone gunman who comes to town and protects the widow and the son against an evil organization , usually one in possession of some critical resource , like water , feed range , or a mining claim .
most of these grew out of venerable , but solid hero yarns like the virginian and shane .
( my personal favorite is a patrick swayze movie called steel dawn , which was fairly well made on a small budget . )
now we have waterworld , which again brings the traditional lone gunman to town to rescue the young widow and her daughter .
( well , she 's not a widow , and the kid is n't her daughter , but you get the idea . )
the lady is helen , played by the stunning jean tripplehorn , who is n't given a chance to be stunning , or even interesting , by the mediocre and unimaginative script .
the child enola , played by tina majorino , is living proof that a child actor need not be a bad thing to have in a movie ; she outshines her material all the way through .
in simple , the scene is earth , hundreds of years from now .
the polar ice caps have melted , and somehow produced enough water to inundate the entire planet .
the few remaining people live in boats and floating colonies , and survive by trade , theft , or piracy .
somehow an oil tanker has survived the centuries , and its inhabitants , called " smokers , " are able to keep gasoline engines running despite the dearth of replacement parts and raw materials , so the bad guys have outboard engines , and fast - moving boats , airplanes , and jet skis .
enola , found at sea as a young girl , has a mysterious map no one can read tattooed on her back .
we suspect early on that it is the way to the mythical " dryland , " the place where trees , crops , and animals grow , and
what plot there is hinges on who has enola .
the psycho ruler of the smokers , the " deacon , " is trying to get her and find his way to dryland .
played with typical self - lampooning , rug - chewing histrionics by dennis hopper , " deacon " is the only thing in the movie that 's close to amusing .
his performance is * almost * laughable , but there just is n't enough there to be funny .
the star ( and a co - producer ) is kevin costner .
he 's playing an un - named lone denizen of the sea ,
a man called the " mariner , " who turns out to be a gilled , water - breathing mutant with webbed feet .
very little is done with this .
the script ignores the ineffectuality of gills in supplying enough oxygen to support a human metabolism ; it ignores the fact that even with both ice caps completely melted , much of the earth 's surface would still be above water ; and
it ignores the blatant impossibility of the cultures and technology shown .
( canned meat does * not * last for centuries ; ammunition does * not * fire after it 's more than a few decades old ; and so on , and so on . . . )
i 'm quite fond of tina majorino 's previous work , very impressed by jean tripplehorn 's past accomplishments , and still speechless over costner 's dances with wolves .
but this movie could destroy the careers of anyone associated with it !
this movie cost one hundred and eighty - two million dollars , and there 's * nothing * in it
we have n't seen before , done better on only a few percent of the cost of this turkey .
at 125 minutes of material , this movie cost over one point four million dollars per minute to make .
the budget of this movie * could * have given us over thirty movies ; it could have paid for six years of a prime - time sf tv series with expensive fx work , or ten years of an sf tv series with good digital fx . in sum , this movie is beneath contempt .
it has nothing new to offer , it has a script that could easily have been bettered by the people who write comic books for dc , and it spent more money than the national budget of a small nation .
if you * have * to go see it , see it on a four - dollar matinee .
otherwise you 'll find yourself sneering at you every time you pass a reflective surface , for weeks .
[A]:
N