TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
PROBLEM: the most interesting part of
"
ca n't hardly wait " just happens to be not only the most human , but
for many of us , the one part that many of us can easily relate to .
that is the character of denise ( lauren ambrose ) , the film 's sole sarcastic member who mocks everything that goes on in the film , and at one point sits down on a couch and looks totally bored .
the film wisely holds over this moment , nicely showing her alienation in the midst of a large high school party .
.. almost too nicely .
for some members of the audience ( read : me ) , this is basically a mirror of what 's going on with them watching this film .
we sit there wondering why we 've even bothered to see a film about a long high school party we probably never felt the desire to go to in the first place .
i would actually highly recommend this film if it satirized all of this .
after all , this film is filled with a bunch of pathetic stereotypes much of which i went to high school with .
everyone 's here :
the jock , the homecoming queen , the nerd ( and his dominions of trekkies and x - philes ) , the alienated wannabe writer , the school spirit girl , the pothead ( s ) , the wigger , etc , etc , etc , and weirdly enough this film shows them as superficial , lame , and basically as a bunch of losers . except for denise , who rolls her eyes at everything , and easily becomes the most likable character even before she speaks ( her yearbook entry , something which is done for each main character , quotes oscar wilde - definite pointers there ) .
unfortunately , the writers and directors take several major misteps on the way to making this into an admirable and even likable film .
the film , as i said , portrays most of its characters as superficial and just totally ignorant to everything .
however , instead of sticking with this , perhaps even going a bit further with it , they let this lie , and actually make these characters into our heroes .
we follow several of them , all a bunch of moronic stereotypes with only a shread of humanity and realism , and tries to tell boring and overly melodramatic tales about them as if we actually cared and/or identified with them .
and if we did , we certainly do n't want to revisit that state of being .
here 's a quick low - down : it 's graduation , and we follow a bunch of seniors on the last night , otherwise known as the " american grafitti " or , to a lesser extent , the " dazed and confused " cliche .
the formal just followed them as they drove aimlessly ; the latter did a little bit of that and featured a big outdoor keg party .
"
ca n't hardly wait " just opts for a big indoor keg party , and a little bit of aimless driving , albeit of the i'm - whining - because - i - can't - get - a - girl - i - want brand .
we follow many people around , but mostly we trail preston ( ethan embry , of " that thing you do ! " ) , the alienated writer , who 's been pining over the homcoming queen , amanda ( the totally overrated jennifer love hewitt ) , for the entirety of high school because he thinks they shared a moment their freshman year over a freaking pop tart .
now that she 's broken up with her football player boyfriend , mike ( peter facinelli ) , he decides to go to the party with a note he 's written declaring his " love " for her in the hopes he 'll build up the guts to give it to her .
.. even though he 's leaving for a multi - week intensive writing program hosted by none other than kurt vonnegut
( okay :
the ingenius vonnegut or some icky noxema spokesperson ? ) .
since that plot is incredibly lame and a track record of what goes on with it would n't be able to carry a commercial let alone a feature film , and because it 's a party , there are some more main characters , such as : william ( charlie korsmo , finally surfacing after " dick tracy " ) , the nerd ( and his dominions ) who has come up with a ridiculous plan to publically sabotage mike , who 's humiliated him for years , but gets too caught up in drinking to do it ; kenny ( seth green ) , the wigger , who has decided that this party will be where he will finally get laid ( uh huh ) ; and denise , the only exceptional character , who unfortunately gets stuck in a bathroom ( do n't ask ) with kenny where the two characters let down their characters and are allowed to follow the laws of plot cliches from point a to point b with nary a bit of characterization involved after awhile . ugh .
the main comparison this film is getting to another film is actually not " american grafitti " or " dazed and confused , " two films that embraced and ultimately made humans out of many of its high schoolers ( not to mention were extremely entertaining ) , but to john hughes films of the 80s , most notably " sixteen candles .
"
the big difference in the two is that that film managed to not only embrace but even satirize its main characters , and did so equally and in an entertaining fashion .
this film forgets to satirize its characters , and ultimately tells a story about a bunch of uninteresting stereotypes .
..
and then says that it 's all okay .
we ca n't take this film seriously , nor can we take this as fun , so really what good is it ?
but i will tell you some things i did
like
: i liked the direction , except for a couple too - over - the - top features , like way - too - glossy jump cuts
( it 's like an oxymoron ) and other obscurities .
generally , though , elfont and kaplan do have graceful camera movement , and even manage to capture
an altman - esque feel to their film from time to time ( a thing with a note , though , is too hokey to really be admirable ) .
i actually did like seth green , for once in about a decade ( when he played a very young woody allen in " radio days " ) - his desintegration of his wigger character was almost believable .
.. almost .
and , of course , lauren ambrose is wonderful as denise , the one character we could have used some more of , even though it would have changed the entirety of the film .
however , the character of denise really does n't work with the film , when really thought about .
she 's far too witty and realized ( at least for the first half ) to belong in this film , and whenever she appears , she automatically gives everything a delightfully satirical tone .
she 's not just the cynic or the intellectual ; she 's just a very interesting character who provides entertainment even if it further damages other already damaged characters .
she may ruin the film more , but at least when she 's on screen we can sit up and think to ourselves " well , at least we 'll be entertained .
"
a couple other things that just do n't work : mike 's character , who suffers an epiphany throughout the film but in the end acts as though he has forgotten everything : too much the sacrificial lamb for the film in general ;
the aimless , bitchy driving by preston to try and get over his inability to shack up with amanda - give me a break ; and
perhaps the one thing that just does n't work at all : jenna eflman 's uncredited cameo as an angel - just did n't work , but nice try .
basically the worst thing about this film , the real reason i 'm giving this such a low rating , is because it refuses to give us any fully realized characters and then insists we follow around complete stereotypes from other movies doing things that are inane and unlike anything we 'd do .
we do n't feel for these characters because for most of us , we are n't stereotypes going through the motions to worn subplots .
the acid test for high school movies is : does it at all capture the feel of what it 's portraying ?
the answer for this film is no .
nice try , though .

SOLUTION: N

PROBLEM: when i ponder childhood memories past , one of the things that always springs immediately to mind is watching the " inspector gadget " tv show with my older brother .
truth be told , we were rabid fanatics ; our version of cowboys and indians was chasing each other around our coffee table to the theme tune , alternating who would get to be gadget and who would be stuck playing the part of dr .
claw , the inspector 's arch nemesis .
i was never a biggie on nostalgia , but you just ca n't help but have fond memories of something like that .
sometimes i even find myself up at 4 am watching re - runs of my favorite episodes , trying to recapture some of that sense of wonder i felt as a kid .
at the very least , i was expecting the new film version of the classic television series to have at least some kind of similar effect on me .
despite how horrid a film may be , the simple task of rekindling even a slight feeling of nostalgia is pretty tough to screw up .
so back i sat , with minimum expectations of what the movie would deliver ( let 's face it ; exactly how good can a live - action disney film really be ? ) .
i was wise enough to steer clear from the likes of mr .
magoo and george of the jungle ( two previous disney adaptations ) ,
and i wish to god that i had been sharp enough to skip gadget as well
.
rarely has a movie left me with such an utter feeling of emptiness .
as everyone else was getting up to exit the screening room after the movie had completed its assault on mankind , i was left sitting there , absolutely speechless and totally dumbfounded at what i had just seen
.
can something this awful
truly exist in such an evolved world ?
right from the beginning , i knew i was in trouble .
in the opening scenes , each character is introduced as if their sole purpose is to just be , to simply serve as real - life duplicates of their cartoon clones .
when referring to them , people almost yell in fear that the audience will not catch on as to who a certain character is supposed to be ( " oh , hi penny !
is brain with you ? " ) . creating one - dimensional replicas is one thing ; having mere names take the place of them is quite another .
the " plot " , shall we call it , stays fairly in tune with the original series .
matthew broderick stars as john brown ( how creative is that ? ) , a security guard who is horribly injured by a pack of ruthless businessmen headed by scolex ( why , rupert everett ,
for the love of god
why ? ? ? ! ! !
) , who himself is transformed into claw by an unfortunate chain of events .
brown is then rescued and used as a prototype for a new law - enforcement technology wherein he 's joined with various machine parts and some nifty gadgets to form ( drumroll , please ) . . .
inspector gadget !
> from here on out
, the movie becomes a hodgepodge of stupid dialog and confusing situations
( although , to be fair , my confusion could have been caused by the virtual concussion the film was inflicting upon my fragile mind ) .
there 's something about an evil gadget taking over the city ( his first crime must have been swiping matt dillon 's dentures from there 's something about mary ) and it all ends with ( what else ? )
a bunch of post - credit nonsense and a cameo by don adams himself .
to be honest , i was n't much paying attention to these " treats " .
i was just glad that it was over .

SOLUTION: N

PROBLEM: 1990s would remembered as the era of binary movie events in hollywood - two movies dealing with the same subject , or , to be precise , same " high concept " .
in summer 1994 , that " high concept " was " mad bomber action thriller " .
in few weeks , " thrillride of the summer " actionfest speed was followed by rather action thriller blown away ,
so disappointing that most of the people these days associate the title with the 1992 thriller in which nicole eggert did few nude scenes .
the movie begins in the prison in northern ireland , where gaerity ( tommy lee jones ) , ira terrorist with the great talent to make lethal explosive devices from almost any material , escapes from prison .
he comes to boston , where he accidentally notices jimmy dove ( jeff bridges ) , dedicated bomb disposal expert within boston police .
few people except gaerity know the dove 's violent past , when he used to be ira terrorist before becoming sick with violence , betraying gaerity and emigrating to america where he changed the name and started using his experience for good purpose .
gaerity holds dove personally responsible for his captivity and begins the campaign of bombing terror , directed specifically at dove 's colleagues , friends and relatives .
dove , who is just going to retire and start family , now must confront the mad bomber .
while speed does n't even try to bother with plot and characters , using them only as an excuse for long and spectacular action scenes , blown away tries to be more conventional and provide the action with some back story .
and that is the main reason why it is inferior to speed .
badly written plot and badly written characters are sometimes worse than no plot and no characters at all .
screenplay by john bateer and john rice , barely touches the complicated issues of northern ireland , using the tragedy only as the cheap backstory for even cheaper drama .
the plot is , of course , full of implausibilities .
the main one is the fact that movie fails to explain how the single individual , no matter how brilliant he is , can produce thousands of deadly devices and hold entire city at bay .
those questions , same as in the case of speed , could be forgotten while the action goes on , but the pauses between action scenes are filled with cliched and predictable situation that should provide some background to the characters . because of them , movie seems a little bit too long , and boring at times . the most annoying element of the film , however , is tommy lee jones in the role of mad bomber .
his acting is
so over - the - top that potentially fascinating villain turns into pathetic caricature of himself .
this role is in painful contrast with the strong performance given by that same actor in fugitive .
the film have few bright points , though .
some of the action scenes are fine , which should be credited to director stephen hopkins ( predator ii , judgement night ) .
and forrest whitaker really shines in minor role of dove 's colleague .
but , all in all , blown away is a film that was justifiably shadowed by its more famous , yet hardly unforgettable competitor .

SOLUTION:
N