TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
PROBLEM: in brief : best bleak comedy film
since heathers . full of wonderful swipes at the fifteen minutes of fame mentality that feeds so much of modern american pop culture .
go see it !
so , i prepared for this film by watching a moving interview on " hard copy " with pam smart , the new hampshire media teacher who was convicted of engineering the death of her husband back in the 1980 's .
" hard copy " 's diane diamond asked smart what she thought about nicole kidman 's fictionalized portrayal of her in the new film to die for .
smart replied that she thought kidman 's character came off as a dumb , vicious tramp
and she thought that the publicity the new movie generates might just hurt her chances in her latest court appeal .
( smart was convicted and given a life sentence for her part in the murder of her husband . )
smart 's got a point .
it would n't be the first time that the public took the better scripted and well - acted movie version of an event as the absolute truth over the duller and far less artistic real life version .
however , given a choice between the mass media ' happening ' of the real event and the fictionalized movie , i would definitely opt for the later .
real murderers rarely have dialogue as witty as what buck henry has written for this movie and smart , while pretty and alluring , is no match for the cinematic charms of nicole kidman .
to die for begins in a town called little hope , new hampshire , the archetypal dry and intellectually barren american suburb .
the story concerns the ambitious suzanne stone and how she tackles the obstacles between her and her life long ambition of being ' on tv . '
of course , one of those little obstacles turns out to be her dull and unambitious husband larry , played by matt dillon .
but , with a little imagination , some charm and raw sex appeal and a rather novel approach to junior achievement , our heroine manages to overcome the nay - sayers in her life , at least temporarily .
kidman triumphs in the trashy role of suzanne .
i have never really been all that fond of this actress but
she shows a wonderful flair for comedy in this picture .
her portrayal of the incredibly shallow and dumb femme fatale resonates .
kidman knows a star - making role when she sees it
and she plays the conscience - deprived suzanne as the ultimate career driven , post - feminist uber - temptress from hell .
she is ably abetted by wonderfully demented comic dialogue , which kidman delivers in a unselfconsciously funny way .
at one point suzanne is expounding on her knowledge of world events to her future husband and sister - in - law .
"
you know , " she knowingly exclaims , " gorbachev would still be the leader of russia or whatever , if he had just had that ugly purplish thing removed from his head .
"
her husband beams at suzanne 's profound knowledge of world politics and then proudly proclaims that this qualifies her to be the next barbara walters .
this is very close to pop culture bashing heaven , folks .
the other standout performance in the film is delivered by joaquin phoenix .
he plays jimmy , a burned out teenager who becomes addicted to suzanne 's sexual favors .
kidman 's character , vapid though she is , is a sort of suave beacon of success to jimmy and his lost friends russell and lydia , winningly portrayed by casey affleck and alison folland .
phoenix looks like the very embodiment of gen - x slackerhood ( as envisioned by tabloid tv , of course ) .
his jimmy has the dead eyes and demeanor of a kid who knows that he ai n't going anywhere , ever .
phoenix reacts to the sexy suzanne with a sort of obsessed amazement
and he makes us believe that a loser character like jimmy really would be willing to kill for someone like suzanne , someone who actually noticed him .
gus van sant ( drugstore cowboy ,
my own private idaho )
direction is first - rate .
he keeps the pacing in this not - quite - thriller snapping along .
van sant rightly keeps the focus of this movie on the amoral suzanne and does n't stop to proselytize the audience about the rightness or wrongness of her actions .
van sant trusts his material and trusts his audience to ' get it ' without stopping to explain what is funny about this all - american story .
the screenplay , by buck henry , is absolutely great and includes some of the best bleakly comic lines i 've heard since heathers .
henry 's story is a blast against the shallowness of the american media and the mindlessness of fame , yet the screenplay delivers this sharp message by focusing on just a few characters .
henry
ably manages to avoid diluting his story by aiming at too many targets and the result is a crisp and funny mini - classic .
danny elfman did the original music for this movie and he delivers another eccentric , loopy score that strongly echoes his themes for edward scissorhands .
either film score would make wonderful background music for halloween trick - or - treat parties .
all - in - all , a wonderful production , well worth your seven bucks ! to die for : a columbia pictures release directed by gus van sant .
written by buck henry score by danny elfman starring nicole kidman , matt dillon , joachin phoenix based on the book by joyce maynard .
rated r - for language and mature themes .
( respect the r , not for under 14 's ) rating ----- stars .
go see it .

SOLUTION: P

PROBLEM: deep rising is one of " those " movies .
the kind of movie which serves no purpose except to entertain us .
it does not ask us to think about important questions like life on other planets or the possibility that there is no god . . .
screw that , it says boldly , let 's see some computer generated monsters rip into , decapitate and generally cause irreparable booboos to a bunch of little known actors .
heh !
them wacky monsters , got ta love 'em .
of course , since we can rent about a thousand b movies with the same kind of story , hollywood must give that little extra " oumph " to get people in theaters .
that is where deep rising fails , which is a good thing
.
confused ? let me explain : despite all them flashy effects and big explosions , deep rising is still , at heart , a good ' ol b movie .
luckily , it 's a very good b movie .
the worst cliches in movie history are a b movie 's bread and butter .
therefore , things that would destroy a serious movie actually help us have a good time while watching a movie of lower calibre .
of course we know there 's a big slimy creature behind that door , that one person will wander off to be picked off by said monster and we always know which persons or person will make it out alive .
we just do n't know when or how horrible it will be .
i went to see deep rising with my expections low and my tolerance for bad dialogue high .
imagine my surprise when i discover that deep rising is actually , well ,
pretty darn funny at times .
a funny b movie ?
well , that 's new .
these flicks are not supposed to make us laugh .
( except for a few unintended laughs once a while . ) and before you know it , treat williams , wes studi and famke jansen appear on the big screen .
hey !
i know them guys ( and gal ) from a couple of other movies .
cool .
familiar faces .
so far so good .
our man treat is the hero , he 'll live .
wes is a staple of b movies , he is the token victim .
we know he 'll buy the farm
but he will take a few creeps with him on the way out .
famke is the babe , 'nuff said .
there is also a guy with glasses ( the guy with glasses always dies ) a black person ( b movie buffs know that the black guy always dies , never fails ) and a very funny , nerdy guy .
( ah ! comic relief .
how can we possibly explain having to kill him . . .
let him live . )
after the first fifteen minutes i felt right at home .
i know who to root for and who i need to boo too and a gum to chew .
( please kill me . )
suffice it to say that for the next hour and a half i jumped out of my seat a few times , went " ewwww " about a dozen times and nearly had an orgasm over all the explosions and firepower our heroes were packing .
i 'm a man , we nottice these things .
all in all , i 'd recommend deep rising if you are looking for a good time and care to leave your brain at the door . . . but bring your sense of humor and excitement in with you .
the acting is decent , the effects top rate . how to best describe it ?
put together the jet ski scene from hard rain , the bug attacks from starship troopers , a couple of james bond like stunts and all those scenes from friday the thirteenth and freddy where you keep screaming " do n't go there , he 's behind you " and you end up with deep rising .
for creepy crawly goodness , tight t - shirts , major firepower and the need to go to the bathroom every fifteen minutes from seing all that water .

SOLUTION: P

PROBLEM: two party guys bob their heads to haddaway 's dance hit " what is love ? " while getting themselves into trouble in nightclub after nightclub .
it 's barely enough to sustain a three - minute _ saturday_night_live _ skit , but _ snl _ producer lorne michaels , _ clueless _ creator amy heckerling , and paramount pictures saw something in
the late night television institution 's recurring " roxbury guys " sketch that would presumably make a good feature .
emphasis on the word " presumably .
"
_ a_night_at_the_roxbury
_ takes an already - thin concept and tediously stretches it far beyond the breaking point -- and that of viewers ' patience levels .
the first five minutes or so of _ roxbury
_ play very much like one of the original " roxbury guys " skits .
with " what is love ? " blaring on the soundtrack , the brotherly duo of doug and steve butabi ( chris kattan and will ferrell ) bob their heads , scope out " hotties " at clubs , and then bump a select few with violent pelvic thrusts .
there is one crucial difference , however -- these guys speak .
that little fact has been used as justification for the film 's existence , that the butabis ' newfound capacity for speech would open up a whole new set of doors for the characters .
the doors opened by director john fortenberry and screenwriters steve koren , ferrell , and kattan are new , that 's for sure , but they all lead to comic dead ends .
there is no story per se , only a loosely structured and linked series of subplots .
the brothers literally run into ( or , rather , get run into , as in by car ) richard grieco of _ 21_jump_street _ fame , and through him they gain entrance into the exclusive roxbury club .
there , they meet a hotshot club owner ( chazz palminteri , conspicuously uncredited -- can you blame him ? ) , who takes an interest in an idea of theirs .
meanwhile , the bros ' overbearing father ( dan hedaya ) wants them to stop clubbing .
when doug refuses and the dimwitted steve obeys his father , a rift is created between the two .
the narrative messiness of
_ roxbury
_ would have been forgivable if all that went on were the slightest bit funny , but virtually none of it is .
the assembled press audience mostly sat stonily silent throughout the entire film , with the one big exception being a big laugh near the end .
alas , the joke -- a rather lazy takeoff on _
jerry_maguire_--will only strike a chord with people who have seen that film .
granted , a lot of people
_ have _ seen _ jerry_maguire _ , but the fact that the film 's best joke is completely dependent on one 's familiarity with another film says a lot about
_ roxbury _ 's lack of inspiration .
that lack of inspiration can be traced back to the insipid characters themselves .
like too many of the skits on the current incarnation of _ saturday_night_live _ , " the roxbury guys " is a one - joke sketch that never once suggests that the characters have enough comic life in them to survive outside of the sketch context .
after watching one of the " roxbury " skits on snl , this is what you come away with from the characters : they bob their heads to " what is love ? " , bump unsuspecting women , and .
..
that 's all .
after watching _
a_night_at_the_roxbury
_ , you 'll be left with exactly the same .

SOLUTION:
N