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

SOLUTION: N

PROBLEM: i love movies .
i really do .
every time i watch great movies like goodfellas ( 1990 ) or raiders of the lost ark ( 1981 ) , a tear comes to my eye due to the awesome talent , skill and entertainment that is on display .
even lower grade films such as the naked gun 33 1/3 ( 1994 ) or ghostbusters ii ( 1988 )
while not exactly brilliantly well made , are certainly not a waste of celluloid and present entertainment value .
then there 's my favourite martian , the exact opposite of what a movie should be : a hurried , poorly written and acted movie with one goal , to make money .
disney , ever since the lion king ( 1994 ) have lost their magic touch , but this dross just shows how far disney have sunk
.
christopher lloyd plays a martian who crash lands in front of t .
v reporter 's tim o'hara car ( daniels ) , and soon tim finds the martian in his home , trying to recover and fix his spaceship .
along with his ' zoot ' spacesuit , voiced by wayne knight , must fix his spaceship before it explodes , and also try to stop his identity being revealed to the public , firstly by o'hara , but later by rival t .
v presenter brace channing ( hurley ) , by calling himself tim 's ' uncle martin . '
' laughter ' is supposed to arise from the ' comical ' events , but never does .
many bad films have good intentions , but my favourite martian does n't appear to try to provide any entertainment .
filled to the brim with wham bang special effects , my favourite martian offers little more than some nice eye candy .
christopher lloyd mugs his way through the entire movie
, i 've never seen a man pull a face for 93 minutes until now .
jeff daniels plays ' staple nice guy ' and his role is useless .
his performance is incredibly lazy , although his paperthin character does n't deserve more than the performance he gives .
darryl hannah looks as pretty as ever , but her role is somewhat , erm , limited .
hurley mistakes ' acting ' for ' shouting and looking like a twit ' and wins the david wilcock award for ' most irritating , godawful performance in a moving picture . ' way to go liz !
for the supporting cast , disney manage to assemble every character actor out there , during the film i was going ' he was the guy in .
. .
ah .
. er . . . ' before finally giving up and switching off . another major setback is the staple ' comedy sidekick . '
unfortunately , the writers ( sherri stoner and deanna oliver , if anyone cares ) forget that a comedy sidekick needs to be ' funny . '
instead , they deliver zoot , the martians deeply unfunny sidekick .
although meant to be a manic character
no doubt , every line that comes out of his ' neck ' is a dud .
a real dud .
citizen kane delivers more laughs a minute than his hell spawn piece of polyester .
even the kids in the audience were insulted by this character : not one child even bothered to smirk .
it 's a nice special effect , though .
another problems with this comedy are the gags themselves .
or rather , the lack of them .
my favourite martian reaches a new level of toilet humour : it goes past the bowl , down the pipe and into the sewer .
now , toilet humour can be funny , as dumb and dumber ( 1994 ) humorously showed .
but here , characters farting , belching and almost getting crapped on ( literally ) is not ' amusing . '
it 's insulting .
there 's one good gag right before the credits , but it appears the guy who wrote that gag tragically died and his unfunny twin continued .
either that , or they were hoping that easy to please six year olds would n't mind the fact that his movie is beaten by men at work in the funny stakes .
yes , men at work .
yowza !
the fact that a lot of money was pumped into this film , and that they actually got people to agree to be in this film just depresses me even more .
there are thousands of brilliant films out there
that ca n't get distribution , yet
trash like this
gets released nation - wide with ease .
thankfully , as soon as it makes it 's money , it will never be seen again , and my favourite martian will end up where the two lead characters do near the end of the movie : down the toilet .

SOLUTION: N

PROBLEM: " very bad things , " is the most delightfully morbid film of the year , a movie that goes so far over the deep end with its outrageousness and violence that i could n't help but be won over by the material .
the film starts off with five friends leaving their homes in los angeles for a bachelor party in las vegas .
the groom - to - be is kyle fisher ( jon favreau ) , who is about to be married to the controlling , wedding - obsessed laura ( cameron diaz ) .
the other friends are real estate agent robert boyd ( christian slater ) , quiet charles ( leland orser ) , and brothers , michael ( jeremy piven ) and family man adam ( daniel stern ) .
after a wild night of gambling , boozing , and drugs , a stripper ( carla scott ) who was paid for by robert comes into their hotel room , but after a freak accident , to everyone 's terror , she is killed .
as robert puts it : " there are two options : go to the police and go to prison , or bury her out in the desert where no one will ever find her .
" after a security guard enters into the hotel room unexpectantly and sees the body , robert is forced to kill him as well .
"
okay , there is only one option now .
you can forget about calling the police , " he says .
by the time the five friends return home and as the wedding draws nearer , most of them are overcome with guilt , which sets off an even more elaborate series of event , that includes much , much more murder , double - crosses , and the inevitable wedding from hell .
" very bad things , " which is actor peter berg 's feature film directing debut , is the shockingly perverse and wicked comedy that , " there 's something about mary , " wanted to be .
it pulls out all the stops to create something fresh , original , and hilarious , even if that requires surprisingly graphic violence , gore , and a slew of truly hateful characters that all get what they deserve by the end .
the screenplay , also written by berg , is , to put it mildly , very funny and courageous .
during the second act of the film , some of the fun was beginning to slightly dwindle due to so much death , which was beginning to undermine the humor , but it eventually recouped itself with a climax that has to be seen to be believed .
the dialogue is edgy and inventive , and this film proves that a movie does n't necessarily require likable character to be extremely enjoyable .
there 's more fun , i think , in showing ignorable people getting their just desserts .
cameron diaz gives her best performance to date here , and has a lot of fun in playing the hateful laura , who eventually turns out to be more crazy than any of the five male friends .
diaz puts so much overblown energy to her character that i really do think she deserves a supporting actress oscar nomination
come next january .
by the time she is beating someone to death with a coat hanger , and reciting lines like , " stuff him in the crapper and get your ass upstairs , " i could n't help but crack up at how " balls - to - the - wall " this film had become .
jeanne tripplehorn creates another character original , as daniel stern 's wife , who late in the picture , we discover , is a tough kick - boxer that should not be messed around with .
it is at this level that , " very bad things , " was so entertaining and surprising .
just when you thought you could predict what was going to happen , there would be a little twist involving the characters that would be absolutely wacky .
the last sequence was perfect and managed to go even further over - the - top .
although i enjoyed the film immensely , let me make this clear : " very bad things , " is not a movie for everyone .
it is more tasteless than anything i have ever seen , it is more violent and bloody than a r - rated film usually is , and it is offensive .
luckily , these are elements that i would prefer in a comedy , since it clearly shows the filmmakers were set on making a no - holds - barred , politically incorrect comedy .
the fact that this film slipped through the cracks of the usually mainstream and " safe " wide - releases coming out lately , still gives me hope for the hollywood film industry .

SOLUTION:
P