instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
with his last two films - shine and snow falling on cedars - australian director scott hicks has proven his cinematic flashbacks to be some of the best out there , and his latest , hearts in atlantis , is no different .
its structure - beginning and ending in present day with one long flashback in the middle - is similar to the green mile , which is a bit ironic considering both were based on stephen king books .
the parallels do n't end there , either .
atlantis was adapted by william goldman , who had previously penned the big - screen version of misery and is in the process of working on the script for king 's dreamcatcher .
even the film 's content is a bit reminiscent of mile .
in fact , it 's the perfect blend of the feel - good ' 60s nostalgia of stand by me ( also by king ) and mystical power hokum of mile .
king 's atlantis is a book comprised of five related short stories , but the main focus here is on the first ( and longest ) tale , called low men in yellow coats ( the film 's title comes from the second chapter ) .
it 's set in 1960 harwich , connecticut , where 11-year - old bobby garfield ( anton yelchin )
lives in a boarding house run by his cold , self - centered mother elizabeth ( hope davis , joe gould 's secret ) , who seems to care more about her wardrobe than her son .
bobby spends his time with his two closest friends , john sullivan ( will rothhaar ) and tomboy carol gerber ( mika boorem ) , who become something like the kevin , paul and winnie of harwich .
when a new tenant moves into the vacant room , the fatherless bobby finds a male role model in ted brautigan ( anthony hopkins , hannibal ) , a mysterious stranger who is vague enough about his past to make bobby 's mom suspicious enough to at least momentarily turn her head away from the mirror .
ted teaches his young neighbor about the wonders of literature ( after his cheapskate mother gives him a library card for his birthday ) , dispenses prophetic words of wisdom and even pays bobby one dollar a week to read him the local newspaper and keep his eyes peeled for the low men , a group of people chasing ted to exploit his special powers .
i wo n't go into what these powers are , but they 're considerably toned down from the book ( and do n't involve black stuff flying out of ted 's mouth , a la mile ) .
atlantis ' present - day setting which bookends the film is based on the novel 's final chapter , titled heavenly shades of night are falling , and features david morse ( in yet another connection to the green mile ) as a married , middle - aged bobby who learns of the death of both of his childhood friends and returns to the dilapidated boarding house in which he spent his formative years .
atlantis is nowhere near as flashy as hicks ' cedars , which is disappointing but understandable considering the switch from the completely amazing robert richardson to the occasionally amazing piotr sobocinski , the oscar - nominated cinematographer behind krzysztof kieslowski 's red .
the acting is solid from everyone , including hopkins , who never once makes you think of dr .
lecter .
most impressive are youngsters yelchin and boorem , who both had tiny parts in along came a spider .
while i did n't really have much of a problem with goldman 's screenplay , i do need to point out at least one inconsistency .
goldman , for those of you who do n't read premiere , writes what seems like an annual criticism of everybody else 's films , carefully explaining why they all suck , make no sense and insult their audiences , while somehow failing to mention the crap that he 's penned ( like the general 's daughter ) .
it 's mean - spirited but fun to read , mostly on account of nobody else in hollywood having the balls to say anything remotely negative about anybody else in the business ( including michael jackson , o .
j . and robert blake ) .
in atlantis , which is supposed to be told through the eyes of young bobby , one would assume he would have to be in each scene in order to have the memory to which to flash back .
well , he 's not , and it does n't make sense .
1
: 41 - pg-13 for violence and thematic elements
answer:
P


question:
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 .
answer:
N


question:
i do n't box with kid gloves .
i do n't play nice , i 'm not a nice guy , and i never , ever , go easy on a film .
i consider it to be a breech of some sort of code of ethics for a movie critic .
however , i do some favors , and these often come in the form of points that i hand to certain groups due to the artistic bravery .
rigormortis , the production company that has been my prime example of how money does not need to motivate filmmaking , gets several of these points each time .
i still , however , will not go easy on them .
they recently sent me a vhs copy of their down with america trilogy ( which begins , quite wittily , with a disclaimer that they are not trying to undermine america with the making of this film . )
and i decided to spend an hour of my day watching it .
in the famous lines of many martyrs , i have no regrets .
well , i do have some regrets , but that is not the point in the previous sentence .
the point of it was that down with america was a film that , from a critical standpoint , did not entirely disappoint me .
sure , the risky use of vhs instead of super 8 mm or 16 mm was a pain , and the natural light was one of the most annoying things about public access films , but the movie itself was fairly enjoyable .
down
with america concerns a government agent , needless murder , and a book containing everything from the unabomber 's manifesto to the 1995 apple computer profit report .
like the previous films of rigormortis that i have reviewed , it displays an off - kilter humor and intelligence ?
it succeeds in making me laugh where countless studio films fail .
the best way to see this film would be as a parody of the countless conspiracy films that we have been drowned in since the paranoia of the 80s .
a dying movement from the day they started , these paranoid ` thrillers ' had the government always covering up something and had the same favorite word : ` roswell . '
in down with america , the line ` roswell ' is highly absent .
with an about ten minute running time , down with america effortlessly sidesteps every clich ? that the conspiracy films fell into , makes jokes at them at the same time , and provides us with funny and memorable characters .
again , i have seen movies that have gone on two hours with characters i could n't care less about .
the film , as previously stated , concerns a federal agent ( peter roach ) , an obsessed librarian ( meri stevens ) , a mystery man ( joe kaczkowski ) , and two people obsessed with silence in the library ( robb sherman , kevin flowers ) .
the plot : a book containing the secrets of all anarchists is hidden in ? a public library where it can be viewed by all .
from there we go into a delightful parody .
the federal agent claims his sovereign right to alter the truth , the librarian goes on a diatribe about the sanctity of books .
we spend our time laughing at fairly idiotic jokes that are performed much too well considering the lack of coaching of the cast .
although the actors and actresses are in small roles and give a whole new meaning to ` no - name ' , it ends up being the no - name people who do a good job , delivering better performances as comic villains than half the crap that hollywood turns out .
for once , i do n't have a url that i know offhand to give you as to where to locate the film online .
i can only say that you should find my previous reviews of l'auto and les x - files and look up the rigormortis productions site in and of itself .
it 's almost as much fun as the film .
answer:

P