TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or 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: note : ordinarily , moviereviews .
org will not give away any critical plot points of a film that could be interpreted as " spoilers . " however , being that music of the heart is based on a true story and that moviereviews .
org feels the film can not be properly credited without such revelations , plot giveaways will appear in the following review .
if this bothers you , please note the 3 star rating of the film and stop reading now .
"
what does it take to play carnegie hall ?
practice .
"
it takes two hours for music of the heart to " play carnegie hall , " both figuratively and literally .
like the children it portrays , the movie starts from the dark realms of awful cinema and works its way up to a show - stopping performance at the legendary concert hall .
roberta guaspari ( academy award winner meryl streep ) has two kids , a husband who left her and 50 violins she bought from a small shop in the mediterranean .
her life desperately needs a jump start and gets one when she meets a man who introduces her to a job as a music teacher at an east harlem elementary school .
she soon finds her job is on the rocks as the men in her life continue to rotate through revolving doors .
that is the pattern - like plot of this production .
ultimately , the film chooses a zero - sum answer to these problems and finds her music career at an all - time high when the men in her life finally vanish .
the first hour of music of the heart is rather painful .
roberta 's character lacks development and consequently seems to be flat .
also lacking depth is the film 's " bad guy , " a narrow - minded music teacher ( josh pais ) who rejects roberta out of principle ( the movie never explains exactly which principle that is ) and conveniently comes and goes from the plot according to when it might be dramatic to have a villain around .
the next 15 minutes of the film are mediocre .
they are highlighted by one child 's return to roberta 's class ( coming after the great old hollywood scene where he explains be ca n't be around anymore because " my mom said . . . " ) and a glowing concert .
not knowing the running time , you may expect the credits to role at this point .
but they do n't .
instead the film uses the next 45 minutes to finish its journey from bad to mediocre to excellent .
director wes craven , known for his works of horror , uses some old sentimental tricks to get the audience tearing .
one romantic break up scene is highlighted by the classic
" but . . .
last night . . .
" and roberta 's two children also have textbook conflicts with their single mother regarding their father 's absence .
the city of harlem plays a strong role in the movie .
roberta 's mother is initially reluctant to see her daughter move to that part of town and the film does nothing to combat that stereotype .
the noise tracks for these scenes are dominated by sirens ; predictably one of roberta 's students is gunned down and killed off screen .
one thing the film does lack is subtlety .
the fact that a little boy was playing " we shall overcome " on his violin after the aforementioned shooting was a cute and discreet reference .
the fact that the entire orchestra begins to play it over and over soon after is an overdone reference that shows how little credit he gives the audience .
( of course , in horror films the foreshadowing and between - the - line moments are meant to be overdone , so perhaps he too is just learning to play the game . )
even with all its flaws , music of the heart is a beautiful film .
that is not an excuse for the movie 's poor beginning .
but as i watched the scenes in carnegie hall , i thought of some of the great acts that have taken that stage .
in december of 1979 a comedian named andy kaufman put on a show that will forever be remembered as one of the most original in theatre history .
the performance included a dead - on elvis impression , robin williams in disguise and a moment at the end when kaufman announced he would take the whole audience out for milk and cookies .
so , how did this comic genius choose to open the show of his life ?
he had a character named tony clifton take the stage for the sole purpose of irritating and angering the audience .
perhaps it is okay for music of the heart to start off rusty because just as kaufman had santa 's favorite food ,
this movie has an amazing finale .

SOLUTION: P

PROBLEM: it seems that i 've stopped enjoying movies that should be fun to watch .
take payback , for example , a movie that most people seem to like . however ,
it 's horrible schlock , straight out of hollywood 's vast talent for sucking creativity out of movies .
it was written and directed by a guy who should have done better ; however , maybe he did do better , after all , 30 percent of the movie is n't his own .
mel gibson ,
that hollywood zombie
, decided he did n't like the ending and had another director reshoot it .
what a crock . if you sign on to do a movie , then do it the way the script calls for .
why film a movie and then look at it later and say , - no , i changed my mind , i do n't like the ending .
you 're fired .
let 's get someone else to do it .
- i suppose honor is dead in hollywood .
the end of the film is , of course , hollywoodized . which is to say that it 's happy and the guy you root for beats impossible odds to win his prize .
in this case , as is most victories in hollywood movies , gibson 's prize is a blond and money .
i miss originality in film , i really do .
i think audiences are so starved for it that they 'll flop down a lot of money in hopes that a movie will be original .
payback 's tagline - get ready to root for the bad guy - promised an original idea , but it was far from the truth .
while gibson 's character certainly broke the law , he was a character that had honor ( odd that gibson himself seems to have very little of it ) , would n't kill in front of children and protects his blond woman .
there 's nothing bad about him - he 's a hollywood character , a person who could never exist in real life .
and gibson knows it - he spends his time trying to act like a " bad guy " , and instead comes off as pretentious and arrogant .
the story involves gibson being double - crossed by his partner ( who is a real bad guy , which made me wish that we could root for him ) over $ 70 , 000 .
gibson recovers from multiple gunshots , is pissed ( naturally ) , and will do whatever it takes to get the exact amount of money back - no more , no less .
he makes a point of it that it 's strictly 70 grand .
a real bad guy would have made his ex - partner pay 25 % interest .
this idea is completely stretched out .
gibson ends up going after his partner and the chicago mafia that his partner is affiliated with .
what i did n't understand -
this is the chicago mafia .
$ 70 , 000 is like spare change to them .
they 'd probably just pay the guy rather than go through the trouble of dealing with him .
i think they 'd respect a guy going through this much trouble for a simple $ 70 , 000 .
maybe i 'm being too hard on the movie .
perhaps the filmmakers were just trying to make a simple popcorn movie .
i read roger ebert 's review and he liked gibson in the role because he is a comic at heart playing a bad guy .
that 's why we 're allowed to root for him .
and it 's true - gibson walks the movie as if he 's smiling at a joke he just heard .
but he 's wrong here .
i wanted a lee marvin or old - time clint eastwood or somebody who was n't a comic , just an ass kicker .
as a side note , i 've just checked the internet movie database and discovered that i am the 38th person to post a newsgroup review of payback .
after this many reviews , why would anyone want to read this ?
really , i do n't care .
i 'm just trying to gain membership into the on - line film critics society by posting as many reviews as i can .

SOLUTION:
N