TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
PROBLEM: this is the worst movie i 've viewed so far in 98 .
the avengers = silly = man dressed in a bowler hat + woman wearing tight leathers
> evil scientists dressed in teddy bear suits + greater evil , sir august de wynter wearing kilt .
the question is what could have gone wrong with a potentially great idea with big name cast ?
the same question was probably asked of last year 's stinker batman and robin .
i feel the production got a little too smug ,
the script a little to smart and direction was somehow lost in the chaos of random events that collided together to form a movie .
my greatest criticism rests on the fact that there was no chemistry between emma peel and john steed ( thurman and fiennes ) ?
something that was a vital element of the 60 's tv serial of the same name .
the dialogue goes on and on about tea and other finer british perks , but does not allow much room for character development and interaction , except to perhaps grate on the viewer 's nerves .
one wonders why the dynamic pair bother kissing in the end except for pure english formality .
connery as sir august , does not fair better than thurman or fiennes .
his dialogue is as erratic as stormy weather , mostly embarrassing and poor quality .
if there is a movie you would prefer never to see , i believe the avengers would be a good choice .
for one thing , you will not have to witness a product that is far inferior to the three high profile names that is associated with the title .
i can not understand how something
so poorly produced could have been released , but i put it down to one of those freak happenings in nature , like lightning you ca n't see it coming until it hits you .

SOLUTION: N

PROBLEM: plot : a separated , glamorous , hollywood couple must pretend to reunite for a press junket of the last movie that they ever shot together .
kewl . . .
now
i only wish that i could pretend never to have seen this movie . . .
critique : trite , unfunny , boring and a waste of everyone 's talent .
how a premise with such zest and bite can turn into a movie that does n't feature any chemistry , any real laughs , any surprises or any spice is beyond me .
how julia roberts is used solely as a " puppy dog " character , puttering around in the background while we endure the complete bitchiness of zeta - jones ' character , who is not one bit funny or romantic
( two ideal ingredients in a " romantic comedy " ) , is also beyond me .
and why they chose john cusack , a great , quirky actor in his own right , to play
the most bland , uninteresting and unfetching character ( with zero chemistry with either of his leads ) is further more , beyond me .
and to anybody who decided that this project was " funny " enough to greenlight featuring the talents mentioned above , along with billy crystal , christopher walker , seth green and stanley tucci .
. .
well , what can i say .
. .
i just do n't have the words .
so is this the worst movie that i 've seen all year ?
no .
but it definitely sucks
and it 's basically because . . .
well , it 's just not funny .
and for the record , allow me to state a few more problems with it .
it starts off slow , it 's got no energy , it does n't engage you with any of its characters
( julia barely gets somewhat interesting in the film , everyone else . . .
lame ! ) , it utilizes way too many flashbacks to move the story forward , it 's utterly predictable , standard , routine , see - through and uninteresting as a plot and it just sits there on the screen , big and ugly , waiting . . .
waiting for you to laugh or find something in it that is amusing .
and then hank azaria shows up . . .
aaaaaah , the film 's savior ( mind you , some might be offended by his exaggeration of a stereotype , but that 's another story altogether ) .
but when an experienced " voice " actor upstages all of the main stars in a summer " blockbuster " romantic comedy with an over - the - top antonio banderas accent , damn dude . . .
your film 's in trouble ! ! rent this movie on video just to see what went wrong yourself .
the references to ricky ricardo and senor wences
( huh ! ? ) , the idio - plot points like when one of the characters goes on the roof to stretch his arms out and relax , but everyone believes that he 's going to kill himself ( hardy - har - har ) and the cheap way of getting the audience to leave the theater laughing by bringing back a ball - sniffing dog that has no place being in the location at the end of the movie , well .
. .
i could go on .
but i wo n't because i do still respect all of the actors in this film and actually did laugh at azaria , green and tucci 's antics from time to time ( ironic , eh .
. .
what about the leads , dammit ! )
and liked the premise behind the film ( before i saw the finished product , of course ) .
a dud all the way around .
btw , all the talk about this film was that julia roberts was to be in a fat suit for one scene
( her character is supposed to have lost 60 pounds ) , so when the scene finally came , i did get a little excited about what it might look like and then . . .
well , it basically just looked like julia roberts in a fat suit ! ugh .
i think i 'm gon na start drinking again after this lame - ass movie .
c'mon hollywood , enough with the crud !
where 's joblo coming from ?
beautiful ( 1/10 ) - my best friend 's wedding ( 7/10 ) - notting hill ( 5/10 ) - pretty woman ( 7/10 ) -runaway bride ( 5/10 ) - someone like you ( 4/10 ) - wedding planner ( 3/10 ) - when harry met sally ( 10/10 )
- you 've got mail ( 4/10 )

SOLUTION: N

PROBLEM: sometimes , when i decide to write a short story or a poem , i think of a title first , and then think of a subject to go with it .
it seems that the makers of disturbing behavior had a similar train of thought when it came to the title sequence .
i would n't be surprised if a couple of guys got together and created the opening credits , and then someone saw it and made up a story to go along with it .
the title sequence is so good , so ominous and original , that it had me engrossed before the picture even began .
of course , my attention dwindled shortly into the film .
disturbing behavior , like so many thrillers , starts off interesting and ends up
laughably ridiculous .
it 's a teen horror film with no interesting violence or sex .
it 's a suspense film with no suspense .
it 's an evil small town story with no story to speak of .
it 's a disaster , a listless and uninspired disaster , that just barely misses one - stardom because of a few good sequences , a mercifully short running time , and one terrific set of opening credits .
our main man is a fellow named steve clark , blandly played by jimmy marsden .
he moves to a small town with his family after , tragically , his brother shoots himself .
steve is very upset about the untimely death of his brother ; we learn this through strange home - video like nightmares that he has occasionally .
the big trial for steve is , of course , to fit in at school and make new friends .
marsden looks like your stereotypical jock down to the last detail , so he seems a poor casting choice for a social reject .
as a social reject , he falls in with some pretentious dope - smoking philosophers , gavin ( nick stahl ) and rachel ( katie holmes ) .
gavin informs steve that the local group of jocks , known as the blue ribboners , are actually a bunch of zombies , assimilating new members into their group , while sporadically killing innocent people .
so , it 's up to our group of mismatched protagonists to 1 ) solve the mystery , and
2 ) do something about it .
by the end of it all , something has happened and things have been explained , but the film still does n't make any sense .
disturbing behavior was written by scott rosenberg .
i 've seen his name around recently ( he was one of the toucher - uppers on the armageddon script ) , and i imagine that , for the most part , he knows what he 's doing when it comes to screenwriting .
he did , however , have a complete lapse in judgement when he got the idea for this film , and then decided to actually take the time to write it out .
evil small town films are pretty common ( the last one , phantoms , is also a dismal failure ) , but it takes a lot of skill to make the formula work .
rosenberg 's script is a complete mess , lacking in even the most basic attempts at characterization .
and it makes no sense , nor is their any purpose when things are finally " explained .
"
there is supposed to be an element of surprise when we see what is happening to the jocks , but the film never explains exactly what * is * happening .
they get strapped to chairs , a microchip is inserted into their eyes , and -- poof -- they become sex - crazed , superviolent , machine - like creatures .
the doctor responsible for all this , dr .
caldicott ( bruce greenwood ) , must be pretty nuts for thinking that this kind of behavior is a step up from the way high school jocks actually behave ( or , perhaps , this is the only realistic element in the film ) .
much of the writing is simply bad , and rosenberg has no intuition when it comes to the way high school kids act . in one terrible scene , gavin explains to steve all of the high school cliques , while pointing them out in the cafeteria .
up front , i should say that , in four years of high school , i did not eat in the cafeteria even once .
that aside , the various social groups he points out are general , uninteresting , and poorly - shown .
for instance , he points to the " nerds , " who are all wearing glasses and playing with their laptops .
it 's such an obvious cliche that i ca n't believe rosenberg even bothered .
most of the dialogue is forced ( no one says , " bite me !
" anymore ) , and none of the scenes have any degree of wit .
this picture is not inspired , and most scenes flop from one to the other , with no sense of momentum or energy .
the blame for this can be placed on director david nutter , who apparently likes his films dry .
horror films should at least exploit violence , but this one is shockingly timid .
there are a few good scenes , though , such as an interesting trip through an insane asylum ( this is , however , the most forced scene in the film , for how our heroes get there or why they bother are things we never learn ) .
i also liked the school janitor character , played by william sadler .
he has a few lines that are surprisingly thought - provoking .
the acting is largely a waste of talent .
marsden is , as i said , bland ( thought not particularly bad ) .
bruce greenwood is shamelessly wasted .
stahl and holmes both show they have talent , but the direction is n't good enough to hone in on their skills
( stahl 's performance seems more like a parody of high school potheads ) .
none of these characters expand beyond their one dimension , and , frankly , watching cardboard cut - outs of human beings run down hallways while screaming just is n't all that cool .
disturbing behavior is a wreck of a film , and it started out a wreck before shooting even began .
i 'm surprised there were producers who read this script and thought that it would make a good film , or that it would make a lot of money at the box office .
it 's not boring , or even blatantly awful , but
it 's an uninspired lump of a film .
it sure starts off nicely , but the regression into total absurdity is so consistent that the very last scene is outright laughable
.
so , if you go to see this film , take my advice : appreciate the credit sequence , and pray it never ends .

SOLUTION:
N