instruction:
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
question:
what hath kevin williamson wrought ?
while the horror movie revival spurred on by his _ scream _ has yielded a few decent entries in the genre--_i_know_what_you_did_last_summer _ ,
_ halloween :
_ h20 _ , and
_
scream_2
_ --it must be noted that williamson himself had a hand in the writing of those films .
those williamson - less post-_scream _ efforts , among them _ wishmaster _ and the recent _ disturbing_behavior _ , have been frightening all right --
frighteningly , insultingly _ bad _
. add to that list
_ urban_legend _ , which takes a promising premise and runs it through a predictable meat grinder of idiocy .
the influence of williamson on screenwriter silvio horta is clear in two key areas .
first , the opening sequence , like that of _ scream _ , is an extended set piece detailing the singular murder that gets the proverbial ball rolling .
this sequence , in which pendleton college coed michelle mancini ( natasha gregson wagner ) is decapitated while driving , also reveals the other obviously williamson - esque touch : the killer 's look .
dressed in a large hooded parka , wielding an axe , the killer bears more than a passing resemblance to the _ i_know . . .
_ fisherman , sans the hook .
one thing horta does not borrow from williamson , however , is the intriguing premise .
students at pendleton are being killed by way of urban legends -- those contemporary bits of " mythology " passed from person to person , group to group , year to year that become so embedded in the social consciousness .
it hardly matters if they are true or not , such as the tall tale that mikey from the life cereal commercials died from a fatal combination of pop rocks and pepsi ( he did n't ) .
michelle , slain by the " killer lurking in the backseat " of lore , is but
the first to fall prey to an urban legend come true ; as the body count rises , fellow pendleton student natalie ( alicia witt ) suspects not only a link between the murders , but a personal link to her past as well .
the setup shows promise , but the story never takes off , due in large part to horta and the director , the aptly named jamie blanks , who fires round afer round of his namesake in terms of suspense and scares .
too many of the would - be shocks are fakeouts reliant on bombastic music cues , and the film 's chase scenes are riddled with the cliches that _ scream
_ tried to subvert , like screaming damsels knowingly running themselves into dead ends when they should -- and could -- run out the front door .
but that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to cliches ; there 's also the climactic villain confession , in which a contrived and way - too - convenient motive is revealed , not to mention the credit card opening up the locked door trick , which is a cliche in any film genre .
banks and horta 's ( intentional ) attempts at humor are also lame ;
the fact that the best gags are lazy , in - jokey references to the other credits of co - stars joshua jackson and rebecca gayheart says a lot about the imagination of their humor .
some laughs are also had when the rather predictable identity of the killer is revealed , but i 'm not so sure if some of the more hilarious things about it were meant to be so .
the filmmakers do n't get much help from their onscreen talent .
i was far from a fan of bland _ i_know . . .
_ starlet jennifer love hewitt , but i 'd talke her
any day ove the dreadfully stiff and uncharismatic witt , whose inept attempts at emoting were often met with laughter
; witt has a pefect foil in her equally pesence - challenged leading man , jared leto .
_ dawson's_creek _ star jackson mugs his way thorugh a glorified cameo ; gayheart displays all the depth and range of , well , a noxzema spokeswoman ; and robert englund lends the film little more than his freddy krueger pedigree as a folklore professor .
granted , the cast is hampered by their material .
loretta devine , who has done some fine work in films such as _
waiting_to_exhale _ , is saddled with the ridiculous role of a pam grier - worshiping campus security guard .
the recently resuscitated horror genre can not rely on the efforts one man -- namely , kevin williamson -- to stay alive . if other filmmakers continue to make such shoddy product as _ urban_legend _ , the genre looks to once again go the way of screen slashers ' many victims .
answer:
N

question:
pre - review note : seeing as the only concern of body shots is " sex " , i will be forced to refer to that particular act innumerable times throughout the duration of this review .
because of this , i will try to vary word descriptions of " sex " ( meaning if you are offended by pejorative terms , and \ or your name is jerry falwell , you are kindly invited to hit the x up on the left corner of your screen ) , so if there happens to be a word you come across and can not comprehend , fret not , it 's most likely just another way of referring to " sex " .
i think we 'd all agree that any word used incessantly becomes a bit monotonous
so i hope you appreciate my attempt to liven up what could potentially be a very boring review .
though not as boring as the movie which makes steve forbes flat tax plan seem as lively as watching a naked mathew mconaughy play the bongos while high on god knows what .
body shots is a film so frightened of coitus that scenes of copulation are filmed ominously , in the way you 'd normally expect to see a violent attack .
it 's about people who think about screwing , seek it out , and talk about it .
these are things we all do , sometimes .
the characters in this film spend every waking moment pondering the simplicities of sexual acts .
their lives center around the next sexual encounter , but they seemed depressed .
it 's as if fucking is all they have to look forward to after a busy workweek .
at its core body shots is a message movie , the kind of thing i could picture really progressive church groups showing to middle schoolers in order to turn them off coition .
michael cristoffer ( who directed gia , another film that treated bumping uglies as if it where evil ) is a moralist with nothing new to say .
his characters do n't communicate anything of interest to each other , so cristoffer gives them an opportunity to let out their inner thoughts by speaking directly into the camera .
they voice simplistic platitudes like " i like to come " or " sex without love equals violence " .
huh ?
and yes that is as complex as this movie 's observations get .
the characters are stupid and shallow , with not one registering as anything more .
the plot concerns vapid over sexed twentysomethings on an all night hunt for carnal pleasure , then the after math ( the morning after ) of such events .
we meet the characters as they speak directly to us , confiding in us with their idiotic ruminations on intimacy .
i would normally go into the characters and the actors who play them , giving you the pros and cons , but for this film i can not .
i 'm not trying to be clever or witty , but i honestly hardly remember anything that would set them apart from the others .
with the exception of trent ( played by ron livingston as a bargain basement patrick bateman ) , the rest fade into each other-- a patchwork of fake breasts , defined abs , pearly white teeth , and creamy , flawless skin .
i vaguely recall brad rowe as the sensitive one , only because his character gets the worst lines ( " sex without love equals violence " ) .
in between all the confessionals , cristoffer films everything like a headache commercial , with blurry slo mos and dramatic head turning .
the fact that this director at one point won a pulitzer prize completely baffles me .
this film is made without one iota of intelligence or insight into the generation that its tag line claims to be defining .
if body shots is meant to say that all twentysometyhings are idiotic and f * * k - obsessed , fine , i do n't have any problem with a film that tries to persuade me to think a certain way , but cristoffer only gives us one side .
additionally that one side is n't even entertaining ; the characters indulge in buggery without an ounce of sexiness . or realism .
one sexual encounter takes place outside a club on a chain link fence between the two most sensitive characters .
they suddenly have vigorous intercourse with each other for no apparent reason ( other than that they both happen to be standing next to each other ? ? ?
alas , if it could only be that easy ? ? ?
kidding of course ) , then , not only is n't it erotic , it is n't real .
it does n't feel like an authentic sexual encounter .
every f
*
* k scene in this film ( and there are many ) is treated in the same unsexy manner .
body shots makes fornication dirtier than the most scummy porno film .
it shows us none of the pleasure that should go along with it , and most of all , it fails to show us why its characters love making it so much if they seem to hate the act of actually doing it .
the resulting search for nookie ( and you can take that cookie ? ? ? )
over one night leaves us with several tedious plot lines to follow .
the main concern is much ado over a rape that may or may not have occurred .
the film shows us two separate versions of the possible rape ( one where it is consensual the other where it is not ) and in both versions the young actress playing the possible victim gets her shirt torn off .
this is a topic that could be interestingly explored if done intelligently , and if memory serves me i ca n't think of one film that has done so , and yes i saw the accused which may be one of the most overrated movies of the 80 's next to wall street .
unfortunately nobody gives us reason to care , not the writer , the director or the actors nearly all of whom seem to have wandered off the set of a noxious 90210 spin off .
paul thomas anderson approached boogie nights in a manner similar to what cristoffer does here , though boogie nights succeeded .
it was similarly moralistic , but it gave us two different viewpoints ; it showed us how the lifestyle of porn enticed its characters , and it showed us the possible fall - out of such a decision .
the characters in boogie nights were as idiotic as the characters are here , but anderson seemed to care about them .
he gave them heart .
cristoffer gives them nothing but raging hormones .
he preaches to us , by using his characters to preach to us .
this is not the way to get any message across .
why not just direct a public service announcement on the perils of hittin ' skins ?
cristofer kind of does that , though
without an ounce of insight , and with a helping of leering exploitation .
answer:
N

question:
yeah ,
yeah , the advertisements did n't even try to conceal the fact that this movie had only one hook - sex .
neve campbell and starship trooper 's denise richards getting it on ?
ok !
yeah ,
it 's a decent two minutes of film erotica , but even if that 's your main interest in this film ,
there 's plenty of cheeziness to sit thru in exchange for those two minutes .
wild things does have a lot more to think about than you might expect however .
nearly every single scene is a huge plot twist guaranteed to leave you guessing , or at least curious to see the next turn , throughout the entire movie .
but this fast - paced , razor - sharp turning of events does n't leave much time to enjoy the surprises .
we start off in a high - class california high school where every student resembles a supermodel in the making .
guidance counselor sam lombardo ( matt dillon ) seems to catch the eye of every student , particularly kelly van ryan ( richards ) , daughter of the locally prestigious family whose social status is about as high as their bank accounts .
right off the bat , kelly is using every asset she has in an effort to seduce " mr . lombardo " .
the fund - raiser car wash seems the opportune time , particularly when you wash your guidance counselor 's jeep in all white clothes and take plenty of precautions to insure you 'll be soaked from head to toe when you 're done .
on the weekend of the car wash , kelly 's attempts at seduction fall flat , and when they do , she concocts the tale that sam in fact raped her that day .
naturally sam is thrown into a state of panicked shock at these accusations .
but the otherwise unsubstantial fabrications soon lead to a criminal trial when a low - class , marijuana smoking student by the name of suzie toller ( campbell ) comes forth with a near identical story , also involving her trusted guidance counselor .
pitting himself against the communities most respected names and authoritarians , sam must prove his innocence thru the aid of his makeshift defense attorney , ken bowden , played by bill murray .
yes , that bill murray !
sound like a good , complete movie ?
yes , that alone could have been , but this is just the beginning .
in fact , the trial is over about fifteen or twenty minutes into the film .
it is merely used to launch the most twisted story of recent time .
by the time the movie finishes , you will have gone thru every plot twist imaginable .
unfortunately , with so much going on , you 're not given enough time in one predicament to be as effectively shocked when a new twist comes about .
this is just one way director john mcnaughton fails to make this movie as fun as it could 've been .
the 113 minutes fly by , and although it never feels underdeveloped ,
this pretzel of storytelling could 've been much more richly realized had a slower pace been taken .
the acting is incredibly reminiscent of fox prime - time soap operas , which no , is not a good thing .
and it 's not just campbell , who happens to hail from the prime - time fox soap " party of five " , but
everyone suffers from heavily melodramatic overtones .
dillon , who was so charming in his understated role in last year 's in & out , gives the best performance , and murray 's surprising appearance adds some comedic flare to the film .
in fact , if the whole movie had been promoted as a subtle comedy , even if it was the exact same film , i would actually give it a better grade .
that 's how cheezy it comes off .
but aside from these two , the rest offer nothing more than some good eye - full 's .
in the right hands , wild things could 've been a wickedly delightful , scrumptiously twisted thriller , but instead we get juvenile overuses of profanity and some very laughable displays of acting .
and what 's up with these people passing as high school students ?
i realize hollywood often casts older actors to play teenage roles , but when i realized it was n't supposed to be a college they were at , i had to snicker .
i wo n't lie -
this is definitely a guilty pleasure .
as corny as it is , it 's got some interesting aspects and could deserve at least a " b " for effort .
but if you just want to admire denise richards , go for last year 's starship troopers , which was every bit as campy , but a million times better .
of course , if seeing her breasts is your most important goal , you 'll be right at home with wild things .
perhaps the wildest thing of all is that somebody actually looked at this and thought it deserved to be in theaters .
answer:
N