input: David Arquette is a young and naive home security alarm

salesman taken under the wing of Stanley Tucci. Arquette is a

golden boy, scoring a big sale on his first call- to widow Kate

Capshaw and her dopey son Ryan Reynolds. Things are going

well for Arquette, he is appearing in commercials for the security

firm and he is falling in love with Capshaw.

Then Tucci and his right hand woman Mary McCormack let him in

on a little secret- they sometimes break into the houses of their

clients in order to scare them and to get their neighbors to buy

security systems from the firm. Arquette decides not to get

involved, taking Capshaw to meet his family, and going through life

with a goofy smile on his face. Then, someone breaks into

Capshaw's home and murders her and her son. Arquette suspects Tucci, and sets a series of traps, resulting in a gun to his

boss' head as Tucci pleads his innocence.

Based on a stage play, "The Alarmist" is not opened up well. The

scenes where Arquette takes the Capshaw to meet his parents

are badly played and completely unfunny. They are also out of line

with the character Capshaw is playing, as she gets drunk and tells

sexually explicit stories to Arquette's mom Michael Learned. Other

than these scenes, Capshaw is not given much to do, but she

does a lot with the little she is given.

Stanley Tucci, looking just like Terry O'Quinn, is a riot as the

security firm owner. He is a creep who really does not understand

Arquette's moral revulsion. However, when he turns into a

sniveling whiner after Arquette kidnaps him, he is hilarious. Mary

McCormack seems to have been groomed for a bigger role, but

she mostly stands around and agrees with Tucci. Ryan Reynolds

is too old to play a dumb teenager, but he is funny, especially

telling his own explicit sexual story to Arquette.

The screenplay lurches from romantic comedy to dark comedy too

soon. Capshaw meeting the parents is completely unmotivated,

except to give her a reason to get out of town so someone can

break into her house. Capshaw and Reynolds are in the film just

to give Arquette a reason to take revenge on Tucci.

Arquette, who has proven he is a good actor, is awful here. He

relies on the constipated mugging that got him through those

AT&T ads, and he is not a strong enough presence to build this

weak film around. Actually, Reynolds might have been a better

choice in the role.

Dunsky's direction is good, nothing that will win an Oscar soon.

Christophe Beck's light jazzy score recalls the type of film noir this

film tries to be, and it is really catchy on top of that.

Despite the pluses, Arquette's failure as a lead and the script's

schizophrenic quality sinks the film. I do not recommend it.

This is rated (R) for physical violence, gun violence, some gore,

strong profanity, brief female nudity, sexual content, strong sexual

references, and adult situations.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: There is no story! The plot is hopeless! A filmed based on a car with a stuck accelerator, no brakes, and a stuck automatic transmission gear lever cannot be good! I would have stopped that car within one minute whether I was in it or in the police car constantly following it. I feel sorry for the actors that had to put up with such a poor script. The few scenes that some similarity to action was heavily over-dramatized, and as far from reality you can get. In addition, there were a lot of blunders, for instance the hood of the runaway car, which was popped doing 100mph. At first it just folded over the windshield, like it would in reality, but then, afterwards, it blew off. The car was later in the movie observed with the hood on....

This film was nothing but annoying, stay away from it!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: This movie should not be watched as it was meant to be a flop. Ram Gopal Verma first wanted to make this a remake of classic bollywood movie "Sholay", but after having problems with the original makers decided to go ahead with the project and... i guess leave all the good parts of the movie (acting, script, songs, music, comedy, action etc) out and shoot the movie just because he already happen to hire the crew. Waste of money, waste of time. After making movies like Rangeela, Satya, and Company he pulled a Coppola (Godfather) on us; What were you thinking RGV? Anyways, the story is, though hard to follow, is almost like the Old sholay. Ajay Devgan playing Heero (Beeru, sholay) and Ajay, new kid on the block playing Ajay (Jay,sholay). Both "bad yet funny" friends help a cop capture a bad guy first. Later in the movie, now Retired cop hires them as personal security and safeguarding from the hands of a very most wanted Bubban played by Amitabh Bachan. In case you haven't been watching Bollywood movies, the Good guys win in the end. There I just saved you 3 precious hours of your life!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Seriously the only good thing about this year ceremony were the winners.

Although the ceremony itself was pretty short it still was somewhat boring. I think it's seriously time to look for a new director and producers for the show, who can come up with something REALLY new. It's pretty obvious that they tried to make the show more 'hip' and appealing for a younger audience this year by letting Beyonce perform and letting P. Diddy and Prince present a category. Also letting Chris Rock be the presenter was an attempt to re-new the ceremony and make it more appealing. None of it really worked out.

Sure, Chris Rock is a funny guy but he wasn't really a good presenter. I really merely saw him as a guy who just talked every now and then in between of the different categories. His presence wasn't really as 'big' as for instance Billy Crystal's.

Also the handing out of the awards was pretty dumb at times. Not letting everybody come to the stage but also handing out some of the awards in the middle of the theater was plain weird.

Still, I can't remember being any more satisfied with the award winners. None of the movies really swept away the awards as the last couple of years always had been the case. So does that mean it had been a good year for movies with lots of competitive contestants? I don't think so. I think most of the movies will be largely forgotten in 20 years from now, with the exception of "Million Dollar Baby" and "The Passion of the Christ" maybe. Sure I don't agree with every single award that was handed out this year, for instance Caleb Deschanel should had won for best cinematography, not that I don't like Robert Richardson's work, he really did some amazing work for most of Oliver Stone's work but I really feel that Deschanel deserved the award way more. Also I would had liked seeing Jim Miller and Paul Rubell win for best editing and John Debney for best music. But oh well, there is no way the Academy Awards can please everybody of course, I understand that. There will always be people complaining about the winners.

It also was funny to see that most of the award presenters were way more nervous than the nominees and winners. Did Prince said any of the nominees names right at once? And were is Sean Penn's sense of humor? Al Pacino and Jeremy "I hope they missed" Irons were the best presenters of the night.

Overall a very forgettable show but with nice winners.

4/10

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative