TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or 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

PROBLEM: beware of movies with the director 's name in the title .
take " john carpenter 's ghosts of mars " ( please ) .
if the carpenter brand name was n't superglued to the title , this embarrassment would surely have bypassed theaters entirely and gone straight to its proper home on the usa network .
and i would have been spared a headache .
the latest from the director of " starman , " " halloween " and " escape from new york " is a lousy western all gussied up to look like a futuristic horror flick .
the production is set on mars in 2176 , where humanity looks for relief from the overpopulation strangling their home world .
six hundred and forty thousand people in a matriarchal society live and work at outposts all over the red planet , terra - forming to make it more hospitable for future generations .
a matriarchal society .
terra - forming . sounds pretty intriguing , eh ?
well , do n't get your hopes up .

SOLUTION: N

PROBLEM: warren beatty returns to the screens in the funniest , craziest and hard hitting movie in his career .
based on a story concocted by himself , and also written by beatty , bulworth gives a good insight of what beatty thinks of the american government system .
beatty stars as senator jay bulworth , who 's going through a nervous breakdown .
after hiring someone to kill him , he completely changes his campaign strategy and tells the honest truth about what 's _
really _ happening in american politics , much to the annoyance of assistant dennis murphy ( platt . )
instead of everyone hating him , the american public love him .
however , inside his party , more people want to kill him than just the hired assassin .
and he also strikes a relationship with black girl nina ( berry . )
it 's remarkable that this film was released at all .
much more open than the rather subdued primary colours , bulworth barely gives the american politic system a good name .
the outrageous remarks bulworth makes to his potential voters are very funny , and also somewhat true .
it 's great that beatty is n't afraid to let loose on a subject .
talking of beatty ,
he 's excellent in the role of the demented senator , clearing having fun . and seeing warren beatty have fun is a rare sight indeed .
even in dick tracy , he was the most straighten face actor .
( then again , he was the only characters face we could completely see . )
the film gives an opportunity for the 61 year old beatty to indulge in some rapping , which he does with gusto ( and also quite well . ) and seeing beatty as a ' homeboy ' has to be seen to be believed .
it 's nice to see that beatty can laugh at himself .
second best is oliver platt as the flustered , coke snorting assistant , who goes over the top when he finally snaps .
halle berry is fine , and sexy , as the intellectual nina , who comes to like the senator .
also popping up in the supporting cast is paul sorvino
wit h
a strange accent , laurie metcalf as the exact same characters she 's also played , and christine baranski of cybill fame as bullworths wife , who all contribute to the fun .
and , this being a political film , the ubiquitous larry king makes an appearance , as , * shock * , himself .
the writing and directing , both by beatty , are above par .
the direction is very nearly sitcom like , but
suits the film perfectly , and both the politics are gangland parts are handled well .
the script is funny , and the raps are actually well produced and humorous , and quite clever .
they 're not cringe inducing , at least .
the script makes many points about society in america today , and is n't afraid to make any bold statements about what is a flawed system .
best of all , the film is thought provoking , but directed and written in such a way that the film feels as light as a feather , and is very entertaining
.
there 's also a great rap soundtrack with some
well chosen tunes .
bulworth is a film with many advantages , and few flaws .
perhaps it could be somewhat embarrassing to see a 61 year old man rapping , but beatty does it
so well it 's irrelevant .
in fact , there 's very little against bulworth , except for the language which is very heavy , but then again it should be expected .
bulworth , then , is well worth watching .
a david wilcock review ?
1999
" you know , for kids
" - norville barnes

SOLUTION:
P