input: Usually I love Lesbian movies even when they are not very good. I'm biased, I guess!

But this one is just the pits. Yes, the scenery and the buildings are beautiful, and there is a brief but beautiful erotic interlude, but otherwise this movie is just a complete waste of time. Annamarie alternates between sulking and getting high/stoned/passing out on whatever drug or booze is handy, and Ella inexplicably puts up with this abominable behavior through the entire movie. At no time are we given any insight into why this is so, or even why Annamarie is so depressed and withdrawn.

If there had at least been some kind of closure in the (potentially romantic? we don't even know!) relationship between the two, there might have been some kind of satisfaction. But although Annamarie at one point asks Ella "why do you love me?" Ella doesn't even acknowledge this. It's never really clear whether this is anything more than an (ill-behaved) Lesbian on a boring road trip with a straight woman.

Even the interactions between the two women and the local people they meet on the journey, which could have been lively and informative, are instead flat, tedious and mostly incomprehensible.

There is one good joke in the movie, although I'm sure it was unintentional. The women travel in a two-seat Ford coupe with a middling sized trunk. Yet when they set up camp, they have an enormous tent, cots, sleeping gear, and even a table, chair, and typewriter! On top of that, when they board a ferry, we see piles of luggage, presumably theirs, presumably also carried in the little Ford's trunk!

And through the entire film, we never see one gas station, or anywhere that looks like it would actually have any place to buy gasoline. Mostly they travel through endless miles of desolate desert. So where did they get fuel?

There may not be too many Lesbian films out there, good or bad, but there are plenty that are better than this, and very few that are worse. Leave this one in the rack.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: INSPECTOR GADGET (1999) **

Starring: Matthew Broderick, Rupert Everett, Joely Fisher, Andy Dick, Dabney Coleman Director: David Kellogg 80 minutes Rated PG

By Blake French:

Disney's new film, "Inspector Gadget" is about a cop named John who survives a major accident and is saved by a state of the art experimental operation that turns him into a robotic machine-like agent who has tools and contraptions of all sorts built into his body at his use when he says "Go Go," only to be called Inspector Gadget!

The actual movie's structure is much like the body formation of Inspector Gadget himself. It is noisy, fragmented, energetic and consist of a bunch of half hearted contraptions thrown together to make something that doesn't have much in common with anything else present. The film is basically a series of zany action sequences that are kind of pasted together with characters and an uneven story that only kids between the ages of 6-9 would enjoy.

The cop who is dramatically reinvented is played by Matthew Broderick, who, until "Inspector Gadget," was on a success spree with movies like "Election." His character becomes Inspector Gadget after an encounter with the film's heavy handed villain named Claw. He is played by Rupert Everett, who has already experienced catastrophe this year with the dreadful "William Shakespeare's A Midsummer Nights Dream."

There is a romantic subplot in this movie as well as ample amounts of scenes involving Inspector Gadget's wacky body parts and mechanism elements. It has Gadget and Claw drooling over the attractive character Brenda, played by Joely Fisher, for both her looks and her knowledge of a specific invention made by her late father, who was earlier killed by Claw. Competition evolves into fight scenes and a reason for many happenings in the film. Also a major character is the Gadget Mobil, a life like automobile that is devised for Inspector Gadget himself. It is voiced by D.L. Hughly from the sitcom comedy "The Hughly's."

"Inspector Gadget" is a movie that I found quite bad. I know, I am not exactly a target audience of the filmmakers, but even my ten year old relative found the film to his disliking. The movie is full of distinct flaws and obvious problems. I never found myself caring about the characters. There is no mood development beyond some neat opening credits, unlike the much worse 1997 film, "Mr. Magoo," which opened using clips of the original cartoon. Is it too much to ask for that same type of thing in this comedy-which is seldom funny and hardly ever convincing. The overall production design is nothing but a mess of incomplete sight gags and consists of one joke: Inspector Gadget's bumbling goofiness.

In movies like this the audience lusts for boundaries-something to help make out what can happen and what can not. In "Inspector Gadget" there are no such boundaries. This is truthfully nothing more than a party time for the actors, who surly had lots of fun. I am reminded of another lacking comedy released a few years ago called "Blankman" which again, contained lots of props and energy, and the actors certainly had fun time with all the gizmos and props, but it too lacked something needed for every movie: audience participation.

A character that I found being left out a lot is Gadgets daughter, who by the end of the movie, I still has not clue of what her name was. She is used only as a plot device-and I question how she was used to further the plot as well. For her presence brings nothing relevant or productive to the film. We never know her reactions to her father's operation or accidents. Thus, this is someone who could have been completely left out and would have not affected the movie a bit.

In closing, I'd like to state that "Inspector Gadget" is an awful, insufficient excuse for a children's comedy. And believe it or not, I find myself comparing this film to last years violent and very anti-young audience action picture "Blade." I am stating once again that I had much rather have a movie where nothing happens than one in which everything happens. "Inspector Gadget" had so much going for it at the same time, it made literally made me dizzy.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: If you really, truly want to waste two hours of your life, do the following:

1) Look through the TV listings. 2) Find the movie 'Men in White'. 3) When 'Men in White' comes on, sit and watch.

And that's it. After sitting through two hours of bad puns, dreadful (and not that funny) movie references, and experiencing something with possibly the lowest production values ever made in recent history, you will have wasted two hours of your life, and wonder exactly why.

Why did I do this? I was stupid enough to think that this film might actually be some good. It wasn't.

But, on the other hand, if you're old enough to remember Power Rangers, you might spot some familiar faces during the film. Presumably to save on production costs, Saban (who also make Power Rangers), decided to liberally sprinkle old monster costumes from everyone's favourite tacky toy-spawning franchise throughout the film. I spotted quite a few old monsters from episodes I saw from when I was a kid, so I guess it could at least be said it has some nostalgia value.

But, if you want to see actual Power Rangers monsters, go watch Power Rangers itself. It's much better than this piece of garbage. (And that's saying something!)

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative