I know it's supposed to be a spoof of "Dangerous Minds". But it goes overboard. It doesn't only spoof the film, it tries to be a film in its own right. And it's not.
Jon Lovitz plays Richard Clark, the Michelle Pfeiffer character. He is a high school teacher, who chooses to go teach in a baaad school full of baaad people, a real Gangsta's Paradise. Does this sound familiar? After winning the students' respect by flying away with the detached hood of a convertible (really!) he proceeds to inspire them for about two minutes as a teacher, and then he goes back to being a jerk.
Because Richard Clark goes beyond bumbling and into the realms of being completely and stupidly oblivious. It's supposed to be a farce, but even in the farcical frame it's unbelievable. No mean feat, really.
The love interest between Richard Clark and Victoria Chapell(Tia Carrere) was obviously written by the unsuccesful partnership between an 8-year-old girl and a wife-beating pervert. It doesn't really go anywhere, anyway, except for a toe-curling, cringable groan-a-thon of a sex scene.
The movie rolls along steadily until about half an hour is left of the film. That's when the writers seem to have run out of ways to make you groan within the framework of the film and decided to throw in a drug dealing ending that comes completely out of left field. It's supposed to be surprising and plot-twisting, but at this time no-one really cares about any of the characters anyway.
One more thing. When Richard Clark arrives at the high school the first time, the writers (reject writers from Mad Magazine, by the look and feel of it) spend a disproportionate amount of time convincing us that this school is baaad. But, as Richard Clark has taught there for some time, the school starts smartening up. Suddenly, there is less grafitti and plants in the halls. More and more, until at the end it's a beautiful, completely restored high school. How does this happen? Where did the moeny come from, and who OKed it? Not miss Doyle, that's for dahm sure. This could, arguably, be an expressionistic metaphor for the growth and development of Richard Clark. I don't believe this, though, for two reasons: a) What growth? b) This movie is nowhere near intelligent enough for that.
Jon Lovitz plays Richard Clark, the Michelle Pfeiffer character. He is a high school teacher, who chooses to go teach in a baaad school full of baaad people, a real Gangsta's Paradise. Does this sound familiar? After winning the students' respect by flying away with the detached hood of a convertible (really!) he proceeds to inspire them for about two minutes as a teacher, and then he goes back to being a jerk.
Because Richard Clark goes beyond bumbling and into the realms of being completely and stupidly oblivious. It's supposed to be a farce, but even in the farcical frame it's unbelievable. No mean feat, really.
The love interest between Richard Clark and Victoria Chapell(Tia Carrere) was obviously written by the unsuccesful partnership between an 8-year-old girl and a wife-beating pervert. It doesn't really go anywhere, anyway, except for a toe-curling, cringable groan-a-thon of a sex scene.
The movie rolls along steadily until about half an hour is left of the film. That's when the writers seem to have run out of ways to make you groan within the framework of the film and decided to throw in a drug dealing ending that comes completely out of left field. It's supposed to be surprising and plot-twisting, but at this time no-one really cares about any of the characters anyway.
One more thing. When Richard Clark arrives at the high school the first time, the writers (reject writers from Mad Magazine, by the look and feel of it) spend a disproportionate amount of time convincing us that this school is baaad. But, as Richard Clark has taught there for some time, the school starts smartening up. Suddenly, there is less grafitti and plants in the halls. More and more, until at the end it's a beautiful, completely restored high school. How does this happen? Where did the moeny come from, and who OKed it? Not miss Doyle, that's for dahm sure. This could, arguably, be an expressionistic metaphor for the growth and development of Richard Clark. I don't believe this, though, for two reasons: a) What growth? b) This movie is nowhere near intelligent enough for that.