Given the task definition, example input & output, solve the new input case.
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
Example: plot : two teen couples go to a church party , drink and then drive .
they get into an accident .
one of the guys dies , but his girlfriend continues to see him in her life , and has nightmares .
what 's the deal ?
watch the movie and " sorta " find out . . .
critique : a mind - fuck movie for the teen generation that touches on a very cool idea , but presents it in a very bad package .
which is what makes this review an even harder one to write , since i generally applaud films which attempt to break the mold , mess with your head and such ( lost highway & memento ) , but there are good and bad ways of making all types of films , and these folks just did n't snag this one correctly
.
they seem to have taken this pretty neat concept , but executed it terribly .
so what are the problems with the movie ?
well , its main problem is that it 's simply too jumbled
.
it starts off " normal " but then downshifts into this " fantasy " world in which you , as an audience member ,
have no idea what 's going on
.
there are dreams , there are characters coming back from the dead , there are others who look like the dead , there are strange apparitions , there are disappearances , there are a looooot of chase scenes , there are tons of weird things that happen , and most of it is simply not explained .
now i personally do n't mind trying to unravel a film every now and then , but when all it does is give me the same clue over and over again , i get kind of fed up after a while , which is this film 's biggest problem .
it 's obviously got this big secret to hide , but it seems to want to hide it completely until its final five minutes .
and do they make things entertaining , thrilling or even engaging , in the meantime ?
not really .
the sad part is that the arrow and i both dig on flicks like this , so we actually figured most of it out by the half - way point , so all of the strangeness after that did start to make a little bit of sense , but it still did n't the make the film all that more entertaining .
i guess the bottom line with movies like this is that you should always make sure that the audience is " into it " even before they are given the secret password to enter your world of understanding .
i mean , showing melissa sagemiller running away from visions for about 20 minutes throughout the movie is just plain lazy ! !
okay , we get it .
. .
there are people chasing her and we do n't know who they are .
do we really need to see it over and over again ?
how about giving us different scenes offering further insight into all of the strangeness going down in the movie ?
apparently , the studio took this film away from its director and chopped it up themselves , and it shows .
there might 've been a pretty decent teen mind - fuck movie in here somewhere , but i guess " the suits " decided that turning it into a music video with little edge , would make more sense .
the actors are pretty good for the most part , although wes bentley just seemed to be playing the exact same character that he did in american beauty , only in a new neighborhood .
but my biggest kudos go out to sagemiller , who holds her own throughout the entire film , and actually has you feeling her character 's unraveling .
overall , the film does n't stick
because it does n't entertain , it 's confusing , it rarely excites and
it feels pretty redundant for most of its runtime , despite a pretty cool ending and explanation to all of the craziness that came before it .
oh ,
and by the way , this is not a horror or teen slasher flick . . .
it 's just packaged to look that way because someone is apparently assuming that the genre is still hot with the kids .
it also wrapped production two years ago and has been sitting on the shelves ever since .
whatever . .
. skip it !
where 's joblo coming from ?
a nightmare of elm street 3 ( 7/10 ) - blair witch 2 ( 7/10 ) - the crow ( 9/10 ) - the crow : salvation ( 4/10 )
- lost highway ( 10/10 ) - memento ( 10/10 ) - the others ( 9/10 ) - stir of echoes ( 8/10 )
Output: N
The phrases used in the review convey a negative sentiment (e.g. "presents it in a very bad package").

New input case for you: if you 're debating whether or not to see _
breakfast_of_champions _ , ask yourself one simple question : do you want to see nick nolte in lingerie ?
the only people who would get much enjoyment from alan rudolph 's chaotic adaptation of the kurt vonnegut novel is the cross - section of the population with the unhealthy urge to see that unpleasant sight .
everyone else -- and
i 'm hoping that 's most people -- would be wise to
steer clear of this excrutiatingly unfunny mess .
actually , though , the sight of nolte in high heels is one of the more amusing things about this muddle , which focuses dwayne hoover ( bruce willis ) , the owner of dwayne hoover 's exit 11 motor village in midland city .
not only is he a huge success as a businessman , he 's also something of a celebrity , his face made recognizable by an ongoing series of television commercials .
with a nice home and family to boot , dwayne appears to have it all the ingredients to be happy -- yet he 's not .
his wife celia ( barbara hershey ) is perpetually in a pill - induced haze ; his son george ( lukas haas ) is a flamboyant lounge singer who goes by the stage name " bunny .
"
not only that , the environmental protection agency is on dwayne 's ass over a building development project .
it 's enough to send dwayne on a nervous breakdown
-- that is , if he does n't succeed in blowing his brains out first .
meanwhile , midland city is about to host a fine arts festival , and the guest of honor is one kilgore trout ( albert finney ) , a writer who is far from the renowned author the festival 's organizer ( buck henry ) was led to believe -- in fact , he 's a penniless hack who writes second - rate sci - fi that appears in porn magazines .
his trek to midland city is also a spiritual journey , one that reaches its apex after meeting dwayne , who for some reason thinks that trout will hold for him all of life 's answers .
the above is already a longer plot synopsis than i usually give in my reviews , but , ironically , i have barely scratched the surface .
i have n't yet mentioned wayne hoobler ( omar epps ) , an ex - con with an obsessive admiration for the similarly - named dwayne .
then there 's the matter of francine ( glenne headly ) , dwayne 's devoted secretary .
not to mention dwayne 's employee and old friend harry lesabre ( nolte ) , the one with the secret penchant for cross - dressing .
and so on .
the film is essentially dwayne 's story , but too often rudolph goes on distracting tangents with the eccentric peripheral players that one often wonders what the point is .
rudolph does arrive at a point ( more on that later ) , but it 's blunted and obscured by his hyperactive approach to the material .
the surreal visual style , complete with printed words flying through the air and into dwayne 's ears , is obviously meant to convey a sense of madness , but its bludgeoning nature is likely to make viewers mad .
the actors are called on to act accordingly , resulting in some of the worst , most overdone work
all of them have ever turned in .
willis fares best of all --
but that 's because his frozen expression of befuddled bewilderment mirrors that of the audience .
with such an aggressively outrageous atmosphere for nearly all of its running time , it comes as a shock when things suddenly turn serious , and rudolph tries to make a statement .
unlike _ american_beauty _ ( a film that _ breakfast _ resembles in more than a few ways , to its great detriment ) , there is n't any palpably earnest undercurrent that would prepare the audience for the big shift . as such , the cartoony characters fail to win a sympathy that needs to be earned ; and the film attempts , to no avail , to reach a profundity that it does n't deserve .
vonnegut 's original novel is considered a classic , but it had been called unfilmable -- the same that was said of hunter s .
thompson 's _
fear_and_loathing_in_las_vegas _ , which was disastrously committed to film last year by terry gilliam .
with the similar failure of
_ breakfast_of_champions _ , will hollywood ever learn that books labeled " unfilmable " inevitably results in a film that is unwatchable ?
likely not .
Output:
N