You will be given a definition of a task first, then an example. Follow the example to solve a new instance of the task.
In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.

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 )
Solution: N
Why? The phrases used in the review convey a negative sentiment (e.g. "presents it in a very bad package").

New input: the catch phrase for disney 's rocket man is one spoken by fred z .
randall ( harland williams )
, the bumbling idiot computer programmer turned astronaut who continuously wreaks havoc everywhere he goes .
"
it was n't me !
" he proclaims over and over as the aftermath of his stupidity brings about looks of disgust from the others .
well when it comes to this movie being as horrible as it is , williams ca n't take all the blame , but he sure ca n't justify himself with his own simple tag line either .
fred has dreamed of space travel since he was a young boy , turning the clothes dryer into a mock space shuttle and staring out wide - eyed at a poster of the earth .
as a 30-year - old , fred has n't grown up much , but at least he 's somewhat closer to his goal , now designing astronaut software for nasa .
when an astronaut for an upcoming mission to mars becomes injured , nasa calls on the person who knows the programming inside and out to fill the void . . .
fred .
yes , although he 's an obviously klutzy moron , nasa does n't think twice about throwing him into a rigorous training program so he can assist one of the most important events the space program , and time itself , has ever known .
for the first part of the film , we watch as fred takes on the training program much like an amusement park .
he laughs , he screams , but he never once breaks a sweat or views the preparation as anything more than child 's play .
his passive approach to the program eventually leads to many record - breaking feats , much to the dismay of cocky counterpart , mission commander captain overbeck ( william sadler ) , who once held the records .
overbeck will regretfully accompany fred and two others to the red planet , one being astronaut julie ford ( the stupids ' jessica lundy ) , and the other being a chimpanzee who is much more civilized than our antagonizing protagonist .
from here on out , we are subjected to one lame gag after another , dealing with snot , laxatives , and flatulence .
you know , standard kid movie material .
almost sounding like a poor james stewart impressionist , williams is awful in his first starring role .
we get the feeling that if jerry lewis and pee - wee herman were related and produced an inbred offspring , williams would be it .
while he 's not as annoying as other actors who cater to zany , stupid comedy , he 's just as unlikeable .
to say it more understandably , jim carrey might annoy you more , but this guy is even less funny .
why ?
because while he possesses the stupidness needed to pull off such a role , his performance is too understated and boring .
classic comedic dunces were generally oblivious to their own idiocy .
stan laurel , for example , was so innocent in all his trouble - making that we were immediately fond of him .
peter sellers , as inspector clouseau , was so self - assured and confident that when he did something as simple as trip , it was humor at
it 's best .
williams , on the other hand , ca n't garner the pity he needs to make us love him in all his anti - glory .
as for the rest of the cast , including some bigger names in smaller roles ( beau bridges and shelley duvall ) , nobody is worth watching whatsoever
.
this is just another example of the fast - food equivalent of cinema : mass - produced , less than mediocre , over priced , and hard to stomach
.
giving it one - and - a - half stars is * extremely * generous , but even i 'll admit to laughing a few times .
the amazing thing is that even in a theater packed with little kids , laughter was something rarely heard - even from the children !
i must admit that it gave me more respect for the kids when they did n't crack up over every little thing .
then again , maybe they were asleep .
some people might think critics are harsh on kid movies , claiming adults are n't the targeted audience and therefore are n't meant to , and wo n't , enjoy them .
sadly , it 's also true that kids will enjoy almost anything if it 's presented right .
a two - hour still shot of a dog with a cartoonish voice over
could entertain a lot of toddlers out there , but would that make it as artistic as beauty and the beast , which could easily do the same thing ? and saying that a parent 's perspective is n't important is quite a poor theory to have when they 're the ones who take the kids to these films in the first place .
Solution:
N