In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
One example is below.
Q: 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 )
A: N
Rationale: The phrases used in the review convey a negative sentiment (e.g. "presents it in a very bad package").
Q: written by alex cox , tod davies , terry gilliam and tony grisoni directed by terry gilliam
i 've always preferred mushrooms to blotter acid .
dropping acid is like riding a roller coaster blindfolded ; you have no idea where the peaks and valleys are , no idea when the next terrifying decent will send your stomach into your throat , and no idea how long the ride will last .
then there 's the hard knot in your gut and the clenched teeth that come with ingesting a strychnine - laced dose .
mushrooms , on the other hand , offer the psychedelic equivalent of a leisurely ride on a ferris wheel : a steady , reassuring assent , a short period of thrilling motion and color , and then a smooth landing .
acid is for daredevils ; mushrooms are for refined seekers of joy .
my point is that in fear and loathing in las vegas , director terry gilliam has made an acid movie , when i wish he would have made a mushroom movie .
full of shocking sight gags , aggressive images and grotesque comic performances , the film certainly offers something for those fans of hunter s .
thompson 's book who want to experience its twisted pharmacological world - view from the inside out .
but for those of us who just want to enjoy a well - made film , gilliam has produced a mixed bag .
fear and loathing tells the ostensibly true story of how self - professed " gonzo " journalist hunter s .
thompson ( johnny depp ) and hispanic activist attorney oscar zeta actosta ( benicio del toro ) , came to las vegas to cover a motorcycle race and found themselves trapped in the middle of a district attorney 's convention while ingesting every conceivable drug available to a man of means in 1971 .
operating under the pseudonyms of " raoul duke " and
" dr .
gonzo " , the two men careen into vegas on an acid and mescaline bender , then hole up in a hotel suite to binge on amyl nitrite , cocaine , tequila and a rainbow of multi - colored uppers and downers .
they terrorize every one they meet , mostly because every one they meet terrifies them .
duke hallucinates giant bats on the way into town , then is attacked by horrifying lizards in the casino lounge .
dr .
gonzo becomes enamored of a thick - bladed hunting knife and begs duke to throw the tape player into the bathtub with him just as jefferson airplane 's " white rabbit " reaches its climax .
and these guys do n't just trash hotel rooms
- they rape them , humiliate them and leave them for dead .
that neither of them ends up dead or in jail is testament to blind luck or providence , depending on your point of view .
thompson 's book , besides being a hilarious read , has stood the test of time as an important historical document .
it simultaneously exposed the 60 's drug culture for the sham that it was and exposed las vegas as the place where the american dream came to die .
pontificate all you want about how the film illustrates thompson 's message , but the truth is that , stripped to its bare essentials , what gilliam has wrought is a drug comedy .
it 's a cheech and chong movie .
you 're there to watch depp and del toro ingest a lot of chemicals and then laugh at the results :
see johnny take drugs , see johnny fall down .
there 's nothing wrong with this concept , but gilliam tries too hard .
this is a frantic movie - all sweaty close - ups , wide - angle lenses , dutch tilts and other - worldly lighting schemes .
there are times when gilliam really does put a convincing representation of an acid trip on the screen .
but to what end ? much of the dialogue comes verbatim from thompson 's book , and there are some priceless comic observations .
but you 're hard pressed to hear or digest them amidst all the jumbled camera work .
this brings us to the performances , which strike me as all wrong .
depp plays thompson as groucho marks filtered through george c . scott in patton - a gimmicky performance which works against the biting satire of thompson 's dialogue .
in between his several puking scenes , del toro fares better as dr .
gonzo , but
he also mumbles and sputters
so many of his lines that their weight is lost .
watching these two made me wish that the movie had been made twenty years ago , with dan akroyd and john belushi as the leads - now that would have been something to see .
it 's interesting to note that alex cox , credited as a co - writer on the screenplay , was originally slated to direct before gilliam took over .
as much of a fan as i am of gilliam 's work , cox would have been the better choice .
sid and nancy , cox 's best work , covered essentially the same subject matter , but cox was able to pull back and allow the characters of sid vicious and nancy spungen to carry the film .
gilliam commits the compound sin of over - directing his film while being uncertain of his purpose .
what kind of movie was he trying to make , anyway ?
it does n't try to be a cautionary tale , and it does n't work as broad comedy .
if he had considered more carefully his purpose , the result would have been a much more interesting film .
but i do n't want to be too hard on it .
there are some truly funny moments , and if you 're in a good enough mood you might get a kick out of it .
i do , however , recommend watching fear and loathing in las vegas under the influence of your favorite controlled substance
- i guarantee it will enhance the effect .
A:
N