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: " flubber " is the second best example of how to take all the life out of
a film remake an adaptation , and hysterically enough both were distributed by disney .
it 's the kind of film that may be slightly entertaining to tiny kids , but anyone else will feel left out as it 's boring , slow , and incredibly lifeless .
what could be a film with cinematic magic is instead dead in the water , and it 's a shame because it could have been a great film .
hypothetically , i mean .
" flubber , " as you probably know , is a remake of the disney classic i never saw , " the absent minded professor , " where a , well , absent minded professor played by fred mcmurray created an erratic substance known as " flubber , " you know , flying rubber ?
the new one keeps the basic plot , but appears to have added a lot else , like more absent - mindedness on the part of the proffessor , some more villains , and several " show - stopping " moments , like a big rumba with the flubber , and some more elaborate setups ,
none which really make it any better , but instead make it worse .
the basic plot revolves around a college professor , philip brainerd ( robin williams ) , who creates lots and lots of inventions , but is sadly absent minded .
in fact , he 's forgotten his wedding to the college 's president , sara jean reynolds ( indie actress marcia gay harden ) , two times before he forgets it again at the beginning .
does n't this warrant some kind of mental treatment ?
anyway , on his wedding day ( the third one ) , he invents the flubber , which not only bounces off of everything like a super ball on speed , but can also change shape like the aliens in water form in " the abyss .
" philip believes that this invention , once fully realized , will save his college , which is in threat of being shut down by a millionaire tycoon / villain , chester hoenicker ( raymond j . barry ) , which is ironically enough the same college his brat son ( will wheaton - thought he was dead ) goes to .
through a plot twist , hoenicker 's goons , named smith and wesson ( ha ha - what a great sense of humor this film has ) who are played by clancy brown and ted levine ( both who needed the pay check ) , discover it the hard way , and try to steal for hoenicker , who wants it just 'cause he 's evil enough .
a sub - plot involves philip 's attempts to win back sara , who 's angry at him ( and with good reason ) , but who is being seduced by who is basically philip 's belloq , wilson croft ( christopher mcdonald , playing the hysterically suave - yet - unsuave asswhole once again ) .
and in another subplot , philip 's day - timer robot , weebo ( voiced by the one - and - only jodi benson ) , falls in love with him .
yuckity - yuck .
what 's most pathetic about this film is how dull it is .
you do n't need to be a cynical college student to be able to see right through this film , which is another in a long line of cheap attempts at making a quick buck by disney , who have essentially become the puff daddy of the film industry , half - assedly re - mixing classics ( or non - classics ) for distribution to the general public , who sadly eats it all up .
earlier in ' 97 , they released " jungle 2 jungle , " an adaptation of a really awful french film , " un indien dans la ville , " which , yeah , improved over the original , but not by much .
disney 's in about as bad shape as warner brothers right now , only creatively .
in the rush to ship out a film for distribution , disney has forgotten to give this film a little thing called " magic .
" such scenes as dancing flubber , a flying car , a basketball team that pretty much sucks flying all around thanks to some carefully placed flubber , and an elaborate ending
all fail to amaze , delight , or even cause people to laugh .
i sat there the entire film stone faced , chuckling perhaps twice , and shaking my head at all the bad jokes
.
who could really laugh at a scene where philip enters the wrong classroom and starts teaching chemistry ?
did n't think so .
it does n't help that our protagonist is essentially unfunny or even really respectable .
philip is not a lovable absent minded professory , just a really dumb man being played by robin williams .
williams is a brilliant comic actor .
. .
okay ,
a brilliant actor in general , but here
he 's given very little to do but occasionally get hyper over something , and other times act sad .
those times , he 's not bad .
but what are we supposed to think of a man who 's forgotten his wedding thrice ?
maybe it was funny and/or respectable in the 60s . . .
i like disney , and i usually enjoy their films , not only animated but live action , and their recent films ( save for " hercules , " which was good , but not great ) have been worse than lackluster
, they 've been pathetic .
" jungle 2 jungle " is probably the worst film i saw last year .
" flubber " 's probably second .
what do they need to do ?
perhaps create something new .
get writers who can write something that 's universally entertaining .
films like " the parent trap " and " mary poppins " are films that are live action ( or in the latter case a mix of both ) , but even i can still watch them because they 're not only written to be magical to children , but to be fun to adults .
what 's more torturous that taking a child to a film that insults you and annoys you at every turn ?
and my god , could n't they have done something else with edie mcclurg ?
Solution:
N