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: miramax " disinvited " on - line media from press screenings of scream 3 .
they ostensibly feared that folks like me would write spoiler - filled reviews and post them prior to the film 's february 4th release date - unsound reasoning .
you see , ' net critics established enough to be on any sort of vip list are
professionals - miramax surely knows the difference between a member of the on - line film critics society ( ofcs ) and the type of fanboy who posts spy reports at ai n't it cool news .
no , the ? mini major ' was afraid we 'd let a bigger cat out of the bag than whodunit , that scream 3 is a dismal conclusion to the beloved ( by this writer , at least ) franchise .
something smells rotten in the state of california right from the get - go
:
cotton weary ( liev schrieber ) , the former lover and would - be killer of maureen prescott , sidney 's mother , is juggling phone calls in his luxury car .
( once considered a danger to society , weary now hosts his own talk show , " 100 % cotton " , a clever , if dated , jab at american pop culture . )
of course , a new ghostface dials him up , and , with memories of scream 's unbearably suspenseful prologue in mind , we immediately wonder , where is the killer ?
the backseat ?
the next car ?
thrilling prospects , to be sure , but actually , ghostface is at the weary residence , waiting for cotton 's girlfriend ( kelly rutheford ) to finishing showering .
what 's missing from this sequence , and indeed scream 3 's remaining frights ( most disappointingly , the moment when an ingenue is forced to hide in a wardrobe room filled with ghostface costumes , one of which might spring to life ) , is an elaborate and attenuated payoff .
our other surviving regulars have become estranged .
sidney ( campbell ) is living a paranoid existence of electronic gates and password - protected locks , while dewey ( arquette ) acts as technical advisor on the second sequel to scream 2 's movie - within - a - movie , " stab 3 " , and gale weathers ( cox arquette ) headlines a gossipy news program .
murder reunites them , as knife - wielding ghostface stalks the set of " stab 3 " , imitating its sadistic screenplay - and his / her / their own personal draft climaxes with sidney 's death .
the appeal of ghostface 's villainy is that he /
she
/ they could be your boyfriend , your classmate , your next door neighbour . . . or a combination of people .
scream was the first of its kind : a slasher mystery , with the guessing game not only entailing who will be next , but also who is /
are the perpetrator ( s ) and
what is / are his / her / their motive .
ironic self - reflection aside
, parts one and two stand out in a crowd that includes umpteen friday the 13th and halloween flicks because there 's at last articulate human beings behind the iconic costume .
with scream 3 , the novelty of ghostface 's ever - mutating identity has worn off some , but the character remains conceptually potent .
conceptually .
the execution of ghostface 's master plan this time around is creaky , because screenwriter ehren kruger has invented a new mythology for the world of sidney prescott far afield from what we 'd come to understand in scream and scream 2 .
the movie gets in the silly habit of saying " all bets are off ! " in reference to the " rules " of a trilogy 's third act , but there 's a difference between rule breaking and cheating .
with the departure of kevin williamson , who authored the previous screams as well as a tidy outline for scream 3 ( that , for reasons incomprehensible to me , was ignored , save the notion of " stab 3 " ) , kruger needed to be reined in tighter , and by wes craven .
craven 's direction of scream 3 is lazy in most respects .
how else to explain the jay and silent bob cameo ( the slacker duo of kevin smith movies ) , akin to seeing mickey mouse pop up in mulan and more distracting than funny .
it pains me to write this , but scream 3 's comedy is generally laughless , with the exception of well - timed performances by josh pais ( as a police detective possessed of the same personality he had as a persnickety teacher in craven 's music of the heart ) , jamie kennedy ( resurrecting film geek randy for the sendoff he was denied in scream 2 ) , and parker posey ( through sheer force of will as a b - actress ) .
the visuals are much weaker in part three , as well - the occasional sweeping gesture of peter deming 's camera is a pale imitation of the stalking steadicam craven gave us twice before .
( aside : in the wake of columbine , craven toned down the violence significantly for scream 3-why the sanctimony , when scream and scream 2 are still readily available on video store shelves ? )
finally , marco beltrami 's music cues the suspense too blatantly
- do you recall the tense chase at the college radio station in scream 2 ?
it 's mostly silent .
sting notes are a whole lot more effective if they spring from nowhere ; here ,
they act as the crescendos of an incessantly nerve - jangling score .
i look at scream 3 as coming from an alternative universe , the same place that birthed the godfather part iii and superman
iii - woefully out of synch with its prequels , scream 3 is a nightmare instead of nightmarish , and will likely put the horror genre back in mothballs .
the film unintentionally follows the unspoken rule of a trilogy to a t : ?
part three must disappoint ' .
Solution:
N