In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.

Example input: 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 )
Example output: N
Example explanation: The phrases used in the review convey a negative sentiment (e.g. "presents it in a very bad package").
Q: one might expect a cathartic viewing experience walking into a new jean - luc godard film .
after all , he was a founding member of the highly influential french new wave .
he is also an esteemed film critic , lending intelligence and historical perspective to us in much of his writing .
however , his latest creation , in praise of love , is possibly the most exasperating film experience of the year .
the abstract concept on which the film is based had merit , to dissect love into the following four categories : meeting , physical passion , quarrels , and reconciliation .
these four universal truths would be revealed through three different couples : young , adult , and elderly .
it is edgar 's ( bruno putzulu ) self - appointed task to capture these moments after a recent breakup , to define a central idea :
" it 's only when things are over that they make sense .
" whether this project will end up a play , film , or opera remains undecided .
the thesis is simple enough that , if played right , it could really hold sympathetic value for anyone .
instead what ensues is an hour and a half of repetitive vignettes
, the next scene no more engaging than the last . only once does any character utter something worthwhile , but by the time it happens you 're
so thoroughly bored you can easily miss it .
but do n't fret , it will surface again .
you could easily sleep through whole sections of the film ( as some fellow critics did ) and wake up in a scene exactly like the one you nodded off in , not having missed anything worthwhile .
but you hold hope for some time .
the background music keeps you in a state of urgency , and even suspense , for the first few conversations .
it 's only after repeated failures to pay any of this off that you lose all hope .
and with speeches like , " i am thinking of something , but i can only think of that something when i am thinking of something else , " how can you expect to hold anyone 's interest ?
to godard 's credit
, he certainly knows how to frame a scene .
the black and white footage used for the first half of the film is starkly beautiful .
watching edgar read while walking along a train track on a mountain makes you wish you had something to ponder along with him .
and if this film had anything poignant to say , you would have , which makes you all the angrier at the numerous missed opportunities .
the environments , be it city or country , are impeccably captured in crisp detail , but the script never complements them . unfortunately , godard also manages to pillage his photographic eye by randomly
cutting to black numerous times within any given scene .
sometimes these breaks are used for chapter headings , but these are even more cryptic than the spoken words .
the second half is composed of nauseating hyper - color that often blurs the image .
you suddenly feel like a doomed character straight out of scanners .
the only scene that makes any sense is one that complains about the united states bastardizing history in the making of movies .
steven spielberg is picked on in particular .
while i 'll grant that this does happen , and i tend to shy away from watching such garbage , it 's still a pointless focus for a film that purports to articulate the specific qualities of couplehood .
it just goes to show , an intelligent person is n't necessarily an admirable storyteller .
the days of breathless are no more .
A:
N