In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
One example: 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 is here: N
Explanation: The phrases used in the review convey a negative sentiment (e.g. "presents it in a very bad package").

Now, solve this: my friend here in film school just made a two minute - long film for one of his classes that includes a staged anal rape scene , done by two guys and shot on the shadow of the incident , with a banana being used as the instrument of penetration . as sick as this all is , watching it is one of the most admittingly hysterical moments i 've ever witnessed .
sure , it may be in bad taste , but what the hell is bad taste other than something that may be offensive to some but is riotously amusing to the rest ?
then there 's " caligula .
"
this film features incest , necrophilia , beastuality , anal rape , homosexual felatio of both sexes , elaborate and lengthy orgies , a greased - up fist forced up a man 's rear , wine poured down a man who 's had his urinary tracts tied off , a penis chopped off and fed to hungry dogs , etc , etc , etc .
this could very well be a respectable film , and if could have been had
the following not occurred : a ) the events were graphically shot in clear view ; b ) the tone was not that of trying to shock comically but to , well , show " historical accuracy ; " c ) the film was a 20 million dollar production with lavish sets , a rather impressive cast , and a whopping 2 1/2 hour running time .
produced and funded by none other than bob guccione , owner of penthouse magazine , " caligula " comes across as the most hysterical dramatic picture since " plan 9 from outer space " because underneath there 's a sense that everything this film is doing is not only accurate and justified , but also brilliantly entertaining .
after all , it 's not really the fact that this film features the aforementioned disgusting moments , but that it actually believes in them as dramatic weaponry .
no film should be discarded because its content , because film is never about what it 's about , it 's about how it 's about ( as the old cliche goes ) .
those who bash this film for content are glancing over the biggest and most obvious problem with " caligula , " and that 's that
it 's nothing but overdramaticized bullshit from start to finish , without a second of credibility in its mammoth running time .
" caligula " allegedly tells the true story of the evil roman emporer of the same name , a man who was so insanely decadent that his assasination came as a blessing . . .
or so i guess , even though almost every single roman emporer was assasinated as well and for much the same reasons .
the film opens on the wrong note
, of course , with a quote from mark appearing before any image graces the screen , using the over - used passage " what shall it profit a man if he should gain the whole world an dlose his own soul , " depite the fact that the opening scene of the film is of the emporer before he was an emporer , fucking around with his own sister in a field ( i suppose if one has to lose their soul , one has to have a soul in the first place ) .
the plot is so incomprehensibly done that all i or anyone else can make out of it is that caligula ( disastrously played by the great malcom mcdowell , a performance that does the opposite that his performance in " a clockwork orange " did ) is next in line for the throne but ca n't wait for the current emporer , tiberius ( peter o ' toole - ditto , only for his performance in " lawrence of arabia " ) , his grandfather , to die .
. .
so he kills him and ascends to the throne .
then he abuses his position , marries a woman ( helen mirren , who retains her dignity as an actor by not exactly acting )
so he does n't just have to sleep with his sister ( a dreadful teresa ann savoy , there to be pretty , naked , and willing to hop in the sack with mac or anyone he asks her to hop in with ) , abuses his position a little more , a little more , and a little more , and then , i believe , invades england
, then is killed off .
the filler , instead of recounting his life , is supposed to be , as guccione claims , the ultimate portrait of decadent pagan rome , complete with orgies , vicious deaths , and lots of nudity .
but instead of being the historical accurate film it really really wants to be , it instead becomes guccione 's twisted masturbatory image of what it could be like .
oh , is n't it great that they just loved having sex ? and that they killed people so disgustingly ?
and would n't it be great if i could make a couple bucks by selling this shit off as accuracy even though it 's so blatantly real bad porn that i 've completely convinced myself that it 's not .
i mean , why not just show a roman orgy when i can spend a good ten minutes examining every single facet that makes it up .
and it 's not just that it 's disgusting or vile or
whatever adjective you want to use to describe this film - it 's that in a film where the entire feel it 's going for is n't felt ,
it 's also the sloppiest expensive movie of all time .
the sets are lavish , but so blatantly innacurate that i wonder if no historian wanting to have his name on this film explains this .
but that does n't matter since the cinematography is so dark that you wonder if a light meter was used at all , making this not only dark and ugly , but just plain dark .
the camera operation is also the worst i 've ever seen in my entire life .
not only does this film hold the record for the most unnecessary zooms in one single shot ever , but often the camera will lose its subjects and pan around till they find them , then have them out of focus .
the editing is so sloppy that some scenes are absolutely impossible to follow .
there is no writer to speak of (
what the hell does it mean that it 's " adapted from an original screenplay by gore vidal ? " ) , but nevertheless , the dialogue is shit , so laughably bad that i ca n't in good faith believe that anyone with an iq over 5 could say them with a straight face ( my favorite being the line when caligula inquires the doctor about the health of the dying tiberius : " he could go at any moment , but with care , he could last a year or so .
" ) the music in this film is mostly prokofiev and khachaturian ( they use his gorgeous " adagio of spartacus and phrygia , " ad nauseum ) , used in an attempt to give the film some emotion , but instead feels as if it was shipped in from elsewhere .
the orgy scenes ( and one infamous lesbo scene between penthouse pets lori wagner and aneeka dilorenzo ) are the result of reshoots by guccione himself , which are so obviously removed from everything else in this film that it only adds to the embrassment ( every five seconds or so , the film cuts to random nudity , as if it was afraid its audience would forget this film is rated " x " ) .
john gielgud represents the only voice of sanity , walking around in his brief role as if he was constantly the mantra , " i 'm going to kill my agent , i 'm going to kill my agent . . .
"
and so on and so on , for over 2 1/2 hours , making " caligula
" about as exciting and enriching as a three hour college lecture class and twice as deliriously annoying . guccione , in his pursuit of historical accuracy has instead made a film that is such a painstaking , arduous task to watch in its entirety that i doubt anyone can sit through an hour of it without irreversible psychological damage .
throughout the entire film , the presence of guccione is easily felt , as if he were standing there at the edge of the screen , pretentiously looking down upon us saying " look what i can get away with !
and if you do n't like this , then you 're a prig , and worse than that , you know nothing about history !
"
uh huh . there 's a clear difference between historical accuracy and doing something that 's artistically good .
a film which showed roman decadence as something that was perhaps liberating for some but could not last - that would probably make for a good film .
but using historical accuracy as a licence to get away with any kind of disgusting - for - disgustingness'-sake acts is total , total bullshit
, and all i can say is that guccione and the makers of this film have lost any kind of touch with either entertainment or eroticism , and have developed a pathetic and sadistic taste for both , judging from this film .
there 's a film that came out in 1989 called " the cook , the thief , his wife , and her lover , " a magnifcent film by legendary cult director peter greenaway ( also starring helen mirren ) , which deals with graphic sex , heartstopping violence and gore , and even a little cannibalism for good measure .
that film not only never patronized its viewers , but also handled them in a way that was shocking , yes , but also , in a bizarre way , entertaining and totally involving .
there were real characters there in a real situation , and best of all passion and just the right amount of restraint as not to get off on the fact that it 's going to be offensive to many .
that film achieved everything it wanted to do , and has since retained a status as one of those cult films that is not only popular but actualy good .
and it 's everything " caligula
" might have been but , alas , was n't .
Solution:
N