Teacher: In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
Teacher: Now, understand the problem? If you are still confused, see the following 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: N
Reason: The phrases used in the review convey a negative sentiment (e.g. "presents it in a very bad package").

Now, solve this instance: all through its production and into the early days of its initial , aborted pre - release publicity , hard rain bore the appropriate moniker of the flood .
ultimately , however , paramount pictures , nervous that this movie would be confused with 1996 's other , underperforming disaster films ( dante 's peak , volcano ) , changed the title and shifted the release date by nearly a year .
but , to paraphrase the bard , swill , by any other name , would smell as rank .
no number of name changes can help this picture .
it 's not just about a disaster , it is a disaster .
hard rain is the case of a movie that gets progressively worse with every passing minute .
the best shot occurs during the opening credits , as the camera pans over the streets and byways of huntingburg , indiana as the water level slowly rises .
the community , protected by an overworked dam , is being evacuated as the rain continues to pour relentlessly from the cloud - choked skies .
from that moment on , it 's all downhill .
whatever initial entertainment value the film possesses has long since drained away by the halfway point .
it takes forever to get to the end credits -- this is one of the longest - seeming 95-minute motion pictures i have recently endured .
basically , hard rain is one extended , dull chase sequence punctuated by occasional shoot - outs .
there 's a lot of water , broken glass , gunfire , and explosions .
it 's all very routine and uninteresting
because there are n't any real characters and the plot only occasionally makes sense .
the film 's conclusion is so preposterous that it 's almost worth watching for the sheer masochistic enjoyment of seeing the monumentally idiotic way that the film makers decide to resolve the myriad subplots that are floating around .
action films are supposed to become progressively more invigorating as they rush towards a conclusion .
graham yost , the writer of both speed and hard rain , surely understands that principle .
unfortunately , neither he , nor cinematographer - turned - director mikael salomon ( a far off place ) , applies it .
the action in hard rain grows tedious through repetition .
we see the same kinds of things -- speedboat chases , flood damage , shoot - outs , etc .
-- over and over again .
the movie constantly recycles about twenty minutes worth of material to pad the running time out to an acceptable movie length .
the storyline gives us a number of paper - thin characters in contrived circumstances .
there 's tom ( christian slater ) , the one- dimensional action hero who works as a security guard driving an armored car full of cash .
he and his partner , charlie ( edward asner , tv 's " lou grant " ) , get stuck on a street that 's rapidly turning into a river .
a group of men , led by jimmy ( morgan freeman ) , arrive on the scene not as rescuers but as robbers .
after charlie is killed in a shoot - out , tom hides the money , then runs .
as he swims and boats his way through huntingburg 's roads , he encounters some of the locals : karen ( minnie driver ) , a would - be love interest ; a bickering old couple ( richard dysart and betty white ) , who are on hand to provide comic relief ; and the easily - corrupted sheriff ( randy quaid ) , whose seeming helpfulness hides sinister ulterior motives .
there is n't any real acting in this film .
christian slater utters a few lame one - liners and does a lot of mugging for the camera .
tom is easily one of the most lifeless characters the actor has brought to the screen .
randy quaid sneers a lot , and is totally unconvincing .
morgan freeman and minnie driver both attempt to give legitimate performances , but they are defeated by the script .
freeman , one of the best cinematic thespians working today , looks suitably embarrassed to be here , but i suppose everyone needs a good paycheck from time - to - time .
following in the wake of twister , this is yet another natural disaster movie that does n't trust nature 's fury as the chief engine of conflict .
as a result , we are saddled with an idiotic good guys / bad guys story that effectively ruins any potential that the flood tale could have had .
titanic proved that there can be a wealth of drama in a movie where everything goes under water .
hard rain successfully demonstrates that the opposite is equally possible .
thus far this year , hollywood has already subjected us to its unique brand of moronic mayhem by fire ( firestorm ) and water ( hard rain ) .
fortunately , there are only two elements left .
Student:
N