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

Let me give you an 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 )
The answer to this example can be: N
Here is why: The phrases used in the review convey a negative sentiment (e.g. "presents it in a very bad package").

OK. solve this:
john cusack is the kind of actor who seems to effortlessly slide into his respective film roles .
so effortlessly that people tend to forget he 's there , much in the way people rarely recall many of the great character actors ( anyone who can put the name james rebhorn with that actor 's face is invited to treat themselves to a product from one of my sponsors ) .
example
: the other day my mother asked me ( the expert , of course ) if there were any movies out worth seeing , never mind that our tastes could n't be more divergent--- i 'll never forget the day she recommended that i go see a night at the roxbury for god sakes , and to be fair
she was mightily pissed at me for telling her that go !
was a lot of fun ( which it is ) , so i did n't see this as anything more than a futile attempt at conversation .
i muttered , with a little trepidation , that she might enjoy high fidelity .
she responded with her usual query , " whose in that one ?
" this is a question whose answer that seems to immediately conjure up the kind of movie you went to see .
if the reply is julia roberts you probably assume it was something wispy and light , a sylvester stallone movie and you picture a bloodbath with few words and much involuntary bicep flexing , and a woody allen movie means hyper articulate white people ( usually of the jewish faith ) fretting about in some upper east side palace .
anyway , when i answered " john cusack " , she replied with a rather stunned " who ? " , as if it was unreasonable for her to know whom i was referring to .
now i know for a fact that my mother has seen several cusack movies , most recently being john malkovich and pushing tin , but i suppose it 's understandable that she would not recognize the name , after all , for most , names are tougher than faces .
i showed her a picture of cusack 's mug in the paper hoping for an " oh - him ,
yes he 's quite good
" instead i got
a " no - i do n't know him " .
at this point i was way beyond frustration into a realm of nose hair yanking anger ( yes , filmic ignorance is all it takes to get me into the nose hair pulling zone ) ,
till i realized something : i doubt that much of america would recognize cusack 's relatively bland visage , or even the name which is rather bland compared to the coolness of a brad pitt or tom cruise , one - syllable names that glide off the tongue with the velocity of a speeding car .
cu - sack .
cu - sack - no ,
not quite as cool .
i 'm sure that twenty years from now cusack will forever be referred to as " the guy from ( add in the cusack film of your choice ) " .
he 's not a brand name , and his movies usually are n't big moneymakers , but in his own unassuming way he 's kind of a genius .
with his pleasant , common man looks , and charming semi - articulate blatherings he has become one of the most likeable romantic leading men of the 90 's .
from the sure thing to say anything cusack has merged the talents of early tom hanks and early jack lemmon .
despite the fact that nearly every character he plays is a variation of the character before it ( the schlumpy every man ) , he 's a constantly enjoyable screen persona , like albert brooks or woody allen .
and he knows how to chose scripts , while the stephan baldwin 's and val kilmer 's seem to put them selves in everything
( the former actually had the insight to follow up oscar winner usual suspects with a pauly shore vehicle , and judging from his latest projects it looks like he still has yet to fire his agent ) , cusack generally picks rewarding projects ( save for the unwatchable hot pursuit , a 1988 film also featuring a young ben stiller ) .
high fidelity is his second collaboration with hit or miss english director stephan fears ( the grifters , the hi - lo country ) , and it 's a hit
.
it was also co - written by cusack , and some of his collaborators on the terrific comedy , grosse point blank .
it 's not quite as entertaining or as funny as that film , but as it progresses in its meandering fashion , the movie cast something of a spell over me
.
high fidelity begins as a hipster ode to the non - committal rob , a vinyl record store owner , who opens the film by breaking down the fourth wall with much abandon and educating us in his " top 5 break ups list " .
this is something cusack does the entire film a la ferris bueller 's day off .
at first the talking - directly - into - the - camera - schtick had me vaguely annoyed , mostly because it reminded me so much of the film body shots which used a similar conceit , but
it began to grow on me due almost entirely to cusack 's witty delivery .
he 's the kind of guy we do n't mind talking directly to us .
gradually the film settles into a shampoo - like tragi - comic character study , of a guy who must confront himself and his personal failures in order to figure out the true person he is ( yes it 's all very existential ) .
though that plot - line is mostly enjoyable , the thing i liked the most about the film is how much pleasure it offers in introducing us to minor characters , all of whom ( now this is really something ) are terrific enough to warrant their own films .
the best of which is jack black ( of the very funny show tenacious d , a program that sadly went the way of bruce willis ' hair ? ? ?
unfortunately that annoying smirk remains ) , an ardent record store employee who bullies customers into buying exactly what he wants them to buy .
he 's the kind of guy
i 'm sure we 've all met before , a blowhard who thinks he 's always right and will do anything in his power ( be it yell , argue , insult ) to hoist his opinion onto others .
but i like this guy , because of how black plays him .
the actor is portly with a round baby face and crazy eyes , but despite his size he leaps to and fro like a manic speed freak ( which might be a bit of a redundant description , seeing as how all the speed freaks i know are manic ) .
he 's the kind of supporting character who would be impossibly annoying comic relief in most other films .
( look at what that hack jan de bont did to poor phillip seymour hoffman in twister ) .
but fears and black never let that happen .
the character , for all his shucking and jiving is steeped in reality .
he 's over the top , but in a way we can all probably relate to .
catherine zeta - jones , in her brief role , gives a vivid portrayal of a women completely enamored with her own " charm " .
tim robbins registers in an even tinier part as a new age - type , a character played entirely for cartoon yuks , but
still manages to work its desired comic effect .
the one exception in the acting department is a bit of a doozy , the main love interest played by danish actress iben hjejle ( mifune ) , who completely obliterates any trace of a danish accent , replacing it with a stilted american phonation .
i give her kudos for attempting such a contradictory role , but instead of being likeable , she comes across as rather robotic , and as such it 's hard to see why cusack 's character would be so obsessed with her especially when he has a beautiful , intelligent writer ( natasha gregson wagner ) potentially waiting in the wings .
this reminded me of say anything , where the charming cusack was paired with the charmless ione skye , and in midnight in the garden of good and evil where the poor bastard had to put up with alison eastwood ( whose unbelievably more wooden then father , clint for those " special people " whose wheels turn a little slower ) .
in fact cusack is rarely paired up with a personality that matches his , though i 'd bet that if laura and natasha switched roles , the result would be more effective .
high fidelity works almost entirely on the strength of its characters and performances .
fears ' direction is somewhat stilted , and the script is sometimes a little too ( and this is a word i 'm beginning to hate to use
but alas i must ) quirky for its own good
( i think i 'll blame that on scott rosenberg , who judging from what he did with beautiful girls , con air , and things to do in denver while your dead , has his fingerprints all over the most irritating bits of this movie ) .
but cusack really does deserve an award , for being so damn ? ? ?
cusackian .
i 'm afraid that his talents are so understated that he may have to wait till his hip needs replacing to be offered such an award worthy of his considerable talent .
his character , rob ( whose sort of like an older , more bitter lloyd from say anything ) is funny and tragic without being pathetic , and that cusack can do all this , and still not imprint himself onto the minds of most audiences , is something of an achievement .
Answer:
P