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: ladies and gentlemen , payback is the most expensive episode of " the equalizer " i 've ever seen .
gibson plays porter , a burglar shot and left for dead by his wife ( deborah kara unger , in an all - too - brief cameo ) and partner ( henry ) after a successful heist .
as a morgue attendant sets about removing the bullets from porter 's back , porter miraculously springs back to life .
he makes it his mission , as a walking dead man without a conscience , to exact revenge on those who screwed him and reclaim his share of the loot .
( in a running gag , porter demands $ 70 000 , but everybody mishears him and assumes he 's after the entire $ 130 000 haul . ) in his travels ( or travails ) , porter encounters several other one - named villainous cretins like fairfax ( james coburn as a white - haired , millionaire thief ) and carter ( kristofferson , as a brown - haired , millionaire thief - the kingpin of the obligatory " operation " ) .
helgeland 's film ( which was recut by mel the producer ) is devoid of an imperative dime store charm .
the novelty of seeing a big movie star mercilessly dispatching criminals wears off quickly : a ) because the bad guys can only be differentiated by their coifs , and b ) because mel 's schtick does n't evolve from act one - he 's the terminator stranded in a plot without a sci - fi hook to keep us interested after the initial sadistic thrill is gone .
payback should have been called playback : it 's a 102-minute loop of the same short sequence .
( mel : " i want my money .
" anonymous villain : " no .
" mel shoots gun .
anonymous villain dies .
mel meets up with his hooker friend ( bello ) .
second verse , same as the first . )
it 's not porter 's single - mindedness that robs the film of snap , crackle , and pop ; as a character who has already " died " once , he has nothing to lose and so much to gain .
the movie lacks danger .
the only thing porter is in jeopardy of is putting the audience to sleep .
payback has a gritty , metallic look to it that also becomes monotonous
; its cinematography would be more appropriate in one of those bleak urban psychodramas that come out of england every couple of months .
( director of photography ericson core should have been fired early on for lighting bello , so va - va - va - voom in permanant midnight , to look like a potato in a gregg allman wig . ) to analyze such mediocrity is to grant payback far more attention than it deserves .
perhaps only someone as experienced with antagonists - as - protagonists as tarantino - look what he did with the similar hero - less botched - robbery tale reservoir dogs - could have pulled off this material ( a loose remake of john boorman 's point blank ) .
the movie presents us with the conventions of pulp fiction ( all women are femme fatales ; even the cops are in on it , etc . ) and crosses them with the conventions of cheesy tv crime melodramas ( death is never in the cards for the main character , etc . ) but transcends neither .
Solution:
N