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: seen september 13 , 1998 at 4 p .
m at rotterdam square mall cinema 6 , theater # 2 , with chris wessell for free using my sony / loews critic 's pass .
[ theater rating :
* * 1/2 : good seats , average sound , picture unstable ] " rounders " is exactly the kind of movie parents do n't want their kids to see .
it 's not that it 's a drunken orgy of sex and violence , but
because it 's a film that flat - out says you can make a career out of gambling .
and to take make things " worse
" it proves this through its original , fascinating story .
there have been countless crime films both past and present that evoke the " noir " mood , that is , the dark , shady atmosphere where the vices of the world become more fascinating on screen than they would in real life .
this film starts off in the tradiational noir style , introducing us to the underworld of modern gambling where the stakes are high and so is the price for losing .
matt damon stars as mike mcdermott , a 20-something law student in present - day new york city who tells us how the game of poker is really played .
damon narrates throughout the film , but the entire opening scene is voiced - over so perfectly to completely and totally define the setting .
mike 's about to go up against teddy kgb ( malkovich ) , a russian gangster who looks like a serial killer .
but then again , he practically is one and the film does everything to convey that sense - the look in his eyes , his slow movements , his intricate mannerisms - all combined with the classic noir cinematography of isolated brightness within the darkness of the underworld ( literally ) .
damon in the flesh might seem a little out of place with his expensive clothes and perfectly - groomed features , but his narration is what brings it all together .
he never sounds like he 's reading from a script , nor that he 's trying to embellish anything ,
it just comes natural to him .
the screenwriters use the right words and phrases to describe the mood , from the smell of the air , to the logic involved in reading the other guys ' faces and cards , and all without sounding remotely trite .
immediately we get the sense that poker is n't for gamblers , but for near- geniuses with nerves of steel .
the game is a quiet war , with strategies just as complex and the same sense of honor among the soldiers .
the gangsters mike plays against are the same ones that might kill someone for scratching their car , but when it comes to the game of poker , all respect is due to the winner because he is truly the better man .
the film does an excellent job in establishing its atmosphere during the first act .
it concentrates so much in this aspect that the background and the progression of the story stumble a bit .
we learn only a little about mike , both past and present .
presently we know he has a girlfriend named jo ( gretchen mol ) who he constantly argues with over his gambling .
they go through a few break - up / make - up cycles until mike 's childhood pal and fellow rounder " worm " ( norton ) is released from prison .
it 's not at all surprising worm owes thousand of dollars to the mob , but what is surprising is how the film is able to take such a predictable element and execute it the way it does .
technically , the plot is n't unlike many children 's sitcoms in which the " good " kid 's " bad " friend gets the good kid in trouble and yet the good kid remains friends with the bad kid .
what this film does is use a different medium to tell that story .
mike and worm have been in over their heads their entire lives , but both share a passion for out - thinking the other player who is trying to do the same to them .
where as worm prefers to go the sleazy route of cheating ( hence his jail time ) , mike always takes the cards he 's dealt and works with them .
sometimes they pay off ( i .
e .
his ability to pay his way through law school on his gambling money ) , but
other times they do n't (
i .
e .
the fact he takes himself out of the game and works a steady job after dropping $ 30 , 000 on a single hand ) .
once things start happening the film is able to expand and develop its plot into an intricate web of detail and mood .
mike and worm bob and weave through all kinds of games at all kinds of places , from socialites ' mansions , to taking the tourists at atlantic city , to outwitting the gangsters that control it all .
everything they come into contact with is a big poker game in that everything 's a battle against the cards destiny deals .
one scene demonstrates this perfectly in which mike is told by a judge ( martin landou , in a perfectly cast and performed role ) that destiny is everything and yet nothing at the same time .
matt 's good at gambling
but he 's also got potential to be a great lawyer .
he could go professional as either , but with one he could lose everything or win big , but with the other there 's stability but not much risk involved .
can someone who 's gambled his entire life really cash in his chips and leave ?
if the film had been just a subtle lesson in poker - playing , then the ending is our test .
everything is told from mike 's perspective , but we 're finally able to recognize some things on our own .
this makes the final , against - all- odds showdown seem like just that .
it works just like the game it revolves around - showing us some of the cards , but still evokes the element of the unknown , and the consequences thereof .
what separates " rounders " from most other films about games is the fact the challenge and the skills are more important than winning in the end .
Solution:
P