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

Problem: what 's to like about the world of extremely violent trash pornography -- ie .
the garbage known as " snuff " films ?
nothing
, right ?
what 's to like about a film chronicling the world of violent trash pornography ?
well .
. .
nothing .
so , why make it , hollywood ?
there 's no reason why the average , sane movie - goer will be interested in such a topic .
no one is going to enrich their life or have a good time by watching material such as this .
the lack of quality filmmaking in " 8 mm " ( from technical to acting ) stands out even more when you consider the star , writer , and supporting cast -- all reputable .
but joel schumacher and his brand of unlikable filmmaking strikes again !
like paul schrader , schumacher has his moments , but they 're few and far ( far ! )
between .
basically , this picture is crap and
no one should pay to see it .
why not walk out ?
well , this would n't be a thorough review about a thoroughly bad movie .
here 's why you should spend your money on dog food or gum instead of " 8 mm " . . .
first thing -- if you do n't heed my advice , then understand what you 're about to see before you even think about paying good money for this crud .
it 's not easy to watch .
i did n't know the details of the story beforehand , but at least my ignorance can help others now .
the ( ha ! )
plot revolves around tom welles ( nicolas cage ) as a surveillance expert and private investigator .
a rich old woman discovers a " snuff " film in her late husband 's safe .
she calls welles and hires him to try and find out if the young girl ( it had to be a young girl , did n't it , schumacher ! ) who appears to be murdered in the film really is dead .
she 's horrified that her husband would have owned such a film ( in 8 mm , of course ) and just wants welles to snoop around without police interference to see what he can find .
family - man welles agrees against better judgement or any concrete leads even after cringing and grimacing at the sight of the grotesque " murder " .
let me backtrack for a moment .
see , " snuff " films are pornos with a violent twist -- people are tortured in very sick ways and end up dead .
however , the deaths are often staged and , in those cases , special effects and " good " acting make all the difference .
very sick people enjoy and pay top dollar for these hard - to - find movies .
the thought of this " industry " makes me want to throw my computer out the window and stop this review , but i 'll swallow my bile and move on .
welles follows clues to hollywood and the porn industry .
you 'd think he 's sherlock holmes the way clues drop so easily for him !
he comes across smut clerk max ( joaquin phoenix ) who knows everyone and everything in the underground business of sleaze .
after a lot of digging and bribing , welles finds the men who are responsible for making this , and other , " snuff " films .
skip ahead , skip ahead , skip ahead . . .
led by dino velvet ( peter stormare in an uncharacteristically terrible performance ) and star - torturer " machine " ( christopher bauer ) , they have a big showdown with welles where death and mayhem ensue .
the movie does n't end there , unfortunately , because welles has to do what all heroes in schumacher films do -- become a vigilante .
this film does n't draw you in .
it keeps you about 700 miles away from it and who in their right mind would want to get close ?
it is possible to like a film that focuses on grime and sick behaviour
( ie . " se7en " ) , but it takes a large measure of restraint ( schumacher has none ) and a larger amount of talent ( schumacher has little ) . by those jabs , i 'm not only referring to his stylish destruction of the " batman " franchise , but " a time to kill " was an immensely overrated disappointment . for a guy who gets so much studio money , his track record of making rather bad movies is unparalleled .
a good screenwriter and a good director can make you hypnotically watch even disgusting subject matter .
writer andrew kevin walker did n't recapture the smarts of the fascinating script he authored for ' 95s twisted thriller , " se7en " .
director schumacher does n't have that innate ability to make you watch things you do n't really want to see like better directors are capable of doing .
he must not have believed hitchcock who espoused the theory that what we do n't see is more frightening than what we do ( especially when it 's a scene where young girl is supposed to be murdered ) .
however , gratuitous is joel 's middle name .
he must think that not flaunting a hard - core act of violent sex is showing plenty of tactful restraint .
no , he does n't go that far , but we see enough unpleasantness .
he does n't leave much to the imagination .
it 's manipulating to hurt ( or kill ) young girls just to get the audience on the side of a murderous vigilante .
the script and acting should be what gets us to believe in these characters , yet
schumacher has no subtlety in his ( ha ha ! )
craft .
case in point , a shot of a christian fellowship bus ( good , right ? )
drives away to reveal one of the villains ( bad , right ? ) .
see . . .
no subtlety .
does joel think we 're stupid or that we need to be held by the hand to comprehend the contrasting imagery ?
who do we root for in this mess ?
is there anybody out there ?
it 's not all the director 's fault , though .
why did the actors sign up for this ?
nicolas cage is an oscar - winner , for cryin ' out loud ! if he claims to do films to challenge himself and for the artistic merit rather than the money , what was he smoking when this script dropped on his veranda ?
what is cage supposed to be in this movie -- a whispering batman without the charisma and pointed ears ?
villainous peter stormare is five steps past hammy .
and what is james gandolfini doing in this trash
?
he was so solid as a concerned father in " a civil action " .
i guess ol' nic , pete , and jim were promised a mountain of money . . .
or they 're suckers .
or they just do n't care .
there are moments ( albeit brief ones ) where this rises above the wasteland .
catherine keener is good ( although too quick to threaten divorce ) as mrs .
wells .
baby cindy is obviously cute and wells ' devout love of his daughter is sweet .
the mother ( amy norton ) of the girl in the infamous 8 mm film is not too bad as a woman dealing with the uncertain loss of her runaway daughter .
this film has an appropriate blue - toned , washed - out look like " payback " ( which was a much better movie ) .
the editing is okay in scenes of no dialogue , but at other times it 's rough .
during some conversations , close - ups and wide shots are not cut very well , making it look to be editted by someone whose instincts are n't good and whose timing was a half - second off .
such a technical error indeed stands out .
speaking of standing out , do n't believe the misleading trailers .
there 's not much action here .
occasionally , yes , but not as often as your tv will have you believe .
after seeing " 8 mm " , i may not be interested in ever watching any kind of porn again .
is that a positive ?
well , if making me almost ill at the thought of glimpsing a dirty movie again is their motive , they 've done a swell job here .
it 'll be a long time before i give a schumacher film another chance -- unless i lose my mind and become seriously depraved .
but today i 'm not depraved , so i ask , why does this film preach that this garbage is out there and that society should be worried about it ?
i 'm sure that somewhere right now there 's some pretty sick crap going on , but that does n't mean i need to know about it .
yes , mr .
walker
, your script tells us that there are some screwed - up folks out there .
yes , mr .
walker
, the proverbial monster does n't look like we expect him to .
you said all that in 1995 .
move on .
this film serves no purpose .
it does n't entertain , it does n't teach us anything , it does n't make a statement beyond the obvious " this stuff is bad " approach .
only if this film awakens the authorities to find a way to abolish these types of horrors would it ever do someting truly worthwhile .
that 's not likely to happen , though , so " 8 mm " is indeed a scummy waste of money .
orson welles said years ago in a tribute to film , " to movies . . .
to good movies " . if only joel schumacher and the producers had listened and told andrew kevin walker to bury this crud deep in a hole .
like " snuff " films , " 8 mm " should never have been made .
now , excuse me while i go try to forget i ever saw it .
useless trivia --
joel schumacher loves the vigilante theme .
he used it in " batman forever " , in " batman & robin " , in " a time to kill " , in " falling down " , and it 's rumoured that joel himself will play the vigilante at his breakfast table tomorrow . . .
Solution: N