In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.
One example is below.
Q: 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 )
A: N
Rationale: The phrases used in the review convey a negative sentiment (e.g. "presents it in a very bad package").
Q: pre - review note : seeing as the only concern of body shots is " sex " , i will be forced to refer to that particular act innumerable times throughout the duration of this review .
because of this , i will try to vary word descriptions of " sex " ( meaning if you are offended by pejorative terms , and \ or your name is jerry falwell , you are kindly invited to hit the x up on the left corner of your screen ) , so if there happens to be a word you come across and can not comprehend , fret not , it 's most likely just another way of referring to " sex " .
i think we 'd all agree that any word used incessantly becomes a bit monotonous
so i hope you appreciate my attempt to liven up what could potentially be a very boring review .
though not as boring as the movie which makes steve forbes flat tax plan seem as lively as watching a naked mathew mconaughy play the bongos while high on god knows what .
body shots is a film so frightened of coitus that scenes of copulation are filmed ominously , in the way you 'd normally expect to see a violent attack .
it 's about people who think about screwing , seek it out , and talk about it .
these are things we all do , sometimes .
the characters in this film spend every waking moment pondering the simplicities of sexual acts .
their lives center around the next sexual encounter , but they seemed depressed .
it 's as if fucking is all they have to look forward to after a busy workweek .
at its core body shots is a message movie , the kind of thing i could picture really progressive church groups showing to middle schoolers in order to turn them off coition .
michael cristoffer ( who directed gia , another film that treated bumping uglies as if it where evil ) is a moralist with nothing new to say .
his characters do n't communicate anything of interest to each other , so cristoffer gives them an opportunity to let out their inner thoughts by speaking directly into the camera .
they voice simplistic platitudes like " i like to come " or " sex without love equals violence " .
huh ?
and yes that is as complex as this movie 's observations get .
the characters are stupid and shallow , with not one registering as anything more .
the plot concerns vapid over sexed twentysomethings on an all night hunt for carnal pleasure , then the after math ( the morning after ) of such events .
we meet the characters as they speak directly to us , confiding in us with their idiotic ruminations on intimacy .
i would normally go into the characters and the actors who play them , giving you the pros and cons , but for this film i can not .
i 'm not trying to be clever or witty , but i honestly hardly remember anything that would set them apart from the others .
with the exception of trent ( played by ron livingston as a bargain basement patrick bateman ) , the rest fade into each other-- a patchwork of fake breasts , defined abs , pearly white teeth , and creamy , flawless skin .
i vaguely recall brad rowe as the sensitive one , only because his character gets the worst lines ( " sex without love equals violence " ) .
in between all the confessionals , cristoffer films everything like a headache commercial , with blurry slo mos and dramatic head turning .
the fact that this director at one point won a pulitzer prize completely baffles me .
this film is made without one iota of intelligence or insight into the generation that its tag line claims to be defining .
if body shots is meant to say that all twentysometyhings are idiotic and f * * k - obsessed , fine , i do n't have any problem with a film that tries to persuade me to think a certain way , but cristoffer only gives us one side .
additionally that one side is n't even entertaining ; the characters indulge in buggery without an ounce of sexiness . or realism .
one sexual encounter takes place outside a club on a chain link fence between the two most sensitive characters .
they suddenly have vigorous intercourse with each other for no apparent reason ( other than that they both happen to be standing next to each other ? ? ?
alas , if it could only be that easy ? ? ?
kidding of course ) , then , not only is n't it erotic , it is n't real .
it does n't feel like an authentic sexual encounter .
every f
*
* k scene in this film ( and there are many ) is treated in the same unsexy manner .
body shots makes fornication dirtier than the most scummy porno film .
it shows us none of the pleasure that should go along with it , and most of all , it fails to show us why its characters love making it so much if they seem to hate the act of actually doing it .
the resulting search for nookie ( and you can take that cookie ? ? ? )
over one night leaves us with several tedious plot lines to follow .
the main concern is much ado over a rape that may or may not have occurred .
the film shows us two separate versions of the possible rape ( one where it is consensual the other where it is not ) and in both versions the young actress playing the possible victim gets her shirt torn off .
this is a topic that could be interestingly explored if done intelligently , and if memory serves me i ca n't think of one film that has done so , and yes i saw the accused which may be one of the most overrated movies of the 80 's next to wall street .
unfortunately nobody gives us reason to care , not the writer , the director or the actors nearly all of whom seem to have wandered off the set of a noxious 90210 spin off .
paul thomas anderson approached boogie nights in a manner similar to what cristoffer does here , though boogie nights succeeded .
it was similarly moralistic , but it gave us two different viewpoints ; it showed us how the lifestyle of porn enticed its characters , and it showed us the possible fall - out of such a decision .
the characters in boogie nights were as idiotic as the characters are here , but anderson seemed to care about them .
he gave them heart .
cristoffer gives them nothing but raging hormones .
he preaches to us , by using his characters to preach to us .
this is not the way to get any message across .
why not just direct a public service announcement on the perils of hittin ' skins ?
cristofer kind of does that , though
without an ounce of insight , and with a helping of leering exploitation .
A:
N