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: when i first saw the preview for cruel intentions , i turned to my friend and said , " dangerous liaisons for kids !
" it was clear to me that the film would be an obvious chunk of plagiarized nonsense , owing everything it is to stephen frears ' 1988 masterpiece .
imagine my surprise to see that writer / director roger kumble has given credit to his source material : choderlos de laclos is recognized for his novel les liaisons dangereuses in the opening credits .
and i was impressed .
in fact , i was much more impressed with this recognition than with the actual film , which is an appalling excuse for a movie .
it 's kiddie - porn hackwork , complete with earthy sex - talk and fully - clothed hand - jobs .
i suppose this kind of movie was inevitable ; with all the teen high - school angst movies coming out , there was certainly room for a pretentious and laughable movie about a bunch of teenagers who think they 're smarter and more beautiful than all the other people on earth combined .
cruel intentions is a mess in every possible way , and it fails primarily in the way i expected it to : i hated all the characters , and i hate everything they do .
i also hate ryan phillippe , so perhaps my opinion is not as objective as it could be .
phillippe plays ( check out this name ) sebastian valmont .
wow .
is n't that a memorable name ?
i could just say it over and over again .
sebastian valmont .
it kind of rolls off the tongue , in the spirit of phrases like sanguine vapors and velvet sandwich .
sebastian valmont is the coolest guy who ever walked the earth ; there is no woman he ca n't have , no material object out of his reach .
he has all the money , all the sex -- all at his fingertips .
and , luckily , his parents never enter into his life -- no , in the world of cruel intentions , adults do n't really exist .
the ones who do are irritating .
sebastian valmont lives with his stepsister , kathryn merteuil ( sarah michelle gellar ) , the bitch - queen of the universe , and also the woman every man wants .
since these two rich kids are so bored , they only thing they can do is challenge each other with meaningless sexual liaisons .
kathryn wants sebastian valmont to de - virginize cecile caldwell ( selma blair ) , a naive dork - chick who has somehow wronged kathryn .
but it 's too easy for sebastian valmont -- he wants to nail annette hargrove ( reese witherspoon ) , the " paradigm of chastity and beauty .
"
so , sebastian valmont and kathryn make a deal ( which is too explicit to state here ) .
but -- dear god !
-- sebastian valmont actually begins to fall for poor annette hargrove .
dangerous liaisons is a great movie because the characters are all believable , and because of its masterful acting .
cruel intentions is bad for many reasons , but it lacks both believable characters and masterful acting
.
kathryn merteuil is simply a hateful witch , a girl so loathsome that i would probably enjoy pouring hot lead on her .
she is supposed to be mean , but glenn close gave the character some depth in dangerous liaisons .
gellar , while aesthetically pleasing , is one - dimensional and utterly repulsive .
witherspoon has a truly beautiful face , but her character is n't the moral staple she 's supposed to be : sure , she wo n't have sex until she 's in love ( is this really a * moral * issue ? ) , but she does some things in the last few scenes that are more than a little reprehensible .
but i ca n't forget mr .
phillippe , who continues to exceed my expectations with his impenetrable , invulnerable blandness
.
i have to give him credit and say that he did , in fact , manage to change his facial expression about three times during the course of cruel intentions .
and there 's one point in the film in which he shouts , thereby defeating my hypothesis that he is vocally monotone .
true , he is bad , but it does n't help that he has no character to work with .
kumble has drained all the interesting aspects from this character , leaving us with a sex - crazed lunatic who is supposed to be sympathetic because he falls in love with a moral flower and shuns the wicked bitch .
the film fails in every other way , too .
first of all , nobody talks like this .
even the " intellectuals " i know do n't bother with this kind of pointless and pretentious yammering .
for a while , the movie looks like it might play itself for laughs , but it ends up taking itself so seriously that there 's no way we can join it .
cruel intentions also manages to come off as soft - porn in more than one scene .
earlier i mentioned a fully - clothed hand - job ; this occurs between kathryn and sebastian valmont , both of whom are intended to be hateful at this point in the movie .
so , if we hate them , then what 's the point of an extended sex scene ?
titillation , of course .
it ca n't even work under the pretense of " meaningful love scene , " because we hate the characters .
it 's interesting to note some of the parallels between cruel intentions and dangerous liaisons .
kumble is clearly familiar with the earlier film ; many of the scenes have a similar tone , and there are moments in frears ' film that kumble imitates almost completely ( such as the last scene , in which [ spoiler warning ! ]
the antagonist is humiliated in front of her peers ) .
but kids do n't act like this .
nobody acts like this .
in his translation , roger kumble forgot character development and sympathy -- some pretty crucial elements .
the result is a picture of confounding badness , a kiddie - porn mess that thinks it 's really deep and profound
.
i 'll give cruel intentions credit for realizing its influences , but that does n't change the fact that it 's awful .
Solution:
N