In this task, you must classify if a given review is positive/negative, indicating your answer as P or N.

Let me give you an 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 )
The answer to this example can be: N
Here is why: The phrases used in the review convey a negative sentiment (e.g. "presents it in a very bad package").

OK. solve this:
while it was part of former yugoslavia , my country , croatia , used to be almost completely ignored by western films in general .
words " croatia " and " croatians " were unheard , even in movies whose plots actually took place on croatian locations .
the rare exception was the dogs of war , 1980 adaptation of frederick forsyth 's bestselling novel , yet that rare occasion only added insult to the injury , by mentioning croatians in most unflattering context .
in a single line they are referred as a bunch of mean people , probably terrorists , who happen to remove parts of arm dealers ' stomachs when they are unsatisfied with the quality of merchandise .
same line also illustrates the milieu where the movie takes place - dark and violent world of shady international deals with the blurred boundaries between business , politics and crime .
the movie protagonist , shannon ( christopher walken ) is a mercenary who spent the best years of his life fighting numerous little wars all over the globe .
his latest job is a intelligence mission for powerful mining corporation that demands information about political climate in west african nation of zangaro .
shannon arrives in that country only to find oppressive regime of president kimba , bloodthirsty madman whose brutality crushed any opposition and scared almost any westerners away .
after being arrested and tortured by kimba 's secret police , shannon leaves country with a help of british journalist north ( colin blakely ) .
upon return , he is approached by mining company again , but this time they want him to plan and execute the coup d'etat against kimba .
shannon reluctantly agrees and assembles small group of his surviving mercenary friends who begin meticulous preparation for another small war .
thing that separates the dogs of war from conventional action movies , especially those made in 1980s , is its authenticity , almost close to documentary .
it should n't surprise anyone , because the author of the novel , frederick forsyth , made reputation by blending fiction with real life , thus creating interesting , exciting yet very believable plots for his books .
those plots were also responsible for few very successful 1970s thrillers , and one of them , zinnemman 's the day of the jackal , is now considered a classic in that genre .
this one deals with soldiers of fortune , ancient tradition that was resurrected in great turmoil of 1960s and 1970s and filled the void left by vanishing colonial empires .
unlike wild geese , that used it as a pretext for conventional action adventure , script by george malko and gary de vore ( author whose death last year became real life mystery ) is serious , and instead of action puts emphasis on characters and prosaic details of their work .
the movie does n't try to romanticise the mercenary profession nor glorify mercenaries as some kind of superheroes ; they are simply shown as deadly yet expendable tool of powerful forces with questionable agenda .
christopher walken played in many movies , yet very rarely we can see him in a leading role .
his performance in this film perhaps is n't breathtaking , yet adequate .
his notoriously expressionless face is perfect illustration of the disillusioned , world- weary man whose alienation from the " normal " way of life becomes complete and only remaining ideal is loyalty to the shrinking circle of friends .
although the movie does n't lack capable actors , their roles are miniature compared with walken 's , and only colin blakely as cynical reporter has opportunity to portray his character .
however , those who look familiar faces would find them plenty in the dogs of war - tom berenger , paul freeman , jo beth williams , victoria tennant ( in brief cameo ) , and biggest surprise is ed o'neill ( of married with children fame ) as shannon 's reluctant colleague .
this was the first major production for john irvin , and it shows why he earned the reputation of capable , yet second class director .
with the good script he can make very good movie , with the bad script he can make real mess .
luckily , the dogs of war had a good script .
irvin 's direction was very ascetic and it gave the movie almost documentary feel .
the only distraction is dramatic music of geoffrey burgon , used on the wrong places .
in the final battle scene , where we can see mercenaries at work , irvin shows us that modern warfare means superior firepower and tactics , unlike 1980s ramboesque fantasies that rely on macho superheroes .
unfortunately , by making battle realistic irvin made it somewhat less attractive and his sloppy editing also did n't help .
but , despite those shortcomings , this movie remains interesting and rare combination of action thriller and gritty , realistic political drama .
Answer:
P