TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you are given a review of movie. Your task is to classify given movie review into two categories: 1) positive, and 2) negative based on its content.
PROBLEM: How viewers react to this new "adaption" of Shirley Jackson's book, which was promoted as NOT being a remake of the original 1963 movie (true enough), will be based, I suspect, on the following: those who were big fans of either the book or original movie are not going to think much of this one...and those who have never been exposed to either, and who are big fans of Hollywood's current trend towards "special effects" being the first and last word in how "good" a film is, are going to love it.Things I did not like about this adaption:1. It was NOT a true adaption of the book. From the articles I had read, this movie was supposed to cover other aspects in the book that the first one never got around to. And, that seemed reasonable, no film can cover a book word for word unless it is the length of THE STAND! (And not even then) But, there were things in this movie that were never by any means ever mentioned or even hinted at, in the movie. Reminded me of the way they decided to kill off the black man in the original movie version of THE SHINING. I didn't like that, either. What the movie's press release SHOULD have said is..."We got the basic, very basic, idea from Shirley Jackson's book, we kept the same names of the house and several (though not all) of the leading character's names, but then we decided to write our own story, and, what the heck, we watched THE CHANGELING and THE SHINING and GHOST first, and decided to throw in a bit of them, too."2. They completely lost the theme of a parapyschologist inviting carefully picked guest who had all had brushes with the paranormal in their pasts, to investigate a house that truly seemed to have been "born bad". No, instead, this "doctor" got everyone to the house under the false pretense of studying their "insomnia" (he really invited them there to scare them to death and then see how they reacted to their fear...like lab rats, who he mentioned never got told they are part of an experiment...nice guy). This doctor, who did not have the same name, by the way, was as different from the dedicated professional of the original movie as night from day.3. In direct contrast to the statement that was used to promote both movies "some houses are just born bad", this house was not born bad but rather became bad because of what happened there...and, this time around, Nel gets to unravel the mystery (shades of THE CHANGELING). The only problem was, the so-called mystery was so incoherently told that I'm sure it remained a mystery to most of the audience...but, then there was no mystery in the first place (not in the book), because the house was bad TO BEGIN WITH. It's first "victim" died before ever setting eyes on it.4. The way the character of Luke was portrayed was absolutely ridiculous. He was supposed to be a debonair playboy who was someday to inherit the house (and was a true skeptic of it's "history")...and in this one he was just a winey-voiced, bumbling nerd who couldn't sleep(insomnia remember) and was a compulsive liar.5. I was also annoyed with the way the movie jumped from almost trying to recreate original scenes word for word (the scene with Nel's sister's family, and Mrs. Dudley's little opening speech...) to going off into flights of fancy that made me think more of these other movies than THE HAUNTING. It's like it couldn't make up its mind what it wanted to do.6. I missed Nel's narrative through the whole movie. The original was so like a gothic novel in the way that the story was mostly told in the first person, through Nel's eyes, and we always were privy to her thoughts. That totally unique touch was completely lost in the new version. They also tried to make Nel much more of a heroine. The original Nel was not a bad person, but she was a bitter person (could she be otherwise after sacrificing 11 years of her life to a selfish old woman and a spiteful sister?) and she liked to moan, and she lost her temper... This one was almost too good to be true. This was never more apparent than in the climax of the movie where the writer's had obviously been watching GHOST one too many times.7. They changed the history of the house and it's occupents too much. There was no Abigail Crain (the daughter of Hugh whose legend loomed large in the original versions), there was no "companion", and there was no nursery. There was also no "Grace" (wife of the original doctor) and Hugh Crain's wives died in totally different ways. These changes, changed the story WAY too much. I don't know whether the producers of this movie should be glad Shirley Jackson no longer walks this earth or whether they should...BE SORRY (if ya get my drift!!! The hauntings she could envision are not something to be trifled with!!!).In conclusion, let me just leave you with some words from the original Luke (appropriate substitution of the word "house" for "movie"!): "This 'movie' should be burnt to the ground, and the ground sprinkled with salt!" My favorite movie of all time remains so. No competition from this one.

SOLUTION: negative

PROBLEM: This had high intellectual pretensions.The main lead intends to give a "deep" "meaningful" rendering(with voice over for his frames of mind naturally) and he was certainly influenced by the fifties/sixties "method " -which,when the script and the direction were worthwhile did give stunning results (see Clift,Newman,Winters).But here the story is abysmal.Besides it moves too slow,you could edit at least 20 minutes -including pointless flashbacks-and the plot line would not be changed .At times ,it's very doubtful that Bruce Dern believes in his "Uncle "character and his portraying often verges on parody.An interesting side is only skimmed over:the relationship young boy/hero -if we admit that the hero is himself some kind of child- When he says to the young kid that he would let nobody do harm to him,some welcome tenderness emerges.But it's botched and only the final scene returns to it.Word to the wise:Take Foley's "at close range" instead:it has two great actors (Christopher Walken and Sean Penn together!),it's also an offbeat movie ,but it's gripping,suspenseful.Here my hitchcockometer points sullenly towards zero throughout.

SOLUTION: negative

PROBLEM: Do not waste your time with this movie. This is a total thrash in terms of acting, directing, sound editing, soundtrack... There was such a waste of performance by some of the very good actors. The movie does not do justice to Paresh Rawal who is perhaps one of the most talented actors in Bollywood. Akshay Kumar who is also an emerging star did quite a poor job. John Abraham, what is wrong with him? Is that what you call acting? I mean he should thank God that he has a pretty face otherwise he'd be winning Razzie awards in India if there were any such awards in Bollywood. Asrani a great talent, but overdoes his bit as before.Screenplay which was not to mention a rip-off from the 1965's Boeing Boeing was quite badly framed. First of all, people in Bollywood just can't make something original. On top of that they don't even know how to copy well. The jokes in the movie were so overdone, it was getting painful to sit through them. Priyadarshan may be a star in the south, but he's just not fit to make a decent Hindi movie. The sound editing is amazingly crappy. I can go on and on this matter, but the bottom-line is that Bollywood should be shameful of making such a film.The worst part is that some people seemed to love this movie. What is wrong with you guys? This is the reason why Bollywood is where it is. Did you know that Bollywood makes more movies than Hollywood every year, however, most of the movies are unheard of abroad, because of movies like this one. I am an Indian and I am utterly shameful of Bollywood for producing this piece of thrash. Movies like Dil Chahta Hai and Lagaan were just terrific. They are world class films which are timeless... among the best of this decade. Garam Masala, however, is perhaps one of the worst of this century. Period.I give it a 1 out of 10.

SOLUTION:
negative