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: I don't know why people except a lot from low budget indie films but I enjoyed this one as I'm a fan of urban horror. There's not too many urban horror movies out there so when I saw this one on the shelf, just the title alone peaked my curiosity. So I decided to check it out and I was surprised...it's not too often you run into a low budget indie horror film with GREAT acting and a good story. Is it low budget? yes. Can you tell that it's low budget? Yes...but once you start watching the movie you become so wrapped up in the story that it doesn't matter. I like hip hop music too and the soundtrack is nice! I don't know what's up with all these bad reviews for this film. All I hear is "worst movie ever". Have these idiots seen EVERY movie out there? There's thousands of movies out there, how can you categorize one as the "worst" ever? A video not "movie" like "zombiez" may be the worst film I ever SEEN but I can't say that it's the worst movie EVER since I haven't seen every movie out there. Bottom line these people who gave this movie bad reviews are probably from the suburbs. Listen, if you don't like minority based, urban films, the ghetto films, hip hop,etc then WHY WATCH THESE TYPES OF MOVIES???!!! knowing that you don't like this type of stuff? Sure, this is a horror film but it's not just a horror film but it's an URBAN horror film with a multi-cultural based cast. I don't like TV shows like Dawson's Creek or the O.C., THEY SUCK to me. Films like "Garden State", "Wedding Crashers" and "I heart huckabees" SUCK to me. I'm a guy from New Jersey and these shows and movies suck to me. Why? Because I can't relate to them. They don't peak my interest. Just common sense. Believe me, I will never watch GARDEN STATE 2: GARDEN SALAD, WEDDING CRASHERS 2: Here's a sequel to torture you again since the first sucked so bad and I HEART HUCKABORING. Now back to this movie, in regards to saint405's comment above, I don't know if this guy was smoking crack or got knocked "stupid" by his drunken dad before he watched the movie but to me, everyone did a great job. The actor who played Ricky (I forgot his name) did a VERY good job. I'm an aspiring actor myself taking theater at my school and I had to do a play where I had to cry and it's not easy to be emotional in a scene so I give props to actors who have to do an emotional scene and can pull it off. Anywho, I liked this movie and never heard of these actors and directors before but you bet I'll be looking out for their stuff for now on and if they are reading this, BRING ON THE SEQUEL!!! I'm out. Jerzee Representin'!

SOLUTION: positive

PROBLEM: Margret Laurence probably didn't intend on having any of her novels adopted for film, let alone the Stone Angel. Hagar, as a character, was one who constantly challenged the social norm (Gainsay who dare, anyone?), and ended up nearly sacrificing her humanity in the process. The symbols in the book (the Stone Angel, Silver Thread, etc, etc.) are constant reminders of this struggle of the old and new, and the carnage (so to speak) along the way.While the film is reasonably faithful to the plot of the book (but it isn't really a plot kind-of storytelling, is it?), I think it missed the point on capturing the spirit of the film. Hagar's defiance (for the sake of defiance) was not there. Bram could have been a lot more crude than portrayed, and Hagar's father could have been played more "traditionally", so to speak. If the filmmaker would insisted on stronger portrayals, the film would drive the point straight to home.Along the same vein, why should we see cell phones, organic produce, and other modernizations? Are we trying make some points for the sake of making some points (e.g., the Muslim girlfriend and the Native people). Hagar and co. are everything but politically correct in the book, so why should we see that in the film version. Modernization may be an excuse for a low-budget operation, but using that as an excuse to send subliminal politically-correct messages that are totally irrelevant to the novel (and the film) seems like throwing punches below the intellect.There is also the audience. It seems that we have been conditioned to see bitter old people as cute and lovable. Why should be laugh every time Hagar is at her tantrums? I doubt Magaret Laurence wanted her readers to laugh at, or with, Hagar. These people are frustrated and are full of angst, and all we do is to laugh at them. I don't think it did Hagar and other folks in her situation any justice.

SOLUTION: negative

PROBLEM: Some of the worst, least natural acting performances I've ever seen. Which is perhaps not surprising given the clunky, lame dialog given to the one note characters. Add to that the cheap production values and you've got a movie that doesn't look like it even belongs on television. One doesn't expect much from a Lifetime movie, especially one this old, but this is nearly unwatchably bad.Plot-wise, it's a dreadful, clichéd romance of a type even Harlequin would consider beneath them. It's possible to guess how the remainder of the movie will go by simply watching the opening couple of scenes. Surprise, the only female character who gets any focus and the mysterious stranger end up falling in love.

SOLUTION:
negative