instruction:
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.
question:
...that the Bette Davis version of this film was better than the Kim Novak version.Despite all of the other comments written here, I really prefer the Bette Davis version, even though the Novak version has a more coherent story line.However: Davis' Mildred's raw emotions seem to me to be more apt to a sluttish girl who seems easily to become a prostitute.And it is those raw emotions that constitute *part* of what the poor doctor falls in love with. He has emotions of despair, of failure, of "otherness" - strong emotions that he represses. Davis' Mildred, on the other hand, displays her emotions immediately and without censure. She has no feelings of despair, or of failure, or of "otherness"; rather, she is merely surviving as a poor Cockney woman in the Victorian era.Novak's portrayal was a more vulnerable Mildred than was Davis', almost through the the whole movie. Davis' Mildred was **never** vulnerable until she actually had to go to the doctor and beg for assistance. And when he reviles her - for her method of keeping body and soul together, and for continually taking advantage of his love for her - she unleashes arguably the most passionate repudiation of snobbish holier than thou attitude ever seen on screen: "I wiped my mouth! I WIPED MY MOUTH!!" Novak's vulnerability was excellent. Davis' realism was monumental.IMDb votes concur!
answer:
positive


question:
I just saw this film yesterday.My girlfriend wanted to see it only because of Richard Gere.I feel I wasted my time and money and told my girlfriend it's the last time we go to see a film just because a certain actor/actress is in it. I hope she learned the lesson because I had trouble keeping her in her seat. As of me, since I paid already, I wanted to see the end at least, just in the hope something good would turn up, but I didn't hold my breath, and luckily so cause I would have been a victim of the film just the same.This is not a black and white film, it's a black and black one. The main character (Richard Gere) is almost as bad as his registrants, and all sex offenders are portrayed as unredeemable hard core criminals and the bad ones among them were really very very bad. Speak of a cliché and the exploitation of a typical US phobia.Richard Gere's acting was good as usual but the blond girl that's supposed to replace him was wishy washy at best. Totally unconvincing for the job.The film tries to exploit a popular theme and gives it a cheap, dramatic, and sensational turn that just is unreal. They just use sex offenders as an excuse to indulge in cheap violent acts of murders, vigilante beating, rape and torture - something that almost seems gratuitous. They even have a wolf attacking people in the film - how low can you get.I gather the film won't come out in the USA and will go straight to DVD. That's were it should have stayed in other countries too, but because it's Hollywood and Richard Gere they just had to show it. Believe me, without Gere, the film is not even worth a B-series movie.
answer:
negative


question:
Sloppily directed, witless comedy that supposedly spoofs the "classic" 50s "alien invasion" films, but really is no better than them, except of course in the purely technical department (good makeup effects). And any spoof that is worse than its target is doomed to fail ("Casino Royale", "Our Man Flint" are worse than almost any James Bond movie). After two hours of hearing the screeching voices of the aliens, you'll be begging for some peace and quiet. (*1/2)
answer:

negative