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.

A film with very little positive to say for it.Firstly it has zero pace and is positively lacking in any drama.Besides being remarkably slow The Empty Acre seems dedicated to using the same stock footage again and again. I lost count of how many times I had seen "that" field at night or that bit of cracked earth.It also has the fundamental flaw of thinking that if the audience don't know about things they will be gripped rather than just confused. So with no signs that there are any issues we suddenly find the marriage is not what it seems to be despite being given the impression that it's fine. We find Jacob is possibly the worst farmer in the universe as he seems to spend no time on the farm and also seems to have bought land with a wholly useless acre. Beth has a key to a warehouse of books? There are innumerable other questions some of which are resolved later in the movie, much later, in fact too late.And on the point of the acre. Horror filmmakers note that large inanimate objects are inherently not scary  and also if they're meant to be an acre big then make them so.There is also a frightening lack of reasonability as Beth (the best performer in the piece, followed by Jefferson  the cop) suddenly appears to be accused of everything under the sun just because she is on "medication".With the full ten minutes plus of running round the fields looking for the missing child (did he crawl out of the window? He's six months old) the film descends into badly written scene after badly written scene. Bad plinky plonk "horror" music fails to add atmosphere.Often bad films can be amusing but not The Empty Acre, which is just bad.
negative

Simply one of the best ever! Richard Brooks' adaptation of Truman Capote's non-fiction novel is truly an artistic achievement. Stunning black and white cinematography (that should have won an Oscar), a haunting Quincy Jones score and tremendous performances by Robert Blake and Scott Wilson as the oddly-matched killers. This film was 0 for 4 at the Academy Awards and wasn't even nominated for Best Picture while Dr. Doolittle was. Go Figure! Although you don't get to know the Clutter family as well as you do in the book, it was a good decision to focus more on Perry and Dick and the pain-staking process of tracking these guys down. John Forsythe is also impressive as Alvin Dewey. There are simply no flaws in this one. 10 out of 10. Best performance = Scott Wilson with R. Blake a close second. Highly recommended!
positive

Where the Sidewalk Ends (1950)Where One Ends, Another BeginsThis is a prototypical film noir, and as such, pretty flawless, from both style and content points of view. The photography and night settings are first rate (cinematographer Joseph LaShelle lets the drama ooze in scene after scene), and the close-ups on faces pure expressionism. I can watch this kind of film for the visuals alone, even when the actors struggle and the plot stinks. But the acting is first rate here, and the plot features what I consider the core of most noir films, the alienated male lead (representing the many men returning home to a changed United States after the war and feeling lost themselves). In fact, not only is Dana Andrews really convincing as the troubled, loner detective, he has a small but important counterpart in the film, the lead female's (first) husband, an decorated ex-GI fallen onto hard times and booze. The fact the one man kills the other might be of monumental significance, overall-- the regular guy struggling through his inner problems to success while the medal-wearing soldier slips into an accidental death with a silver plate in his head. The woman transitions from one to the other--we assume they marry and have children as suggested earlier in the movie. Even if this is pushing an interpretation onto it after the fact, we can still see the path of one man with some psychological baggage careening through a crisis to the highest kind of moral order--turning himself in for a small crime just at the point he has actually gotten away with it.This movie belongs to Andrews. He plays a far more restrained and moving type than Kirk Douglas plays in a similar role in William Wyler's Detective Story made just one year later, and Andrews certainly is less theatrical. You could easily see both movies side by side for a textbook compare and contrast session. The fact that Andrews as Detective Dixon is morally struggling through it all, and Douglas as Detective McLeod is not, might explain why one man gets his girl and the other doesn't. Gene Tierney pulls off a hugely sympathetic, demurring, and ultimately conventional and "pretty" type of woman--not just a cardboard desirable, but someone you want Dixon to actually marry. The criminal plot is really secondary to the main drama, but is effective enough in its play with types and clichés. The bit parts are kept snappy, the small details (like the portable craps table) nice touches, far from the character actors or the glamour of gambling in Casablanca. But then, Curtiz's great movie is iconic even in the details--it makes no effort to be subtle and real and penetrating, but instead is sweeping and memorable and inspiring. They come at opposite ends of the war, and represent opposite possibilities for their leading men. Bogart is beginning his active duty, Dixon, and the man Dixon has killed, are all through. Through, thoroughly, but not washed up.It's no accident that many, possibly most, film noirs have what you would call "happy" endings. The man overcomes his adversaries and transforms his inner self, and the moviegoer, then and now, understands just how beautiful that must feel.

positive