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:
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.
answer:
negative


question:
Am not familiar with the trilogy but came upon this film last night on Showtime. The film looked very well done with the set design and the cinematography, but the screenplay was stilted and wooden. The acting was fairly bad- thought the two female leads were serviceable. You never really believed anything the supporting actors said though. There were the stereotypes- bible-thumping Reverend without a hint of nuance, authoritative Captain, hot-headed soldier, etc. I am sorry to say that based on these deficiencies I clocked it straight away as Canadian without knowing it to be such-the Telefilm Canada end credits gave it away. I know I'm a horrible person.Maybe I missed something in the beginning but the hostility towards the girls is never explained. Here they are besieged in a fort by werewolves and the men are wasting time and energy brutalizing two young women for no reason. FOCUS people. There's a bit more of a pressing situation beyond your walls than whether or not these girls are lesbians-that's just my inference for the hostility directed towards them. If they can aim and fire a gun you might as well make nice with them. The question of their "immortal soul" can be resolved later.Also, I guess this relates to the rest of the trilogy, these girls are supposed to be the protagonists? One of them murdered the Indian guy at the end that saved one of their lives. I guess one is just a victim of her condition who can't be necessarily blamed for her actions, but the other is just a murderer who doesn't deserve her happy ending.
answer:
negative


question:
Some genre films need to be dressed up. This one was an exception. Taken on its own merit, it's a dressed down version of the horror genre film. With minimal special effects, it manages to be a psychological study of sorts, with a simple yet existential theme - who gets hit by the bus, and why her? It's not a great film, yet because there is little contrived about it, the story works. Subtle, and all about the interactions of the characters. Actually, there is one contrivance in the opening scenes, but it may have been placed there to simply set the tone for what's to come. I very much appreciate the balance of male and female energy, and would not recommend this story to anyone interested in more than people reacting to a physical and psychological challenge. You will enjoy the film if you have some empathy, value the need for a bit of adventure in your life, and wonder "What would I do in this situation?"
answer:

positive