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: 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.

Answer: negative


Question: This is a movie about animal cruelty. Under the guise of a marathon race, we see depictions of extreme animal abuse, including literally running a horse to death IN SLOW MOTION. The guy who did this then has his conscience spiritually cleansed by the flames from the burial/burning of the horse, which of course is still dead, having been tortured to death. This is one of the sickest, slimiest movies I've ever had the displeasure of viewing. As Gene Hackman and James Coburn near the finish line on their DYING animals, we're supposed to admire their spirit for finishing the race. I'd like to put the producers and director in a marathon race; I'll decide when they're finished, probably about 20 minutes after they stop breathing.

Answer: negative


Question: This film had so much promise. I was very excited about this film. In the end, it was laughable at best, painful at worst. The acting styles ran the gamut from really, really, flat (the angels, the wife and daughter) to over-animated (Casper's character). I felt that the dialogue was just an attempt to transfer information to the audience instead of real people trying to talk to each other. Pay special attention to the scene regarding "the bug". It's pretty much an insult to the audience's ability to figure things out. In defense of that scene, though, it got the biggest laugh of the whole movie. I had read that they spent alot of money traveling to various overseas locations. Too bad they didn't make use of it. I didn't feel like I was transported to exotic locations. Anybody could insert stock footage of the Coliseum in Rome. However, to end on a positive note, I thought the sets were pretty good. I really liked the graphics that were displayed on the decoding computers. It is my opinion(and that's all it is) that if the SCHMALTZ factor would have been much much lower and the ACTION factor would have been greatly increased, this film would have been good.

Answer:
negative