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: Having been pleasantly surprised by Sandra Bullock's performance in Miss Congeniality, I decided to give Murder By Numbers a shot. While decent in plucky, self-effacing roles, Ms. Bullock's performance in "serious" roles (see Hope Floats, Speed 2, 28 Days) leave much to be desired. Her character is at the same time omniscient, confused, and sexually maladjusted (the sub-plot of Sandra's past comes across as needless filler that does little to develop her already shallow character). The two teenage boys gave decent performances, although their forensics expertise and catch-me-if-can attitude is belied by stupid errors that scream "We did it!" Chris Penn as the all-too-obvious suspect is wasted here, as is Ben Chaplin's token partner/love interest character.***Spoilers Ahead*** Mediocre acting aside, the biggest flaws can be traced to a TV-of-the-week plot that never has you totally buying into the murder motives in the first place, and as mentioned, the stupid errors (vomiting up a rare food on the murder scene, an all too convenient and framing of the school janitor, the two boys hanging out together in public, a convenient love interest to cause friction, etc. etc) cause the view to go from being intrigues to being bored and disappointed by the murderers. The ending was strictly "By the Numbers" and was probably the most disappointing aspect of the movie. Using the now-cliched tactic of almost showing the climactic scene at the beginning of the film, and then filling the audience in how we arrived at that moment, the final scenes surprise no one and lacked any of the so-called intelligence the film purported to arrive at it's conclusion. A somewhat promising concept, but poorly executed and weak in nearly every way. * out of ****.

SOLUTION: negative

PROBLEM: When I rented this movie, I had very low expectations......but when I saw it, I realized that the movie was less (a lot less) than what I expected. The actors were bad (the doctor's wife was one of the worst), the story was so stupid...it could work for a Disney movie (except for the murders), but this one is not a comedy, it is a laughable masterpiece of stupidity. The title is well chosen except for one thing: they could add stupid movie after Dead Husbands! I give it 0 and a half out of 5.

SOLUTION: negative

PROBLEM: S.S. Van Dine must have been a shrewd businessman in dealing with Hollywood. Most of the film series' from the studio days were usually confined to one or two studios. But apparently Van Dine must have sold his rights to each book about Philo Vance one at a time. Note that Paramount, MGM, Warner Brothers, and more all released Philo Vance films. Only Tarzan seemed to get around Hollywood more.MGM produced the Garden Murder Case and starred Edmund Lowe as the fashionable detective. Of course MGM had the screen's original Philo under contract at the time, but Bill Powell was busy doing The Thin Man at the time and I guess Louis B. Mayer decided to concentrate him there.Edmund Lowe is a pretty acceptable Philo Vance. Lowe had started out pretty big at the tail end of the silent era with What Price Glory and then with a string of films with Victor McLaglen with their Flagg and Quirt characters. But after McLaglen got his Oscar for The Informer, Lowe seemed to fade into the B picture market. The Garden Murder Case involves three separate victims, Douglas Walton, Gene Lockhart, and Frieda Inescourt. The sinister atmosphere around the perpetrator kind of gives it away, the mystery is really how all the killings are connected and how they are accomplished.I will say this though. Vance takes a very big chance in exposing the villain and the last 15 minutes are worthy of Hitchcock.

SOLUTION:
positive