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: 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.

SOLUTION: negative

PROBLEM: I agree that Capital City should be on DVD. I watched this show only by accident in 1994 and fell in love with Rolf Saxon as Hudson Talbot. It was nice to see Americans who work abroad in London in the financial industry for a change. I loved Rolf in this role and loved every other role that he has been in. I can't believe the show only lasted 13 episodes. I liked William Armstrong as Hudson's flamboyant charming friend in the series. When they aired this show in the New York City area, it was always late at night or at off times. The show is less than an hour long. I felt this show should have gone on longer but the casting changes in the second season really made the show a little less interesting. I didn't care for Sylvia but missed the actress, Julia Phillips-Lane in the previous season. I felt this show took chances and often it worked. It showed Americans who loved and chose to live in London. The American characters were not arrogant or tried to outdo their British counterparts. I also liked the fact that they had tried to internationalize the cast rather than make them all British. I liked watching Julia Ormond in an early role. I felt this show should have lasted longer. I felt at times that the previews lasted as long as the show in less than an hour. They could have transferred the cast to New York City and it would have been a hit in America.

SOLUTION: positive

PROBLEM: ***One Out of Ten Stars*** Because if it was, it gets an F. Holy Mother Mary of God was this bad. I mean, I gave it every reasonable accommodation considering it was a straight to video film, but it let me down at every turn. Like so many other B movies, the basic storyline was decent and the filmmakers seemed to have a reasonable level of resources, but the execution was ridiculous. It's a shame they attached the good name of Halloween to this fiasco.The basic premise surrounds some frat douche bags hosting their annual Halloween haunted house fund raiser, when a satanic spell book shows up out of nowhere and hurls the frat boys into a living hell. Well that's the idea anyway, but instead most of the film is devoted to displaying these frat boy's relationship escapades, abound with an outrageous lesbian subplot. Very little of the actual story is devoted to Halloween or the mysterious spell book. It actually makes me mad that the film makers thought they could get away with making such dribble. The film is essentially about frat boy relationships. This IS NOT what the movie is billed as. I'm tempted to track down the producers and at the very least threaten them with bodily harm. The acting is about as bad as it gets, it's atrocious! The script is unintentionally funny. The cinematography is just plain lazy. The whole film is amateur night. This movie actually makes the SyFy channel movie productions look like masterpieces.The last half hour of the film felt like the film makers realized they weren't producing a soap opera and had to throw in some sort of horror sequences. The evil spell book finally comes into play and turns everyone in the haunted house into the character their dressed up as. I almost feel like crying as I write this review. Wow! I mean wow! This thing was an undecipherable chopped up disaster.

SOLUTION:
negative