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: While "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians" is usually cited as one of the worse films ever made, this Mexican-made film from 1959 is so bad it makes "SCCM" look like "It's a Wonderful Life." You have to wonder what the people who made this film were thinking; perhaps they meant it as a third-world allegory about capitalist greed and conspicuous consumption. Nah . . . They just weren't very good. The same production company made an even more disturbing version of "Little Red Riding Hood" in which the wolf's obsession with our heroine has unmistakable hints of pedophilia. (Perhaps this was the inspiration for "Freeway.") Back to "Santa Claus": instead of the North Pole, Jolly Old Saint Nicholas resides in a satellite in geosynchronous earth orbit (shades of "MST3K"); instead of elves his toys are made by children chosen from around the world; and he had sophisticated spy equipment to check just which kids are naughty and nice. The result is like an Orwellian outer space sweat shop. It's enough to turn you off Christmas forever. This and other low-rent Mexican children's' films were dubbed in English and widely distributed in the U.S. in the early 1960s; no wonder the sixties became such a turbulent period in American history. The baby boomers who were forced to endure these "family" films as children would be all too eager to turn revolutionary.

SOLUTION: negative

PROBLEM: I recently started watching this show, and I have to say that it really made me laugh. You have to appreciate the unrealistic aspects of it, along with everything else. Some other people said this show should have more realistic reactions of the dead, among other things. If you are going accept that Ned can bring the dead back to life, you have to accept that the other completely crazy bits of the show. I couldn't help smiling after every episode I watched. I really think it's great there is a show out there that can take a very strange subject and really make it great to watch. I absolutely love the narration, I think it adds that extra bit of wonder to the whole show. You can't always compare old shows by a writer to his new ones, you have to take everything as it's own entity. Definitely give it a chance, and just enjoy the ridiculous parts as they are.

SOLUTION: positive

PROBLEM: I'm all for the idea of a grand epic of the American Revolutionary War. This ain't it. (And for that matter, neither was the Emmerich/Devlin/Gibson THE PATRIOT. But I digress.)I saw this film at a publicity screening at the old MGM Studios (now Sony) just before it came out. The audience had high expectations for this expensive period piece, written by veteran Robert Dillon, directed by the esteemed Hugh Hudson (of CHARIOTS OF FIRE fame), and starring Al Pacino.But it didn't take long for people to start squirming in their seats, whispering derisive comments about Pacino's horribly misconceived accent -- he was supposed to be an American frontiersman of Scottish ancestry(!) -- and that of Nastassja Kinski, who was supposed to be recently emigrated from England(!!). Then the story started and it all went downhill fast.Motivations were muddled, dialogue was atrocious, events had no historical or political context. What there was of a plot lurched forward on absurd coincidence; by the second or third time that alleged lovers Pacino and Kinski stumbled into each other it had become a bad joke. Donald Sutherland gave an unhinged performance as a British officer/pederast. His accent was all over the map too. I guess there weren't any English actors available.Lots of people left. Those who stayed tried to stifle giggles, then openly guffawed. I stuck it out -- I figured that at least the battle scenes might be good. I was wrong. Inexplicably, Hudson chose to film them with hand-held cameras, not even Steadicam, the jerkiness giving a misplaced newsreel 'authenticity' which ruined the sense of scale.There was a semi-famous TV reviewer in the audience a few rows ahead of me: (the late) Gary Franklin of Channel 7 Eyewitness News. I could tell he was peeved by the behavior of the rest of us. And sure enough, on his TV segment the next day he gave the film a '10' on his notorious 'Franklin Scale of 1 to 10', while remarking churlishly about the louts who'd disrupted the screening the night before, who clearly didn't know art when they saw it. What a buffoon.After this disaster, Pacino didn't star in another film for almost 4 years. Hugh Hudson's career never recovered. You can't say I didn't warn you.

SOLUTION:
negative