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:
We've all seen this story a hundred times. You can see each plot turn coming a mile away. The relationship between the mother and daughter is way too sweet and understanding to pass for realistic. Janet Mcteer's performance is stock southern hot- ticket mother in vintage clothes. Should have been made for the Lifetime Channel.
answer:
negative


question:
This series was CBS networks answer to the success of the Big Valley. It was a 90 minute Western just like the ABC program was. While it was an answer, it did not have the stuff to make it past season 2.The problem really became reality got lost on this show. For example- in one episode, Johnny gets his eye poked out by a stick. Amazingly, by the end of the show, Johnny had healed entirely. Along with that, the stories on this were no where near as strong as The Big Valley.This is a show that I would not want DVDs of, & frankly hope they are never released. Think since CBS was running out of lots, they re-used many familiar settings. This was one the last western series CBS produced as westerns were not real popular in the 1970's.
answer:
negative


question:
I have three comments to make about this film, which I discovered hanging out forlornly in a lower shelf at Blockbuster. First off, it is interesting to see the approaches film makers take in trying to film essentially unfilmable works. Some have, as Kubrick did with "Lolita", gotten the original author to write a screenplay that is something like the original work. Of course that can't happen here; Kraft-Ebing is long dead. Some have used the premises of the original work as a launch point to go in a completely new, unrelated direction (the recent adaptation of "Tristram Shandy" comes to mind here). You can dumb it down - the film of "Slaughterhouse Five" is to my mind an example of that. Or you can simply take the format of the original and try to render it in cinematic vignettes. That would be the approach of Woody Allen's "Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex", and, arguably, this film. Upon consideration, it is probably the only thing one can do with a scholarly work like "Psychopathia Sexualis". The potential loss is that whatever cumulative point the original work had is obscured or destroyed. And so it is here.Point two is the cinematic style. Some would call it an "homage" to Murnau, Pabst, Carl Dreyer, etc., but I think it more crude than that. Its far too heavy handed and self-conscious to be effective for long. It is eventually just annoying.Point three is perhaps a less intellectual observation. How did the people responsible for this manage to make a film about wild sexual deviations and perversion that is so incredibly boring? I found the film impossible to pay attention to, and anyone who is not automatically drawn to depictions of sexual deviance will find it so as well. I don't want to be completely uncharitable and say the film is pointless, but I have to say that whatever point the film makers had is rather obscured by the nature of the source material, the overt copying of filmic styles, and the stubborn refusal to engage the audience on an emotional level (possibly for fear of being accused of titillation).The film is a dubious exercise from the start and doesn't really work for me, I'm sorry to say.
answer:

negative