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.

There are many adaptations of Charlotte Brontë's classic novel "Jane Eyre", and taking into consideration the numerous reviews written about them there is also a lively discussion on which of them is the best. The short film adaptations all suffer from the fact that it is simply not possible to cram the whole plot of the novel into a movie of about a 100 min. length, consequently these movies only show few parts of the novel. The TV series have proved to be a more suitable format to render all the different episodes of the heroine's life.There are three TV mini series, released in '73, '83 and 2006. The 2006 version is not only the worst of these three, but the worst of all Jane Eyre adaptations and a striking example of a completely overrated film. The novel's beautiful lines are substituted by insipid and trivial ones, and crucial scenes are either deleted or replaced by scenes which have nothing whatever to do with the novel. What it all leads to then is that the characters portrayed have not only nothing in common with the Rochester and Jane of the novel and behave in exactly the opposite way as described in the book, but that also their behaviour and language is absolutely not consistent with the behaviour of the period in which the novel is set. It is a silly soap opera, in which the actors look and act as if they had been put in the costumes of the 1850ies by mistake. This "Jane Eyre" (as it dares to call itself) is indeed a slap in the face of Charlotte Brontë.The 1973 version is very faithful to the novel in that the long dialogues between Mr. Rochester and Jane are rendered in nearly their full length. But what works beautifully in the novel does not necessarily work beautifully on the screen. At times the language of the novel is too complex and convoluted as to appear natural when spoken on screen, and the constant interruptions of the dialogues by Jane's voice-overs add to the impression of artificiality and staginess. And despite the faithfulness to the novel the essence of the scenes is not captured. Another problem is the casting of the main characters. Sorcha Cusack's portrayal of Jane as a bold, self-confident, worldly-wise young woman is totally at odds with the literary model, and Michael Jayston, although a good actor, does simply not possess the commanding physical presence nor the charisma necessary to play Rochester. Although a decent adaptation it simply fails to convey the passion and intensity of the novel and never really captivates the audience.All the faults of the '73 version stand corrected in the TV mini series of '83 with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. Although from a purist's point of view Timothy Dalton is too handsome, tall and lean to be Rochester, he possesses the essential qualities for the role: He has an imposing physical presence, great magnetism and an air of self-assurance and authority. And despite his undeniable handsomeness he looks grim and stern enough to play the gloomy master of Thornfield convincingly. But the excellence of his performance lies in the way he renders all the facets of Rochester's character. Of all the actors who have played Rochester he is the only one to capture them all: Rochester's harshness, nearly insolence, his moodiness and abruptness, as well as his humorous side, his tenderness, his solicitude and deep, frantic love. Dalton's handling of Charlotte Brontë's language is equally superb. Even Rochester's most far-fetched and complicated thoughts ring absolutely true and natural when Dalton delivers them. He is the definitive Rochester, unsurpassed and unsurpassable, and after watching him in this role it is impossible to imagine Rochester to be played in any other way or by any other actor.Zelah Clarke delivers an equally excellent performance in a role that is possibly even more difficult to play well than the one of Rochester. She portrays exactly the Jane of the novel, an outwardly shy, reserved and guarded young woman, but who possesses a great depth of feeling and an equally great strength of will. She catches beautifully the duality in Jane's character: her modesty and respectfulness on the one hand, and her fire and passion on the other, her seeming frailty and her indomitable sense of right and wrong. She and Dalton have wonderful chemistry and their scenes together are pure delight.As regards faithfulness to the literary model this version also quotes verbatim from the novel as does the '73 version, but with one important difference: The dialogues are shortened in this version, but the core lines which are essential for the characterisation of the protagonists and the development of the plot are rendered unchanged. Thus the scriptwriter avoided any artificiality of speech, while still fully preserving the beauty and originality of Charlotte Brontë's language. And in contrast to the earlier BBC version the essence of each scene is perfectly captured.The plot of the novel is followed with even greater accuracy than in the '73 series. It is nearly a scene for scene enactment of the novel, where equal time and emphasis is given to each episode of Jane's life. It is the only Jane Eyre adaptation that has a gypsy scene worthy of the novel, and the only one which does full justice to the novel's pivotal and most heartrending scene when Jane and Rochester meet after the aborted wedding. Timothy Dalton in particular plays that scene with superb skill. He renders with almost painful intensity Rochester's anguish as he realizes Jane's resolution to leave him, his frantic attempts to make her stay and his final despair as she indeed leaves him. It is a heartbreaking, almost devastating, scene, which will stay with the viewer for a long time.With even the smaller roles perfectly cast, an excellent script and two ideal leading actors this is the definitive and only true "Jane Eyre".
positive

New York, I Love You finally makes it to our shores, but its 10 short stories on love somehow didn't find reason enough to be released over Valentine's, probably due to the fact that this year's festival also falls on Lunar New Year, and with that comes the usual LNY blockbuster films from the likes of Jackie Chan (no, not The Spy Next Door) and local filmmaker Jack Neo who has traditionally released his latest film over that period to resounding success. So why fix a formula that hasn't been broken?Continuing in concept where Paris, Je T'aime had begun in spawning the City of Love Franchise (Shanghai will be next, so says the end of the closing credits here), the buzz here is definitely about the intertwining stories set in one of the cities of the world to allow for various interpretations from filmmakers all over to come up with stories based on love as a theme, although someone probably forgot to tell Scarlett Johansson some of the finer points in the sandbox ground rules, and her short was unceremoniously dropped from the theatrical edition for being unable to fit into everything else (well, it was shot in black and white), but here's hoping that it would make it to the DVD at least.Structurally, this series is less compartmentalized compared to its predecessor, which if memory serves me right had individual stories set within its own confines and never really breaking out of its artificial borders created. Here a little more leeway is given, where characters from various stories interact in short filler segments used to bridge scenes together, and not just solely reliant on pick up shots made up of buildings and landscapes, in hopes of making things look a little bit more serendipitous with the idea of chance encounters amongst strangers, though one story craftily adopted this mindset for its own narrative to deliver a surprise, though already seen in Paris.One of the top draws for sitting through a film like this one, is definitely the creative forces behind the stories, from writers, directors and cinematographers from various geographies and backgrounds mirroring the makeup of the cosmopolitan city, coming together for a concept film. And what more the star-studded cast too, with big names amongst the lesser known ones all upping the ante through picture perfect performances, be it for the entire length of the short, or as a support to build upon. You can't deny the initial star-gazing in recognizing the notables, from Irrfan Khan to Natalie Portman (who also had writing and directing duties), Rachel Bilson (looking quite like Bardot) to Spielberg's blue eye boy Shia LaBeouf, who surprisingly can act, and shows off more in his few minutes here than his entire filmography to date.Story wise, like any anthology, you'll find some which will automatically appeal to you, and with others that don't. Some are straightforward in nature, while others have to come up with gimmicky twists that thankfully worked. But these 10 stories plus 1 (because Randall Balsmeyer was given duties to integrate everything together for a more organic feel instead of just plain pick up shots of lesser known areas and established landmarks) somehow lacked the more "anything goes" spirit from its predecessor, with stories more rooted in reality, compared to some fantastical elements in the previous film (Elijah Wood's dalliance with a vampire anyone?), or even less adventurous with its narrative style (Christopher Doyle's, and Tom Tykwer's starring Natalie Portman). Here it seemed that the filmmakers opted very much for safe, with none venturing into that spirit of adventure and experiment.Minor quibbles aside, I still enjoyed almost all the shorts here, contrary to what many others have felt about it. The short film format is still very much alive, and having them strung together into a feature under the City of Love banner works fine, and left me wondering which other cities are or have been included in its lineup. I am hoping that perhaps the franchise will catch on and spread its influence here. We surely have enough prolific filmmakers to be stringing together a Singapore, I Love You, so here's crossing my fingers that maybe something will materialize down the road. Otherwise there's always the Sawasdee Bangkok route of just making it without any attachments to franchise house rules.
positive

Picture the scene where a bunch of scriptwriters sit around a table and one says "lets have a black woman approach an unsuspecting member of the public (also black) in the street and ask him if he is black, then walk away". The other writers fall about laughing hysterically until one suggests they repeat it in every episode. More laughter. Now if you think the premise is funny, and the show contains many such types of situation, you will enjoy this show. For the rest, use your zapper and find something more entertaining like watching paint dry. Those that have written glowing reports of this show should either get out more or be forced to watch television comedies that are really funny. Another example of the humor in the show, a girl tries to get out of paying at a supermarket checkout by trying to hypnotise the cashier. Marginally funny the first time but why repeat it over and over in different shows with different cashiers? I could give other examples but these just might be treated as spoilers, divulging why this comedy just is not funny at all.

negative