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: Bad plot (though good for a B-movie), good fast-paced fight scenes, at most a 5 out of 10. But something has always bothered me about this film: how come Mariska Hargitay never speaks? In the TV version, she shares several intimate moments with Jeff Speakman, even a kiss in a garden. Yet in the regular (video) version, most of her scenes are cut and she never speaks at all. This bothers me because it not only takes out a female (though cliched) point-of-view to the film, it also makes the final shot seem creepy. This film would have been better had they kept her scenes in, because in those scenes at least she has a personality, one that undercuts whatever Speakman says.

SOLUTION: negative

PROBLEM: i, too, loved this series when i was a kid. In 1952 i was 5 and my family always watched this show. My favorite character was the one played by Marion Lorne as a rather stuttering, bumbling and very lovable "aunt" type person. i can still recall her "ubba bubba um um" type comments as she would try and say something important. And then when she came back and played Aunt Clara in Bewitched it was great casting! It was the first time that i can remember seeing Walter Matthau whose career i followed as a fan for many many years.i have a question if anyone can verify: was the title or end credits music the "Swedish Rhapsody" by Hugo Alfven? Every time i hear it played on my classical radio station here in Southern California it brings back memories of the image of Mr. Peepers walking away with his back to the camera. i'm not even certain if this image in my mind's eye is correct.

SOLUTION: positive

PROBLEM: I guess if a film has magic, I don't need it to be fluid or seamless. It can skip background information, go too fast in some places, too slow in others, etc. Magic in this film: the scene in the library. There are many minor flaws in Stanley & Iris, yet they don't detract from the overall positive impact of watching people help each other in areas of life that seem the most incomprehensible, the hardest to fix. Both characters are smart. Yet Stanley can't understand enough to function because he can't read; he can't read because he's had too much adventure in his childhood. Iris, although well-educated, hasn't had enough adventure and so can't understand how to move past the U-turn her life took. In both their faults and strengths, the characters compliment each other. It may be a bit of a stretch to accept that an Iris would wind up working year after year in a factory, or that a Stanley never hid his illiteracy enough to work in construction or some other better-paying job. And while these "mysteries" are explained in the course of the story, their unfolding seems somewhat contrived. I assume no one took the time to rethink the script. Even so, it's a good moviejust imagine what De Niro, Fonda and Plimpton would have done on screen if someone had!

SOLUTION:
positive