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.

How viewers react to this new "adaption" of Shirley Jackson's book, which was promoted as NOT being a remake of the original 1963 movie (true enough), will be based, I suspect, on the following: those who were big fans of either the book or original movie are not going to think much of this one...and those who have never been exposed to either, and who are big fans of Hollywood's current trend towards "special effects" being the first and last word in how "good" a film is, are going to love it.Things I did not like about this adaption:1. It was NOT a true adaption of the book. From the articles I had read, this movie was supposed to cover other aspects in the book that the first one never got around to. And, that seemed reasonable, no film can cover a book word for word unless it is the length of THE STAND! (And not even then) But, there were things in this movie that were never by any means ever mentioned or even hinted at, in the movie. Reminded me of the way they decided to kill off the black man in the original movie version of THE SHINING. I didn't like that, either. What the movie's press release SHOULD have said is..."We got the basic, very basic, idea from Shirley Jackson's book, we kept the same names of the house and several (though not all) of the leading character's names, but then we decided to write our own story, and, what the heck, we watched THE CHANGELING and THE SHINING and GHOST first, and decided to throw in a bit of them, too."2. They completely lost the theme of a parapyschologist inviting carefully picked guest who had all had brushes with the paranormal in their pasts, to investigate a house that truly seemed to have been "born bad". No, instead, this "doctor" got everyone to the house under the false pretense of studying their "insomnia" (he really invited them there to scare them to death and then see how they reacted to their fear...like lab rats, who he mentioned never got told they are part of an experiment...nice guy). This doctor, who did not have the same name, by the way, was as different from the dedicated professional of the original movie as night from day.3. In direct contrast to the statement that was used to promote both movies "some houses are just born bad", this house was not born bad but rather became bad because of what happened there...and, this time around, Nel gets to unravel the mystery (shades of THE CHANGELING). The only problem was, the so-called mystery was so incoherently told that I'm sure it remained a mystery to most of the audience...but, then there was no mystery in the first place (not in the book), because the house was bad TO BEGIN WITH. It's first "victim" died before ever setting eyes on it.4. The way the character of Luke was portrayed was absolutely ridiculous. He was supposed to be a debonair playboy who was someday to inherit the house (and was a true skeptic of it's "history")...and in this one he was just a winey-voiced, bumbling nerd who couldn't sleep(insomnia remember) and was a compulsive liar.5. I was also annoyed with the way the movie jumped from almost trying to recreate original scenes word for word (the scene with Nel's sister's family, and Mrs. Dudley's little opening speech...) to going off into flights of fancy that made me think more of these other movies than THE HAUNTING. It's like it couldn't make up its mind what it wanted to do.6. I missed Nel's narrative through the whole movie. The original was so like a gothic novel in the way that the story was mostly told in the first person, through Nel's eyes, and we always were privy to her thoughts. That totally unique touch was completely lost in the new version. They also tried to make Nel much more of a heroine. The original Nel was not a bad person, but she was a bitter person (could she be otherwise after sacrificing 11 years of her life to a selfish old woman and a spiteful sister?) and she liked to moan, and she lost her temper... This one was almost too good to be true. This was never more apparent than in the climax of the movie where the writer's had obviously been watching GHOST one too many times.7. They changed the history of the house and it's occupents too much. There was no Abigail Crain (the daughter of Hugh whose legend loomed large in the original versions), there was no "companion", and there was no nursery. There was also no "Grace" (wife of the original doctor) and Hugh Crain's wives died in totally different ways. These changes, changed the story WAY too much. I don't know whether the producers of this movie should be glad Shirley Jackson no longer walks this earth or whether they should...BE SORRY (if ya get my drift!!! The hauntings she could envision are not something to be trifled with!!!).In conclusion, let me just leave you with some words from the original Luke (appropriate substitution of the word "house" for "movie"!): "This 'movie' should be burnt to the ground, and the ground sprinkled with salt!" My favorite movie of all time remains so. No competition from this one.
negative

Cuban Blood is one of those sleeper films that has a lot to say about life in a very traditional way. I actually watched it while sailing around Cuba on a western Caribbean cruise. It details the life of an 11 year old boy in a small town in Cuba in 1958 and 1959 during the revolution. Not much time is spent on the revolution until the very end, when the Socialist regime came and took the property of the boy's father. The majority of the film is the boy's coming of age and the relationships that arise in a small town where everyone knows everyone else. There are some powerful scenes that everyone can relate to. A class A film with fine acting and directing. This is a film that tells a story with no special effects or grand schemes or real twists. It is a film about people and their lives, their mistakes, and their triumphs. A good film worth watching several times annually.
positive

"Deliverance" is a dead-on example of what wonderful movies came out of the '70s. While your jaw is dropped during a "Terminator" movie, are you really sacred? I don't think so, because you are there to see what new CGIs have been strung together - plot matters not.So many daily situations can become terrifying for no reason at all, because there are so many people involved in daily living - like a trip to the market.....or a walk down a dimly-lighted street. "Deliverance" is SO frightening, because those innocent actions can turn deadly in a heart-beat. Venturing into the backwoods is a frolic in fun? Anyone who has that notion does not read the papers, watch the daily news, nor has not seen some of the other movies that depict the seriousness of "trespassing" into territories where outsiders are not welcome. It is almost unbelievable that the advance dish on "Deliverance" didn't inform almost everyone going to view it this was no picnic, and "squeal like a pig" wasn't a part of "Deulling Banjos".I hate the term "hillbillies", because - as some "users" wrote - that demeans entire regions of people who are very content to live as they know how - without the interference of modern life. Much is made of "inbred" - that is not sexuality peculiar to the backwoods. "Chinatown" should teach us that lesson. However, city-slickers are extremely dumb to enter a closed society and give them attitude. I know lots of "hillbillies" - they are moral people, when left to themselves. Their "justice" can be brutal when they feel threatened or humiliated, just like the "justice" in city streets. They don't need any part of the city - the city should take its canoe-ing and camping to legal sites."Deliverance" was the last film I found Jon Voight to do any real acting - I hope I'm wrong. He was extremely underpaid for "Midnight Cowboy", because he was unknown, but demonstrated that he could do that role at the drop of a hat. His acting in "Deliverance" was superb. It gave us a clear demonstration ordinary people can move mountains, if it's necessary - but who wants to be thought-of as "ordinary" today? His stifled sob at the dinner was brilliant. Wow! for Burt Reynolds !!! One must ask what led him into those other tacky films? His manliness, although misguided, in this film set the pace for the endurance necessary to make it out of the wilderness - not only in the backwoods, but the wilderness of everyday-life. Ned Beatty was stellar - his underwear may not have had "Versace" stitched on it, but his shell-shocked performance was perfect. As noted, he became stronger than any of the group by the end of the movie. Ronny Cox played the moral guy to the hilt - every man should have his determination to do what is right. Several "users" have theorized he was shot, or lost his balance when he pitched-into the river - my theory is that he was so disgusted with the whole journey, he committed suicide. No gunshot was heard during the scene and Voight and Beatty did not find a wound.James Dicey certainly knows how to weave a suspenseful tale, and was great as the sheriff - it is said he was so terrified of acting he came to the set drunk every day. His character could see the three canoe-rs were guilty of surviving, but also knew they didn't stand a chance against a jury of the local people, no matter how kindly they were treated in "Aintry". He was also aware that the meaner of the locals could be cruel. Justice ? - "don't come back up here again". Not many "users" knew "hillbillies" were used in the film where ever it was possible - what actors could portray them better? The "mountain-men" WERE actually mountain-men.......Every detail of this movie was perfect - no doubt it was dangerous to play in. Play in? Better "fight-for-your-life" in. I've experienced some near-dangerous incidents, and am content to live outside of the fray - you guys who feel your manhood raging can have my part.That we have absolutely killed - and continue to do so - irreplaceable areas of this country in undeniable. To be able to view its grandeur on any media is enthralling, but it leaves a bitter taste to realize some do not care about it. Los Angeles, where I live, is a perfect example: it's built-up right into the territories for wild animals, and steadfastly believes humans come before animals. Those are their rightful habitats - we should leave them be just that. Any wonder why coyotes and bears and wolves wander into neighborhoods? They're theirs.In some less threatening way, we all need to experience the lessons to be learned from "Deliverance" - to understand our advancement technologically does not lead to supremacy. I thank all those city-slickers who went out into the wilderness to produce this modern classic, so that it can scare the heck out of me when I watch it. You can have the thrill of danger - I'll stick to the TV. 30-out-of-10.

positive