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:
Based on one of the books by Gabriel Marquez and it might be brilliant literature, this cinema-adaption really sucks as it's more like fighting against sleep rather than enjoying some cinematographic delices. The story is about an old couple whose son died and living a life that is heavily dominated by poverty, and wherein the main character is a cock that hopefully one day brings some money for a forthcoming cockfight. I am in no mood to spill more words on this useless pretentious piece, just perhaps that you can see Salma Hayek in here, but sitting 90 minutes in front of your screen for just that? No gracias.....
answer:
negative


question:
The movie "Slugs" is unique because the titular vermin are actually the good guys in this horrific tale of nature gone awry. You see, these poor slugs have been mutated through the pollution of evil humans and don't mean to do anything malicious, they're just slugs- slugs with sharp teeth who eat flesh and excrete poison, but slugs none the less. The real bad guys are the humans, who either actively try to destroy our beloved slugs, or overreact when they encounter them.For example, take the scene where the guy puts on the glove full of slugs. They were just hanging out in a comfortable work glove when out of nowhere this giant hand came at them, and they reacted instinctively, defending themselves and biting the guy. Now, instead of seeking medical attention for his slug bite, this guy runs around his greenhouse screaming like an idiot, spills some highly volatile chemicals, starts a fire, knocks a bookcase over on himself, and cuts off his own hand- then the fire and volatile chemicals mix and his house explodes. How can you blame that on the slugs?This movie paints a portrait of humans that is less than favorable. The characters in this movie include the dumb sheriff who hates everybody, the drunk hick who's mean to his dog, and the lumpy sidekick whose wife is at least forty-five years older than him. There's also a set of drunken teensthat get attacked while copulating, and we have to see the skinny long-haired freaks' genitals. Meanwhile, there's a guy who looks like a demonic Leslie Neilson who yells "You don't have the authority to declare happy birthday!" for some reason. Finally, this parade of loathsomeness is rounded out by the guy from the MST3K classic "Pod People" whose face explodes after eating a slug-laces salad (another easily avoided fate blamed on the helpful, harmless slugs).Humans are portrayed as greedy, stupid, racist, alcoholic, and, in one pointless scene, as would-be rapists. In the movie's climactic scene, the villainous humans try to burn the slugs who are cowering helplessly in the sewers, Well, since they're idiots, the humans succeed in BLOWING UP THE ENTIRE TOWN. They alone do more damage than the slugs ever did!If you hate humans, and I know I do, you'll appreciate "Slugs". If you're a fan of bad cinema, you'll also appreciate this crapfest from the director of "Pieces" and "Pod People". There's enough bad acting, silly dialog, illogical plot twists, lame special effects, pointless scenes, and poor dubbing to hold your attention.
answer:
negative


question:
Before this little black-and-whiter, the touchy topic of criminal rape never made it onto the American screen.There were lots of these topics that Hollywood and the Production Code kept hidden until the rebellious 1960's. So it's not surprising that it would take a little independent company like Ida Lupino's Filmmakers to raise the subject. The result is well-meaning but somewhat compromised, which is not surprising since director Lupino had to work with Code demands to get the movie released.Interestingly, Ann Walton's (Mala Powers) main problem following the assault is not how others might see her, but how she sees herself. And it's a heavy load she's carrying. Will she ever be able to relate to men again? Will they look at her as "spoiled goods" (after all, this is 1950)? Small wonder she runs away rather than face these anxieties at home and at work, even though family and friends are generally supportive. Overall, this first part is earnest and well-done. The chase is hyped to inject some action into the plot, but then this is a movie-- notice how the incurious neighbor fails to respond to the honking horn near chase's end. Had those been screams of alarm from Powers instead, the neighbor's lack of response would have raised an interesting albeit complicating issue.The second half is pretty much given over to the Production Code in the sentimentalized person of Rev. Ferguson (Tod Andrews). It's he (to quote a phrase) who "gives her courage to face life again". There's some effort at humanizing him-- is it Ann or her dilemma that he's most interested in. Still, his gentle and understanding presence comes across as a little too miraculous and a little too Hollywood. Fortunately, the ending avoids the usual Hollywood cop-out by emphasizing only the hope of a happy resolution for Ann rather than its certainty. Give Lupino a ton of credit for dealing with the topic in the first place. Given the overall results, I expect she dealt as honestly with the topic as she was allowed to. I also expect today's audiences find the treatment mildly interesting mainly because of Powers' excellent performance that brings out the purely human drama. However, the film works best now as a document of its time, and what the cultural watchdogs of that day thought was appropriate for adult viewing.
answer:

positive