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: I knew that 'Evening' was a girlie film, so I was expecting to be bored. A wicked tease on IMDb had said that it was a 'chick flick' but that your companion would survive.Survive? Yes. I am still here, but when the two of us came out we were amazed to find that it had only lasted two hours - it seemed a much longer evening than that! I suppose that, for Yanks, it is supposed to be elevating or fascinating because it is about rich people living on the beach - well, next to the beach, in a house with a wide verandah and a lawn but no apparent lawnmower. If that sort of thing impresses you it might seem quite a short film.There's a Monty Python film about a Knight who just won't die. He ends up a wriggling (why do Yanks add an third syllable to this word I wonder) torso in the road still shouting threats at his nemesis. This film is also about a sort of living dead. Vanessa Redgrave (inappropriate name for the grave dodger shown here) goes on and on dying whilst having inappropriate guilt. She's not worried about having been a wide-eyed, breathless bimbo, but imagines herself a murderess.Obviously, being a girlie film, there's a chap who is supposed to be the Mr Darcy/Heathcliff character. I'm not a woofter, so I can't claim to be a good judge of such things, but the tedious wimp who is wheeled out for this role seems only to have the title of servant in his favour. He's a bloodless cypher.As you might gather, the main characters aren't much cop, but the minor ones manage, amazingly to be much worse. There's a fellow whose only job is to react to the news that his girlfriend is preggers. Fair enough, but it isn't the role of Hamlet - why ham it up so badly? Forgetting that it was a girlie film, I thought he was going to be thrown out because any decent girl-friend would have told him that face-fungus didn't flatter him, but then I realised that she must have encouraged him to grow a 'beard' because he looked worse without it.I kept awake by noticing which actors and actresses had their earlobes attached or free and noting interesting bits of scenery - if you're dragged along to it, see if you can spot the stuffed buffalo head, just the sort of thing you'd expect in a beach cottage.Apart from the obligatory wedding, there is only one piece of action. You'd have thought that they'd have got it right. Sadly, though, the hit and run accident is carried out by a car that couldn't be there. When the accident is discovered the cast wander about shouting for a character that they can't know is nearby (but we do as the audience). If they don't have any clue that the person is within a couple of miles of the place, then why do they wander about aimlessly shouting for him? I suppose that the director's excuse is that it is supposed to be a half-remembered dream sequence...Another scenery item that caught my attention was a copper bottomed saucepan. I didn't think that the technology to do this was developed until the fifties.

Answer: negative


Question: This was a typical grade B movie in 1940s Hollywood and yet it succeeded way beyond its expectations. Why? It has a wonderful plot and backed up by Nina Foch, George MacReady and Dame May Witty, as a female villain, of all people.When a young lady answers an advertisement for a secretary, she certainly gets more than she bargained for. The only talents her employers are seeking are those which will lead to her demise. Seems that Witty and MacReady want to pass her off as their daughter-in-law and wife, respectively. MacReady killed his real wife and wants to do Foch in as well so that a body can be claimed.The film deals with how Foch tries to get town people to believe her and how she is thwarted in practically everything she does. Why don't people believe her?

Answer: positive


Question: Is this the future that awaits us? An overpopulated, unforgiving wasteland with a hellish, unwanted existence? This film brings to mind a problem that still plagues us, doubly so since the film was released in back in 1973. Let's hope that the world isn't going to end up like this...Soylent Green is a wild movie that I enjoyed very much. It had likable characters, a semi-apocalyptic setting, a compelling and thought-provoking storyline, and the macho-est macho man out there: Charleton Heston. Richard Fleischer gave the movie a very unpleasant, dirty feel. You're almost choked by the stench from the city and its filthy inhabitants.The characters are wonderful. Charleton Heston, who has become one of my favorite actors, IS Thorn. The man created this role of badass, yet likable tough-guy. I could definitely put myself in Thorn's shoes. He sees that something isn't right, but everyone around him either doesn't listen (more like paid not to listen) or wants him dead. Edward G. Robinson (in his last film, R.I.P.) plays the lovable old Sol, who has had enough of this nasty place. Everyone else is great, especially Leigh Taylor-Young as Shirl, a piece of "furniture" that comes with the apartment in which she resides.The special effects are fantastic, even for 1973. The Soylent Green factory, the futuristic apartments, and especially the "scoops" (bulldozers that get rid of people) were excellent. The polluted air outside looks disgusting and very nasty. The empty city streets filled with the vile and putrid people are very unsettling.One final note is the ending, which even now still shocked me. It is gruesome, but if you think about it, it's a pretty good idea.The Bottom Line: An excellent 70's Science Fiction flick that makes you think and leaves you feeling very uneasy.

Answer:
positive