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:
Horror fans (I'm speaking to the over 12's, although if you're under 12 I apologise for what you might deem an insult): In short, if you appreciate having your imagination disturbed by well written, original storytelling, punctuated by unpredictable well planted scares, and delivered via convincing performances, then I can heartily recommend - AVOIDING THESE STEAMERS - made by directors who have apparently long since past their sell by date. It's no accident that almost every episode feels as if it were made in the 1980's. Not to put blame squarely on the shoulders of some of these old boys (or indeed the 80's) because where would we be without certain movies from the likes of Argento, Carpenter, Landis, Dante and Barker (Actually Clive, WTF are you doing in there?! Glad to see Romero had the good sense to give it a miss as I'm sure he was asked to partake...). More perhaps we should point the finger at creator Mick Garris whose credentials include the logic defying and depressingly ill-advised TV remake of Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece 'The Shining'.Perhaps it is an indication of the state of television today. Are we so starved of good TV horror that we applaud any old sloppy schlock that the networks excrete onto our sets? Sadly, maybe so.Normally I wouldn't see the point of adding a comment that doesn't argue the faults and merits of a production, I'd just rate it accordingly. However, as this series is woefully lacking in any merit (with perhaps the sole exception of the theme tune) I write this as more of a warning than a review: DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME AND MONEY. If you disagree with me then it's more than likely that you haven't seen enough decent horror. Perhaps the earlier films of some of these directors would be a much better place to start, but if these 'Masters' of Horror were being assessed on these works alone, they'd never have been allowed to graduate with even their Bachelor's degree. Unless of course they were studying for a degree from the University Of S**t.
answer:
negative


question:
Greta Garbo's American film debut is an analogy of how our lives can be swept off course by fate and our actions, as in a torrent, causing us to lose a part of ourselves along the way.Greta plays Leonora, a poor peasant girl in love with Ricardo Cortez's character Don Rafael, a landowner. Ricardo is in love with her too, but is too easily influenced by his domineering mother. Leonora ends up homeless and travels to Paris, where she becomes a famous opera singer and develops the reputation for being a loose woman. In reality, part of her attitude is bitterness over Rafael's abandonment.She returns to her home to visit her family and eventually confronts Rafael. Surprisingly, no one knows that she's the famous La Brunna, and Garbo acts up her role as the diva she truly was and re prised with such cool haughtiness in her later portrayals.Ricardo Cortez reminds one a lot of Valentino in looks in this part, and he was groomed to be a Valentino clone by MGM, though he never thought he could be in reality and he was right. He is believable in an unsympathetic part as a weak willed Mama's boy, and allows himself to age realistically but comically at the end of the movie. He fails to win Leonora when she returns home, and later when he follows her, his courage is undermined.This movie is beautifully shot, with brilliant storm sequences and the sets depicting Spain at the time are authentic looking. There are also some fine secondary performances by old timers Lucien Littlefield, Tully Marshall, and Mack Swain.Although this is a story of lost love and missed chances, I don't think Leonora and Rafael would have been happy together, as he needed a more traditional wife and she was very much a career woman, and I don't think would have been happy in a small village. The ending is true to life and pulls no punches.See this one as Garbo's American film debut and a precursor of things to come
answer:
positive


question:
After too many years of waiting, Anne Rivers Siddons' noted 1979 book "The House Next Door" has finally been filmed. The result veers a bit from the novel which, especially in the first story of the trilogy is understandable if unsatisfying as it's a TV film, the whole of which is absorbing and actually very good, just not as great as the book, one of Stephen King's favorites and one of mine as well.With more running time and fewer constraints as a theatrical release, all the richness inherent in the original three-part story of the ominous ultramodern house could have been explored and nurtured, especially the climactic revelation near the very end.Still, the whole cast does well in this thoughtful tale of mindless malevolence. There are a few unnecessary cheap shocks but the growing atmosphere of dread is well developed. Actually, one of the most disturbing scenes involves an abstract painting of the house by its next-door amateur-artist neighbor who is trying to visualize its corruption on canvas.Be sure to read the great novel.
answer:

positive