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.

Q: Margret Laurence probably didn't intend on having any of her novels adopted for film, let alone the Stone Angel. Hagar, as a character, was one who constantly challenged the social norm (Gainsay who dare, anyone?), and ended up nearly sacrificing her humanity in the process. The symbols in the book (the Stone Angel, Silver Thread, etc, etc.) are constant reminders of this struggle of the old and new, and the carnage (so to speak) along the way.While the film is reasonably faithful to the plot of the book (but it isn't really a plot kind-of storytelling, is it?), I think it missed the point on capturing the spirit of the film. Hagar's defiance (for the sake of defiance) was not there. Bram could have been a lot more crude than portrayed, and Hagar's father could have been played more "traditionally", so to speak. If the filmmaker would insisted on stronger portrayals, the film would drive the point straight to home.Along the same vein, why should we see cell phones, organic produce, and other modernizations? Are we trying make some points for the sake of making some points (e.g., the Muslim girlfriend and the Native people). Hagar and co. are everything but politically correct in the book, so why should we see that in the film version. Modernization may be an excuse for a low-budget operation, but using that as an excuse to send subliminal politically-correct messages that are totally irrelevant to the novel (and the film) seems like throwing punches below the intellect.There is also the audience. It seems that we have been conditioned to see bitter old people as cute and lovable. Why should be laugh every time Hagar is at her tantrums? I doubt Magaret Laurence wanted her readers to laugh at, or with, Hagar. These people are frustrated and are full of angst, and all we do is to laugh at them. I don't think it did Hagar and other folks in her situation any justice.

A: negative
****
Q: I had high hopes for this film. I thought the premise interesting. I stuck through it, even though I found the acting, save Helena Bonham Carter, unremarkable. I kept hoping my time spent would pay off, but in the end I was left me wondering why they even bothered to make this thing. Maybe in George Orwell's version there is a message worth conveying. If this film accomplished anything, it has inspired me to read Orwell's classic. I find it hard to believe his tale could be as disappointing as this adaption. If the film maker's message is "the mundane life is worth living", well then, they've succeeded. I would recommend this film to no one; 101 minutes of my life wasted.

A: negative
****
Q: Obvious attack on Microsoft made by people who don't appear to understand intellectual property or market economies generally.Loony liberal tim robbins plays a painfully obvious caricature of bill gates, and is a cartoonish corporate villain ordering murders right and left.While microsoft may engage in some anticompetitive activity at times, it's unlikely they actually murder people. Therefore, the film is over the top and ridiculous from the beginning.The "deeper" point is apparently that major tech innovations should be free to the public, and not subject to intellectual property laws. However, this ignores the fact that most major innovations would never have been developed if not for the market incentives (and rewards) provided by intellectual property.It's one thing to be opposed to anti-competitive conduct -- that's common sense. It's quite another to be opposed to market competition in the first place, which is what the film's mantra ("knowledge belongs to mankind") represents.Yet another example of Hollywood being completely out of touch with reality.

A:
negative
****