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: A young solicitor from London, Arthur Kidd is sent to a small coastal town of Crythin Gifford to oversee the estate of a recently passed away widow Mrs Drablow. While attending her funeral, a mysterious lady dressed in black catches his attention. Supposedly Drablow lived a reclusive life, and locals kept pretty quiet about her. After this he heads to Mrs Drablow mansion that can only be reached on a causeway through the swamp during low tide. There he encounters the woman in black again in cemetery out back of the house, and things begin to get creepy as terrifying noises start coming from the marshes. Now can Mrs Drablow's belongings and listening to her recorded dairy entries help Kidd figure out this gloomy mystery that the locals fear to talk about.Often highly regarded amongst horror fans as being one of the most chilling ghost stories ever and I can see their point. But only in doses does it draw upon tag. Yes, from what you can gather I was left a 'little' under-whelmed, despite really liking it. I was expecting goose bumps throughout the whole feature, but that's probably it expecting. Mainly I had a similar reaction with the 1980 haunted house thriller 'The Changeling'. When you hear so many good things, it's sometimes hard not get caught up with it.Anyhow what the British TV presentation of "The Woman in Black" effectively does is bring out a truly old-fashion, slow burn spine-tingling premise driven by its moody locations, disquieting atmosphere and first-rate performances. Subtly blankets the psychologically gripping story (adapted off Susan Hill's novel of the same name), as the simple mystery authentically opens up with a depressingly tragic tone and successfully characterises its protagonist. Little seems to happen, and can feel drawn out, but the fragile randomness of it catch you off guard. Whenever the camera focuses on the lady in black. Who mostly appears as a background figure, it's ultimately creepy. She might not appear all that much, but when she does. Talk about unnerving! That also goes for that downbeat conclusion. Pauline Moran, who plays the woman in black, competently gets us nervous by just her gaunt appearance and sudden positioning. A pale look and those minor mannerisms just seem to haunt you. She's a spirit you don't want to cross paths with, yet alone let her see you. An accomplished performance by a marvelously moody Adrian Rawlins as the solicitor Arthur Kidd does hold it all together. In support are solid turns by Bernard Hepton, David Daker, Clare Holman and David Ryall.Drawing heavy on its lushly sombre rural town and foggy coastal locations adds more to the realistically eerie plight and the centre piece were everything unfolds in the forlorn, time-worn Victorian house that comprehensively suffocates the air with constant fear. Director Herbert Wise carefully fabricates alarming imagery that slowly covers one secretive piece at a time in a smoothly paved out rhythm of well-judged contriving. Instead of going out to shock us, some scenes contain a distressing intensity that won't let go. The sound effects are masterfully used, by surrounding and disorienting the air. Rachel Portman's harrowing musical score knows how to get under your skin during those eerie moments and then stay with you.This rarity made-for-television feat is a stimulating rich and unsettling supernatural spook-fest. It might not share much new to the sub-genre, but it competently sticks to it strengths to deliver what counts in this curse.

Answer: positive

Question: This is possibly one of the worst giant killer animal movies I have ever seen. It follows the typical premise of a laboratory experiment gone wrong and a giant crocodile with a rapid growth chemical in it escapes. The monster looks way to much like a dinosaur, having big Tyranosaurous-like hind legs, when it should just look like an over-sized crocodile. Everything about this movie is unoriginal and it constantly oozes "cliche", minute after minute. Why are there always two drunken redneck hunters out after dark who separate? Plus, there's always a guy and girl who share a lame, obvious love interest while they are in life threatening situations. To much has already been said by me and I feel as if I'm wasting my time writing this...

Answer: negative

Question: There are many adaptations of Charlotte Bronte's classic novel "Jane Eyre", and taking into consideration the numerous reviews written about them there is also a lively discussion on which of them is the best. The short film adaptations all suffer from the fact that it is simply not possible to cram the whole plot of the novel into a movie of about a 100 min. length, consequently these movies only show few parts of the novel. The TV series have proved to be a more suitable format to render all the different episodes of the heroine's life.There are three TV mini series, released in '73, '83 and 2006. The 2006 version is not only the worst of these three, but the worst of all Jane Eyre adaptations and a striking example of a completely overrated film. The novel's beautiful lines are substituted by insipid and trivial ones, and crucial scenes are either deleted or replaced by scenes which have nothing whatever to do with the novel. What it all leads to then is that the characters portrayed have not only nothing in common with the Rochester and Jane of the novel and behave in exactly the opposite way as described in the book, but that also their behaviour and language is absolutely not consistent with the behaviour of the period in which the novel is set. It is a silly soap opera, in which the actors look and act as if they had been put in the costumes of the 1850ies by mistake. This "Jane Eyre" (as it dares to call itself) is indeed a slap in the face of Charlotte Bronte.The 1973 version is very faithful to the novel in that the long dialogues between Mr. Rochester and Jane are rendered in nearly their full length. But what works beautifully in the novel does not necessarily work beautifully on the screen. At times the language of the novel is too complex and convoluted as to appear natural when spoken on screen, and the constant interruptions of the dialogues by Jane's voice-overs add to the impression of artificiality and staginess. And despite the faithfulness to the novel the essence of the scenes is not captured. Another problem is the casting of the main characters. Sorcha Cusack's portrayal of Jane as a bold, self-confident, worldly-wise young woman is totally at odds with the literary model, and Michael Jayston, although a good actor, does simply not possess the commanding physical presence nor the charisma necessary to play Rochester. Although a decent adaptation it simply fails to convey the passion and intensity of the novel and never really captivates the audience.All the faults of the '73 version stand corrected in the TV mini series of '83 with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. Although from a purist's point of view Timothy Dalton is too handsome, tall and lean to be Rochester, he possesses the essential qualities for the role: He has an imposing physical presence, great magnetism and an air of self-assurance and authority. And despite his undeniable handsomeness he looks grim and stern enough to play the gloomy master of Thornfield convincingly. But the excellence of his performance lies in the way he renders all the facets of Rochester's character. Of all the actors who have played Rochester he is the only one to capture them all: Rochester's harshness, nearly insolence, his moodiness and abruptness, as well as his humorous side, his tenderness, his solicitude and deep, frantic love. Dalton's handling of Charlotte Bronte's language is equally superb. Even Rochester's most far-fetched and complicated thoughts ring absolutely true and natural when Dalton delivers them. He is the definitive Rochester, unsurpassed and unsurpassable, and after watching him in this role it is impossible to imagine Rochester to be played in any other way or by any other actor.Zelah Clarke delivers an equally excellent performance in a role that is possibly even more difficult to play well than the one of Rochester. She portrays exactly the Jane of the novel, an outwardly shy, reserved and guarded young woman, but who possesses a great depth of feeling and an equally great strength of will. She catches beautifully the duality in Jane's character: her modesty and respectfulness on the one hand, and her fire and passion on the other, her seeming frailty and her indomitable sense of right and wrong. She and Dalton have wonderful chemistry and their scenes together are pure delight.As regards faithfulness to the literary model this version also quotes verbatim from the novel as does the '73 version, but with one important difference: The dialogues are shortened in this version, but the core lines which are essential for the characterisation of the protagonists and the development of the plot are rendered unchanged. Thus the scriptwriter avoided any artificiality of speech, while still fully preserving the beauty and originality of Charlotte Bronte's language. And in contrast to the earlier BBC version the essence of each scene is perfectly captured.The plot of the novel is followed with even greater accuracy than in the '73 series. It is nearly a scene for scene enactment of the novel, where equal time and emphasis is given to each episode of Jane's life. It is the only Jane Eyre adaptation that has a gypsy scene worthy of the novel, and the only one which does full justice to the novel's pivotal and most heartrending scene when Jane and Rochester meet after the aborted wedding. Timothy Dalton in particular plays that scene with superb skill. He renders with almost painful intensity Rochester's anguish as he realizes Jane's resolution to leave him, his frantic attempts to make her stay and his final despair as she indeed leaves him. It is a heartbreaking, almost devastating, scene, which will stay with the viewer for a long time.With even the smaller roles perfectly cast, an excellent script and two ideal leading actors this is the definitive and only true "Jane Eyre".

Answer:
positive