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.

How viewers react to this new "adaption" of Shirley Jackson's book, which was promoted as NOT being a remake of the original 1963 movie (true enough), will be based, I suspect, on the following: those who were big fans of either the book or original movie are not going to think much of this one...and those who have never been exposed to either, and who are big fans of Hollywood's current trend towards "special effects" being the first and last word in how "good" a film is, are going to love it.Things I did not like about this adaption:1. It was NOT a true adaption of the book. From the articles I had read, this movie was supposed to cover other aspects in the book that the first one never got around to. And, that seemed reasonable, no film can cover a book word for word unless it is the length of THE STAND! (And not even then) But, there were things in this movie that were never by any means ever mentioned or even hinted at, in the movie. Reminded me of the way they decided to kill off the black man in the original movie version of THE SHINING. I didn't like that, either. What the movie's press release SHOULD have said is..."We got the basic, very basic, idea from Shirley Jackson's book, we kept the same names of the house and several (though not all) of the leading character's names, but then we decided to write our own story, and, what the heck, we watched THE CHANGELING and THE SHINING and GHOST first, and decided to throw in a bit of them, too."2. They completely lost the theme of a parapyschologist inviting carefully picked guest who had all had brushes with the paranormal in their pasts, to investigate a house that truly seemed to have been "born bad". No, instead, this "doctor" got everyone to the house under the false pretense of studying their "insomnia" (he really invited them there to scare them to death and then see how they reacted to their fear...like lab rats, who he mentioned never got told they are part of an experiment...nice guy). This doctor, who did not have the same name, by the way, was as different from the dedicated professional of the original movie as night from day.3. In direct contrast to the statement that was used to promote both movies "some houses are just born bad", this house was not born bad but rather became bad because of what happened there...and, this time around, Nel gets to unravel the mystery (shades of THE CHANGELING). The only problem was, the so-called mystery was so incoherently told that I'm sure it remained a mystery to most of the audience...but, then there was no mystery in the first place (not in the book), because the house was bad TO BEGIN WITH. It's first "victim" died before ever setting eyes on it.4. The way the character of Luke was portrayed was absolutely ridiculous. He was supposed to be a debonair playboy who was someday to inherit the house (and was a true skeptic of it's "history")...and in this one he was just a winey-voiced, bumbling nerd who couldn't sleep(insomnia remember) and was a compulsive liar.5. I was also annoyed with the way the movie jumped from almost trying to recreate original scenes word for word (the scene with Nel's sister's family, and Mrs. Dudley's little opening speech...) to going off into flights of fancy that made me think more of these other movies than THE HAUNTING. It's like it couldn't make up its mind what it wanted to do.6. I missed Nel's narrative through the whole movie. The original was so like a gothic novel in the way that the story was mostly told in the first person, through Nel's eyes, and we always were privy to her thoughts. That totally unique touch was completely lost in the new version. They also tried to make Nel much more of a heroine. The original Nel was not a bad person, but she was a bitter person (could she be otherwise after sacrificing 11 years of her life to a selfish old woman and a spiteful sister?) and she liked to moan, and she lost her temper... This one was almost too good to be true. This was never more apparent than in the climax of the movie where the writer's had obviously been watching GHOST one too many times.7. They changed the history of the house and it's occupents too much. There was no Abigail Crain (the daughter of Hugh whose legend loomed large in the original versions), there was no "companion", and there was no nursery. There was also no "Grace" (wife of the original doctor) and Hugh Crain's wives died in totally different ways. These changes, changed the story WAY too much. I don't know whether the producers of this movie should be glad Shirley Jackson no longer walks this earth or whether they should...BE SORRY (if ya get my drift!!! The hauntings she could envision are not something to be trifled with!!!).In conclusion, let me just leave you with some words from the original Luke (appropriate substitution of the word "house" for "movie"!): "This 'movie' should be burnt to the ground, and the ground sprinkled with salt!" My favorite movie of all time remains so. No competition from this one.
negative

New York, I Love You finally makes it to our shores, but its 10 short stories on love somehow didn't find reason enough to be released over Valentine's, probably due to the fact that this year's festival also falls on Lunar New Year, and with that comes the usual LNY blockbuster films from the likes of Jackie Chan (no, not The Spy Next Door) and local filmmaker Jack Neo who has traditionally released his latest film over that period to resounding success. So why fix a formula that hasn't been broken?Continuing in concept where Paris, Je T'aime had begun in spawning the City of Love Franchise (Shanghai will be next, so says the end of the closing credits here), the buzz here is definitely about the intertwining stories set in one of the cities of the world to allow for various interpretations from filmmakers all over to come up with stories based on love as a theme, although someone probably forgot to tell Scarlett Johansson some of the finer points in the sandbox ground rules, and her short was unceremoniously dropped from the theatrical edition for being unable to fit into everything else (well, it was shot in black and white), but here's hoping that it would make it to the DVD at least.Structurally, this series is less compartmentalized compared to its predecessor, which if memory serves me right had individual stories set within its own confines and never really breaking out of its artificial borders created. Here a little more leeway is given, where characters from various stories interact in short filler segments used to bridge scenes together, and not just solely reliant on pick up shots made up of buildings and landscapes, in hopes of making things look a little bit more serendipitous with the idea of chance encounters amongst strangers, though one story craftily adopted this mindset for its own narrative to deliver a surprise, though already seen in Paris.One of the top draws for sitting through a film like this one, is definitely the creative forces behind the stories, from writers, directors and cinematographers from various geographies and backgrounds mirroring the makeup of the cosmopolitan city, coming together for a concept film. And what more the star-studded cast too, with big names amongst the lesser known ones all upping the ante through picture perfect performances, be it for the entire length of the short, or as a support to build upon. You can't deny the initial star-gazing in recognizing the notables, from Irrfan Khan to Natalie Portman (who also had writing and directing duties), Rachel Bilson (looking quite like Bardot) to Spielberg's blue eye boy Shia LaBeouf, who surprisingly can act, and shows off more in his few minutes here than his entire filmography to date.Story wise, like any anthology, you'll find some which will automatically appeal to you, and with others that don't. Some are straightforward in nature, while others have to come up with gimmicky twists that thankfully worked. But these 10 stories plus 1 (because Randall Balsmeyer was given duties to integrate everything together for a more organic feel instead of just plain pick up shots of lesser known areas and established landmarks) somehow lacked the more "anything goes" spirit from its predecessor, with stories more rooted in reality, compared to some fantastical elements in the previous film (Elijah Wood's dalliance with a vampire anyone?), or even less adventurous with its narrative style (Christopher Doyle's, and Tom Tykwer's starring Natalie Portman). Here it seemed that the filmmakers opted very much for safe, with none venturing into that spirit of adventure and experiment.Minor quibbles aside, I still enjoyed almost all the shorts here, contrary to what many others have felt about it. The short film format is still very much alive, and having them strung together into a feature under the City of Love banner works fine, and left me wondering which other cities are or have been included in its lineup. I am hoping that perhaps the franchise will catch on and spread its influence here. We surely have enough prolific filmmakers to be stringing together a Singapore, I Love You, so here's crossing my fingers that maybe something will materialize down the road. Otherwise there's always the Sawasdee Bangkok route of just making it without any attachments to franchise house rules.
positive

My thoughts on the movie, 9It was not good, not good at all. Visually, it was great. I was pleased with the pacing, the camera angles, etc. However, the characters? eh, kinda bland. Plot? It sucked.This movie seemed more new age crap than anything else. Organized religion is presented as cowardly and fearful. Science isn't portrayed any better. It creates a monster weapon that kills everything... but "souls" have the power to destroy monsters and bring life? Really?That's something that bites my ass a bit too. Here we have a CGI movie... created with science... and they're using it to give us the message that science will destroy the world while promoting the idea that spirituality will save us? At least they had the decency to have one of the characters ask,"Okay, so now what?" (or something similar). I couldn't hear it too well because of the crowd immediately getting up and making a break for the exit. It was a "okay... it was just barely entertaining enough to sit here for the entire movie but now let's get out of here as fast as possible!" type of exit.This is one of those movies where you can't think if you want to enjoy it. Just look at the visuals and nod your head prettily. Any thought as to, "what's the point of that?" will suck you out of disbelief and make you eye the exit sign with longing.Okay... SPOILERS follow.So, basically, a scientist creates "the Machine" that is capable of creating other, intelligent, robotic life. Evil humans use it as a weapon. However, the scientist realizes that he is also at fault. He gave the Machine his intellect, but didn't give it his heart. The Machine goes Skynet on humanity's collective ass and wipes out all life on earth, finally slowly powering down. However, the scientist manages to survive and create walking sock-puppets. Each one, containing a piece of the scientist's soul.The last one, #9 wakes up not knowing anything about the world. He sees a strange device nearby and picks it up. He meets up with another like himself, #2. Well, #2 gets captured by a last surviving robot of the Machine. #9 finds more like himself ands sets off to rescue #2. They succeed.#9 notices that there is a matching hole that fits the device perfectly. He inserts it and the Machine comes back to life... pulling out #2's soul in the process.The movie then continues with action scenes with #9 trying to rescue his soul-yanked compatriots. They eventually succeed and destroy the Machine. They release the souls of their fallen friends, who go up into the clouds. It then rains and we see life returning back to the planet.Hunh?!?That makes no sense. None at all. Why the heck did the scientist want to split his soul into 9 homunculi? What did it accomplish? Were they created to stop the machine? Everything is dead! The machine was dead! Why bother?!?Why did he expect nine little critters to succeed when nothing else had? Why not create a second intellectual machine, but with a "soul" to fight the first.. at least that would have seemed like it would have had a reasonable chance at success.Why did they have to have their souls sucked into the device by the Machine and then destroy the Machine and then release the souls in order to bring life back to earth? Why not just wait for the machine to power down and bring life back without all the rest of the insane steps?
negative