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.

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.
negative

The film starts in the Long Island Kennel Club where is murdered a dog,later is appeared dead as a case of committing suicide a collector millionaire called Arched,but sleuth debonair Philo Vance(William Powell)to be aware of actually killing.There are many suspects : the secretary(Ralph Morgan),the butler,the Chinese cooker,the contender(Paul Cavanagh) in kennel championship for revenge killing dog ,the nephew(Mary Astor) facing off her tyrant uncle,the Italian man(Jack La Rue),the brother,the attractive neighbour..Stylish Vance tries to find out who murdered tycoon,appearing many clues ,as a book titled:Unsolved murders. The police Inspector(Eugene Palette)and a coroner are helped by Vance to investigate the mysterious death.The sympathetic forensic medic examines boring the continuous body-count .Who's the killer?.The public enjoys immensely about guess the murder. The picture is an interesting and deliberate whodunit,it's a laborious and intriguing suspense tale.The personages are similar to Agatha Christie stories, all they are various suspects.They are developed on a whole gallery of familiar actors well characterized from the period represented by a glittering casting to choose from their acting range from great to worst. Powell is in his habitual elegant and smart form as Philo.He's protagonist of two famed detectives cinema,this one, and elegant Nick Charles along with Nora(Mirna Loy)make the greatest marriage detectives. Special mention to Mary Astor as the niece enamored of suspect Sir Thomas,she was a noted actress of noir cinema(Maltese falcon). The movie is magnificently directed by Hollywood classic director Michael Curtiz.He directs utilizing modern techniques as the image of dead through a lock-door,a split image while are speaking for phone and curtain-image.The tale is remade as Calling Philo Vance(1940).The film is a good production Warner Bros, by Vitagraph Corp.
positive

i know you've read that before, on countless other films no doubt if you're reading the comments here, but voodoo academy still stands as the absolute worst film i've been able to track down. no doubt the really bad ones aren't even available to buy or watch on tv, but even so i feel it's fair to qualify that i'm not just some dumb renter who picked badly.i've seen two thirds of the bottom 100 ranked films here on the imdb, and i'm ticking of the remaining ones with every chance. most of those stand head and shoulders above this... excersize in absolute monotony.i like to rate truly bad films (as in ones with no humour even in how bad they are) by how many people you need to watch it with to make it all the way through. if you can watch it by yourself, it isn't that bad. if you can watch it with one single friend... it's bad but could be a lot worse.it took 5 of us to make it all the way through voodoo academy. and not even the usually fun moments of watching bad films (spotting the boom mic for example, 3 times in this one if i'm not mistaken) could take away the dry taste in my mouth. yes i'd watched it, but i'd also forced 4 of my friends to watch it with me to achieve that end.i hope and pray we saw the directors cut... to think that there could be a version with 20 more minutes of big eyebrowed lugs with baby oil glands rubbing their torsos just scares the hell out of me. so much of the film centers around this.i do applaud david decoteau for managing to lens this film in two days on a short budget, just as i applaud him for convincing people to pay him to make what is no doubt a celluloid version of some of his fetishes. but it isn't a good film. the original shop of horrors was shot in the same length of time for a comparitive amount of money (considering inflation) and was an utter gem. it's not an excuse for how bad this baby is.spoilers ahead...it's not even worth picking apart the plot holes or cliched know it all hero characters... the pacing of the film... is insane... nothing... is interesting for the length of time decoteau dedicates to the pectoral self massaging. no matter what your alignment or sex... rubbing just cannot sustain that kind of screen time.the acting is cheese... but not overly amatuer... i've seen a lot worse in better films... but somehow it's the semi competent delivery of some of the worst lines you'll ever hear in a film, that really grates.rent this if, like me, you have a fascination with the worst of the worst, and only if you're going to watch it with a group of people who are prepared to work to get through it. this is no ha ha ha the set wobbled affair. it's an endurance test you probably want to skip.i'm sure there is worse... but i wouldn't be surprised if it has decoteau's name on it.
negative