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.

******* SPOILER! ********i saw this gr8 film a few years back, its a lovely story about a young fella who wants to drink his mothers milk at the breast but she thinks he is to old for it. he ends up lusting after another ladies breasts and ends up in competition with his brother who fancies her. throw in a jealous husband of this woman who cannot get "aroused" and you have a cheeky yet warm story about love, friendship and lovely pairs of jugs heheits brilliantdont be put off by sub-tit-les hehe!
positive

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

Have you ever had a cool image in your mind that you thought it would be nice to be in a movie: Like seeing a detective peeking through the cracks of a broken fence of some abandoned house? Or seeing a woman walking down a street looking cold and intense and awfully alert? Yeah. Imagine stretching that image to a whole movie, you pretty much got the idea of Broken, though there's no detectives in this movie, I'm just using it as a visual example. But, the intense looking woman is here and she filled pretty much 99% of the screen time. I got nothing to complain about that woman, she's a perfect choice for this role.I consider myself a very open minded individual who can find enjoyment out of all kinds of artistic expressions and I can truly enjoy some really moody stuff. It would be really cool if I can frame one of the scene from this movie and hang it on the wall. Let's be honest here, the acting is superb. Some of the expressions on the actors face are what keep me watching.Now onto the problem of this movie. Beyond the mood, there's not much anything else here. The director basically took an obsession of an idea and ran it far beyond what it was worth. I don't consider it to be a spoiler if I say the obsession is "mirror". Let's face it, this singular idea is all over the bloody place and that's all the director got to work with. Granted, there are a few twist and turn here and there. If you paid any attention, nothing is going to surprise you in the end, obvious plot holes aside.Now, I'm not picking bones with this style of art since I enjoyed them most of the time. I still believe that we should judge an art base on the medium it uses to express whatever the artists want to express. Movie is not a piece of music, or a picture, or a painting, or even a poem, and certainly not just a cool image in your mind. It's all that plus a good story and character development. I consider the Lynch style of movie making cheating. It is irresponsible and cheap and a waste of the medium. We gave movies 2 hours running film time for a good reason. Therefore, we should judge it differently than judging a single frame of imagery such as a photograph or a painting.This movie is not completely Lynch style, thank goodness. It has a linear development and eventually came to a conclusion. It does not have much story or character development. It presented itself rather seriously with characters composed of common folks, thus distance itself from other fantasy stuff at least from the surface. It does not offer any explanation of the fantasy element nor did it ever attempt to build a coherent world around it. The oddity came from nowhere and seems rather isolated and accidental. Maybe the coherency remains in director's head but from what I can see he did not put much effort into realizing it on the screen.Where did he put his effort in then? It seems that he spent a lot of effort in building the mood and enhancing it with the music. The music often built up tension which eventually turn into a tease. Only in the later part of the movie the scare and tension materialized.In the end, I felt like: OK, I know what you are trying to say here but is that the point you are trying to make by spending two hours building up all these tension? It is rather irrelevant with who the characters are and what kind of life they have. And we are given very little about who the characters are. All we have is this circumstance that just took placed. Disappointing but I guess the director did not have much material to work with and it shows.
negative