TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: 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.

SOLUTION: negative

PROBLEM: I completely agree with the other comment someone should do a What's up tiger Lily with this film.It has to be one of the worst french films I've seen in a long time (actually along with Brotherwood of the Wolves, 2 horrendous films in a much too short period of time).It's really sad because the cast is really interesting and the original idea kind of fun. Antoine DeCaunes in particular and Jean Rochefort being among my darlings, I was bitterly disappointed to see them compromised in such a poor film.Lou Doyon is quite bad, as usual which goes to prove that a pretty face and famous parents can get you into the movies but they don't necessarily give you talent.avoid this film, if you want to laugh watch an Alain Chabat instead or some nice period piece full of fun like LA FILLE DE D'ARTAGNAN.

SOLUTION: negative

PROBLEM: The Five Deadly Venoms is a great kung-fu action movie wrapped in a whodunnit mystery. There are all the usual telltale signs of a kung-fu flick: great choreography, awful dubbing, different "styles" of fighting, and a wide range of greatly exaggerated, often cheesey human emotions. However the plot certainly is better than average. It's interesting and holds your attention throughout the non-fight scenes. Occasionally it's even able to fire up the audience, such as when X character receives horrible injustice.Another thing I love about the Five Deadly Venoms is the beautiful simplicity of the movie's morals and themes. Just about everyone gets what's coming to them. The cowardly, greedy, and corrupt lose out. The bad guys, consumed by selfish greed are ultimately destroyed by their own treachery and backstabbing. The good guys use teamwork, planning, and integrity to overcome the odds and come out on top. Poison Clan rocks!

SOLUTION:
positive