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: This is one of the worst action films I have ever seen. This is particularly due to much of the factual implausibility (like an obvious agent posing as a bank loan officer while making obvious that he is speaking to someone through a wire or the scene where the scientists assume it is safe to enter a room in which a virus has been released even though 'it has not found a viable host' does not mean that it will never find one), the cheap sets (the bank looks like it was poorly constructed to resemble a dungeon), and the bad acting. It is the story of an organized crime group that has successfully stolen a capsule of the lethal virus. However, the head honcho who decides to remove it from a bank security deposit box, does so at the same time a bank heist is going down, at the same FBI agents have been informed of this, and at the same time a terrible earthquake erupts. Needless to say, the aftermath of the quake is messy in more ways than one. However, the results do not make for an enticing action film, but instead, one that has been obviously z-grade junk from the beginning of the film. (Perhaps this is why some of the screen captures on the packaging look to be created with computer graphics rather than being actual screen captures from various sequences of the film). What the hell Ron Perlman was doing in this, I have no idea. I wonder if he was as embarrassed to be in it as I was to have watched it.

SOLUTION: negative

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 thought this move was very good. There were a few things that were less than perfect, but overall, I was quite surprised. The courtroom scene in the end seemed a little unrealistic, but was real enough to be entertaining. I found that the movie communicated the hardships of going though military training and the sacrifices that go along with it. Being a military pilot I could relate to many of these parts.

SOLUTION:
positive