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: first this deserves about 5 stars due to acting (some which would give me a better subjective opinion and NOT an objective one as it should by giving this one, WELL DESERVED, star) but then i know that those facts are used for the actor(S) NAMES to increase the rating of something like this...i do have a problem with such productions; yet another attempt (just like "untraceable") of a systematic propagandistic feature promoting government intrusion on your rights( how interesting that it comes at a moment when IPS providers trying to "preferentiate" = CENSOR information, and the Americans and Canadians are fighting AGAINST that at this very moments). this time is not by labeling torrent file transfers as evil ( that one was intended to remind you of such feeling whenever you transfer data on the net), but by literally attempting in creating a sexual frustrated population as a whole. SEEMS LIKE FEAR PROMOTION IS HOLLYWOOD'S NORM THIS DAYS, especially when coming to thrillers which is the most "on demand" motion picture genre for past 2 decades or so = most viewed, best way to try influence the society as a whole. such levels of violence are depicted in this 2 features of morally and "ethical" people, that it gives a new much needed meaning to "anti-heroes" figures. make no mistake , this is NOT "DEXTER" which was meant to be high-quality entertainment.STOP SELLING "FEAR" please, the world would be a better place without it and the dollars made of it.the opening scene and generally the first 10 minutes really give a frightful picture of an Erroll Babbage that is CLEARLLY suffering of sexual frustration. the way he handles the black male is very disturbing if not outright racist(for sure a "cliche" at least) ( in real life someone would probably get a beating for it, you will see what i mean). the second scene ( with Claire Danes's character present) is even more extreme. at that point i realized, in my opinion that Erroll Babbage is a very dangerous individual to people around him.how many people, that have seen or will see this movie, have never been "hold down"(regarding BOTH sexes) out of self, COMMON gratification!?.typically the movie gives an extreme CRIMINAL case(that unfortunately did, is and will likely happen again sometime , somewhere) BUT fingers everyone else indirectly as well as "you could become that", etc. anyone that is familiar with Sigmund Freud and Jung will know very well that sexuality is not something to be judged let alone "asses" , by such fanatical "hero" here. SAFE sex in its many forms IS healthy and not some evil that apparently Richard Gere character is obsessed with , on his way for some sexual "crusade". have we not learned anything from the abundant recent scandals involving priests and young boys!? or for how long an American teenager can see extreme violence on "pg-13" but he can not even see a woman breast until "R-18"!?!?( yet the industry targets them with this VERY SAME sexual perversions like "american pie" series for example).raise the kids tester-one levels but frustrate them and drive them underground in developing fetishes to UNhealthy EXTREMES!? all sexual activities(upon MUTUAL acceptance) integrates individuals better then some "rightous" nut-case, THAT blames his misfortunes and shortcomings on "the lives of others"( a new German movie that would work great in comparing this 2 distinct and world apart features on the very same subject).here, like in that movie, you will probably appreciate the actors for well portraying the opposite of what they should have been.i am very disappointed with Richard Gere especially after the recent " hunting party", a feature where he really shines and about a more realistic "hero"( after real facts as well).but then it just reminds me that all those people are only actors that get paid to play someone's political and social agenda. "the flock" and "untraceable" 2 heads of the same hidden beast)))it just reminds you, if know anyone with similar views on the subject as a WHOLE, as Erroll Babbage has those here, to stay clear of them for THEIR own safety.they would kill my family faster then any 0.00001 chances of Paul Jerrod in anyone's life would...in the end i recommend this to anyone thinking negative here about MY "assesment" of this particular movie ( and "untraceable" actually), so you can likely have similar thoughts as i did. nothing sweeter then a propagandistic movie shooting itself in the "foot".))))for once i agree with the rating, this is not a feature for teenagers or kids; simply because at best would confuse them even more then the "common" belief of "money+fame+fashion" and how that relates to sexuality. "scream" series and movies as such AT LEAST have a defined entertainment value(even if a dumb one in my opinion). but this one is just another "trust me i know what is good for you" deeply (not so well done i might add) subliminal messages.

SOLUTION: negative

PROBLEM: It is projected that between 2000 and 2020, 68 million people will die prematurely as a result of AIDS. The projected toll is greatest in sub-Saharan Africa where 55 million additional deaths can be expected. Beyond the grim statistics are personal stories that we rarely hear about. Christophe Honore describes one of the most moving in Close to Leo, a film produced for French television as part of a series dealing with issues facing young people. Though fictional, it deals with a situation that is unfortunately too common -- the effect of a diagnosis of HIV on a loving close-knit family.When twenty one-year old Leo (Pierre Mignard) tells his parents and two teenage brothers, Tristan (Rodolphe Pauley) and Pierrot (Jeremie Lippmann) that he has AIDS, the family is devastated. Out of concern for his youth, they decide to withhold the information from his youngest brother, 12-year old Marcel (Yannis Lespert) but he overhears the conversation and begins to sulk and act erratically. When Leo goes to Paris for treatment, he takes Marcel with him but the young boy confronts Leo and demands to know the truth. Leo tells him that he is ill and Marcel is sad but accepting. When he brings Marcel along to meet some former gay friends, however, tension between them boils to the surface, setting the stage for a riveting conclusion. Although I was uncomfortable with scenes in bed involving physical contact between the brothers, I feel that the sincerity of Close to Leo and the brilliant performances by Lespert and Mignard more than tip the scales in its favor. Seeing events unfold from the young boy's perspective gives the film an authenticity that reminded me of the Quebecois film Leolo and Truffaut's The 400 Blows. Unlike some American films that dance around the anguish of AIDS, Close to Leo tells a harsh truth but does so in a way that is tender and wonderfully real.

SOLUTION: positive

PROBLEM: oh my god, i give this film three stars out of ten for the following reasons. the final sequence is once again quite effectively handled and it was absolutely hilarious. that is what it gets those three points for. other than that, it was atrocious. it wasnt meant to be this funny, that much is obvious, but the dubbing, the acting of the dubbed voices, the dialogue they said, where often hilarious. the actions performed, and/or not performed also lead to much hilarity and/or throwing things at the screen. such as when the whole town is being slaughtered and one small group of people stand on a balcony looking on as if they were watching a cooking glass, or the "attempted" escapes from the church in which they hole up.evil mayor: i think something is going on outside so you should go upstairs and look out the window.hero: ok.evil mayor: now is my chance to make some idiot go outside and flail around with fire being totally ineffective and getting hacked up.insert sequence in which this occurs.evil mayor: damn, wait, i will get this small child and she will walk outside and cry pappa seemingly obvlious to the fact that those rotten corpses are not just spooky strangers but are actually zombies with no flesh or skin or anything and she will lead them away and i will flee! insert sequence in which this occurs.hero (upstairs): he is trying to escape again, fool, and he has left the door open, he is silly, this is a nice view.woman: where is my daughter?hero (downstairs now): i dont know, i cannot see her anyway and she was not outside because i could not see her despite her being out there and me having a view of the entire neighbourhood and she is standing right outside, where on earth could she be?needless to say, anybody would be throwing things at the screen after 10 minutes of this. so, watch the first film with a couple of friends, having a few drinks, and make sure by the time you get to watching this one, you are absolutely blindly drunk and can just giggle at the stupidity of it all. and there wasnt even any decent gore, such a shame.

SOLUTION:
negative