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.

Q: It's not a terrible movie, really, and Glenn and Keitel are top-notch actors. Further, they do an acceptable job with the very weak script. The scenery is lush and the plot has some interesting twists. Further, I umderstand why these actors and the crew made the film, they are professionals and they get paid for it. But I do wonder why studios spend the time and money to make a film and then don't release it for theater audiences? Even if a film is a box-office flop, surely it makes some money. If you are a fan of Keitel or Glenn, rent the video or catch it on TV, as did I. Granted, the movie won't help solve the immigration quandary with Mexico, but the experience is far better than 90% of the standard TV fare of today.

A: negative
****
Q: They're not jawing journalists Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell from "His Girl Friday" or witty detective William Powell and sassy lady Myrna Loy from Thin Man, but Woody Allen and Scarlett Johansson are surprisingly charming as amateur sleuths in Scoop. Their screwball repartee is more postmodern than post Depression, Allen's writing filled with ironic self deprecation and plain old New York angst. Shades of the old wit occur rarely, such as when he, as Sid, the Great Splendini magician, responds about his background: "I was born into the Hebrew persuasion, but when I got older I converted to narcissism." Johansson, fresh from Allen's Match Point as a bad girl, here gets to be a relatively good, sometimes ditsy journalism student caught in a murder mystery suitable for London: a serial killer. The plot is a reworking of his recent London-based thriller Match Point, right down to the upper-class sins and the "American Tragedy"/Place in the Sun boating "accident." As a matter of fact, Allen is reworking Manhattan Murder Mystery and Purple Rose of Cairo to name just a couple of other examples. I care not if he reworks; I would like the new material to be at least the equal of the originals, and, alas, it is just a reflection of his younger greatness.Allen as director and actor can't hide his love for the actress, as he couldn't for Diane Keaton, and therefore takes a middling comedy into an appropriate place down the Allen canon, not great but amusing, at times brilliantly satirical: About the suspected upper-class murderer, Sid (Allen) quips, "I'd be very surprised if he killed one person." This is vintage Allen humor. While there are barely any bright literary allusions as in most of his film, he lards Scoop with music from Grieg, Tchaikovsky, and Strauss to let us know the Woodman has not lost his touch of class.

A: positive
****
Q: Caught this by accident on a t.v. showing - and could hardly believe how utterly awful the whole experience was. By comparison, the original "A Man Called Horse" was spell-binding because it held one's interest throughout. But this piece of nonsense - words fail me. It was bad enough to have some kind of a "story" presented with all the impact of a wet loaf of bread, but that error was compounded by the obvious lack of subtitles throughout whenever the so-called "Sioux" spoke. For goodness sake, couldn't the film-makers have found enough North American Indians who were also actors and near-actors to perform as "Indians" in this farrago instead of the imposters they actually used? I also found it quite embarrassing watching Richard Harris cavorting all around the countryside at the obvious behest of the director standing just behind camera, telling him to run and jump from pointless Point A to pointless Point B just to make up film footage and minutes. Absolutely terrible in all respects!

A:
negative
****