instruction:
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.
question:
I've never found Charley Chase very funny, even though his on-screen character sometimes reminds me of John Cleese, whom I find VERY funny. (Charley Chase also reminds me of gowky Hen Broon from Scotland's 'Sunday Post' comics page.) In Chase's best films, I tend to admire his professionalism rather than laughing at him. I'll give Chase credit that his very best films -- such as 'Mighty Like a Moose' and 'His Wooden Wedding' -- have inspired a fandom who are fiercely loyal to him ... but I'm positive that even the most die-hard Chase fan will agree that the very early and very crude 'Married to Order' just isn't funny at all.Chase -- eager, awkward, gormless, naff -- is a young swain hoping to court the fair Rose. Oliver Hardy gives the best performance in this film as her blowhard father, who disdains Chase as a 'mollycoddle'. Leo White, who did more notable work as a foil for Chaplin at Essanay, is on hand here as a rival.There's some action involving an Ingersoll watch. I was intrigued that the brand name is mentioned in the dialogue titles: is this an early example of product-placement? Sadly, a major flaw in 'Married to Order' is the casting of Rosemary Theby as Rose: she's meant to be a standard-issue ingenue, but Theby -- flat-chested, hawk-faced -- is physically wrong for the role. Theby (the wife of Harry Myers) had a successful career as a screen actress, but was never a believable ingenue. Film historian William K Everson dealt with her very dismissively in one of his film books.I'll rate 'Married to Order' just 3 out of 10, and I'm being charitable ... because I keep suspecting that Charley Chase has got something that everyone else gets but I keep missing.
answer:
negative


question:
This is one of the very few movies out there which are very erotic without being pornographic, despite there being only a very rudimentary plot. There's not much live sound or dialogue; instead, the actors do voice-overs describing their experience, why they participated, etc.It's a document.It's mind-blowing.I can totally understand why nobody else ever tried to do something like this. There already is something like this. This. :-)NB: The producer doesn't have the rights to distribute a DVD version. I've also never seen it being sold anywhere; one may email Mr. Boerner and order a copy on VHS.
answer:
positive


question:
Can anybody do good CGI films besides Pixar? I mean really, animation looked antiquated by 2006 standards and even by 1995 Toy Story standards. Or maybe they spent all their budget on Hugh Jackman. Whatever their reasoning, the story truly did suck.Somehow, Hugh Jackman is a rat - a rat that is flushed down a toilet. Yeah I know, seems stereotypical. But then the sewer mimicked the ways of London - to an extent. Throw in a promise of jewels (????) and an evil(??) frog and you get a pathetic attempt at entertainment.I would like to say something entertained me. Maybe the hookup in the movie? Or maybe the happily-ever-after rat relationship. But nothing did. It had the talent, but it blew up. D-
answer:

negative