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: Mean-spirited, ugly, nasty retro-action thriller, about a bodyguard who is determined to find (and destroy!), the killers of the girl he was supposed to protect. This film is almost an anachronism in today's politically correct atmosphere. Director Scott doesn't have any desire to apologize for the inherently immorality behind the film's dramatic structure. Scott is either not aware or doesn't care for 30 years of social advances. I really don't think we will see a more violent film any time soon, so you better go and see this one while you can. Despite its relentless grimness, I think the movie is a powerful example of cinema at its most sinister, exploitative, and effective. Scott has a tough thing to sell, but I think I'm a buyer. The extraordinary technical aspects of this film are just too effective for me to ignore. Scott's directorial choices are simply astonishing, and he pulls a great performance out of Denzel Washington. Sensitive souls need to stay away from this one, but I recommended it to those viewers looking for a great, action-filled movie.

A: positive
****
Q: This is one of the greatest love story movies I have ever seen. Yes, I can agree that some parts may seem dated, but this does not distract from the film. One should try to observe, criticize and enjoy any art form from the perspective of the time. Clearly by the "Sex in the City" standards, Charlie Chaplin was horribly boring. However, when judged from the prospective of 1925 America, he was fantastic. Likewise Sayonara is a breakthrough film in its look into a mixed-race love affair, American "manifest destiny" arrogance and prejudice, and the complexity of different cultures. It is a natural next step to such films as Gentleman's Agreement. Its purpose, however, was not just social commentary, rather, it is entertaining and enjoyable, with innumerable lines that one just doesn't forget.However, even when taken only as a love story, it is terrific. Although, some attack Brando's accent, he is at his near best in nuance and characterization. Buttons and Umeki (who both won Oscars) and the rest of the supporting cast add much to the film.Taka, the real star, does a fabulous job making you feel the passion she has for Brando, while being torn by her sense of obligation and loyalty. Her speech when she first meets and speaks with Brando is a classic and something rarely if ever matched in cinema. The dialog between Taka and Brando in her dressing room in Tokyo at the film's end is equally good. Of course, it doesn't have the mouth-sucking, spit-swapping and worse, that exemplifies love in today's movies, but that makes it all the better. It portrays true love and passion, and not just "heat." If this movie doesn't touch you, then you are just too young, too cynical or dead.

A: positive
****
Q: Why do I like DISORGANIZED CRIME so much? Why do I chuckle or laugh out loud any time I think of a dozen or more scenes from this movie? It's kind of hard to explain, but I'll give it a try. First of all, it's very funny indeed - in contrast to what lots of "official" reviews want you to believe. But then again, that depends entirely on your sense of humour, so there is no sense in arguing about that. Often the humour is in the dialogue, and often it is situational comedy. There is for instance this very hilarious scene in which the 4 gang members have been given a lift in the back of a truck. When the farmer drops them, they just stand there by the road, covered all over with cow s*** or whatever. They are totally unnerved; then, realizing the humour of the scene, they one by one start laughing about themselves, and Ruben Blades (as Carlos), looking (and certainly smelling) terrible, nonchalantly takes out some mouth spray to at least do something about his breath (simply describing the scene here makes me chuckle again!). Which leads to the second point: the acting. Fred Gwynne, Lou Diamond Phillips, William Russ, Ruben Blades and Corbin Bernsen (okay, the latter overdoes it a bit at times) all fit and play their parts beautifully - in fact, you get the feeling they must have been enjoying themselves too when shooting the film. Thirdly, there is the plot . Jim Kouf, the director and screenwriter, is very laid-back; he takes his time to let the plot unfold and have the individual characters establish themselves. More often than not, there is no real action, and yet you enjoy these 4 very different people - who attempt to rob a bank although their boss (Bernsen) does not seem to turn up - grumble about each other and even-tually, grudgingly, like each other. The movie is a fantastic parody of the typical bank robbery plot - totally impossible with all its twists and coincidences, yet utterly convincing in its love for ironic details. Incidentally, the title of the film is one of the best I have ever come across, because it per-fectly summarizes the plot in a very ironic way. Therefore, take my advice: watch this film, but if you don't chuckle, grin or smile during the first 10 minutes, forget it - it's not your type of film. PS. The only negative thing about this movie is that there seems to be no way to get hold of the screenplay - if you happen to know how, do tell me.

A:
positive
****