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]: The movie "Holly" is the story of a young girl who has been sold by her poor family and smuggled across the border to Cambodia to work as a prostitute in the infamous "K11" red light village. In the movie, Holly is waiting to be sold at a premium for her virginity when she meets Patrick who is losing money and friends through gambling and bar fights. Patrick and Holly have an immediate bond over their "stubbornness", but this is all disrupted when Holly is sold to a child trafficker and disappears. As movie goers, we are then thrust into Patrick's pursuit to find Holly again. Holly then shows her willingness to leave this lifestyle but her confusion on what is right and wrong. "Holly" carries us through the beautiful and harsh Cambodia while discovering that HOLLY is not just one girl. She is the voice of millions of children who are exploited and violated every year with no rights or protection.Holly is less extreme than its subject matter might suggest, such as documentaries that involve 4-year olds and sexual trafficking, but does manage to shed considerable light on Cambodian / Vietnamese trafficking of children into prostitution. It is a moving story that helps to shed light on the horrible situation in which many children face and their struggles to trust and realize what is right and wrong.Patrick, the antagonist of the film is an American dealer of stolen artifacts who is also losing money and friends while playing cards and getting into bar fights. While on a journey, his motorbike runs out of fuel, and he is forced to rent a room at a brothel. During his stay he comes across Holly, a twelve year old girl who has been sold by her parents and is being abducted into slavery and prostitution. Holly and Patrick begin a friendship of trust and understanding. He discovers a clever, stubborn girl beneath the traumatized exterior and becomes determined to save her -- though their strictly platonic relationship is misinterpreted by almost everyone they meet. When she suddenly disappears, he starts a journey to track her down, without having thought if he can really help her.Holly is able to escape on her way to another brothel, when she jumps from the truck and runs into a field filled with mines. A mine is set off by a cow and the truck driver believes she is dead, so Holly is then left on her own. During Patrick's journey to find holly he meets a social worker who tries to talk some sense into him and shares the facts with him that haunts the Cambodian region. The idea of paying for her freedom simply fuels the demand, she explains: 30,000 children in prostitution in Cambodia - next year it could be 60,000. "I'm not trying to save 60,000," he tells her, "I'm trying to save one." Patrick discovers that the idea of whisking her to safety is quickly put to rest when the social worker tells him that the US will not let him adopt and, although it takes five minutes to 'save' a child, it takes five years to reintegrate her into society. Patrick is not affected by the information and he continues his quest to find Holly.The audience is then shown that Holly makes it to a small town and is foraging for food with other homeless children. She is then befriended by a local policemen who seem little better than criminals with a badge, when they sell her to another brothel and then make a deal to a Vietnamese businessman who then takes her virginity. Holly then seems to think that this is her destiny and when Patrick finally find her, she is willing to "yum yum" and "boom boom" her distant friend. Patrick is utterly confused by this change in behavior, but he is not deterred in his plan to take her away from this world. In the end, he steals her away and brings her to a safe-land in the comfort of the social worker. Holly is given fresh clothes, if feed and brought to a dance class, but she is forbidden to see Patrick. This intense yearning to be in the comfort of Patrick's friendship, she runs away from the safe house and back onto the streets in Cambodia.Meanwhile, Patrick is dealing with the decision to leave the country and flee back to the United States or to stay in Cambodia. His thoughts continue to revert back to Holly and during a visit to a bar; an older male sees the picture he is holding and comments on his sexual appetite when he had sex with her. This enrages Patrick and he hits the man and runs out of the bar. Eventually, Patrick is caught by the police in the eyes of Holly, who is hiding behind a pole.The movie "Holly" may make the audience want to donate money towards organizations that improve the life for these poor youngsters, and even campaign to reduce the amount of brothels in the region, but the film's dramatic weaknesses may reduce its chances of being seen by enough people to make a difference. Overall, I think the concept is better as a documentary and it was not as touching as a movie. The actors did a great job of showing their raw emotion and the true confusion of the youngsters who are affected by this lifestyle, but in the end, the harsh lifestyle of the region and the desperate notions of the parents who sell their children to uphold their own starvation, does nothing to help the children's situations.
[A]: positive


[Q]: This is the 2nd time I've seen this movie in about 12 years. These remarks come from someone who finds Kane and Ambersons to be amazing, worthy films. But the remainder of Welles career is, unfortunately, squandered on material unworthy of his talent and too flimsy to withstand his filmic embroidering. And when he makes a potboiler like Shanghai, the lack of anything substantial to hang his filmic tricks on, is just kind of sad. I couldn't tell you what he was exploring here. It's all as mannered as Welle's godawful Irish brogue; which takes a lot of effort, but adds absolutely zero to the film. Several Welles projects became this overdeveloped and baroque. Mr Arkadin (pick a version, any version) is a similarly belabored project. The material is inconsequential. It just can't bear the weight of all this noodling. For a director trafficking in reality-based drama (as here), he never feels any pull to tie his bundle of conceits back to reality; or to a coherent story. The murder-for-hire scheme is ridiculous. Kudos to Welles though, for having Hayworth cut her hair, and getting that performance out of her. The camera loves her. She's the classiest, most upscale, sultry and ravishing femme fatale ever put on film. But her treachery comes so late in the film it feels like some desperate decision, made so the movie will have some genre it fits into. The movie can't be saved by a noir convention deployed in the last 60 seconds.When all is said and done in L.F.S., the convolutions are all for what?; to convince you you've seen something thoughtful? to give Welles more to do? to make you roll your eyes? Welles has no sensitivity to the scale of a story, or to telling a story directly. One wonders what Shanghai has to say to anyone who isn't a crippled billionaire, arranging a quadruple-cross murder-for-hire scheme, or a fanboy in love with filmic conceits devoid of meaning or substance. Overwrought, preposterous, unengaging.
[A]: negative


[Q]: I get the feeling that the producers of this mess were out to make the most painful, ridiculous Western ever made. "PAINFUL" is the best word I can think of to describe it.On the plus side you have nice color photography and beautiful and well-spoken Rhonda Fleming. My sympathy goes to Jacques Aubuchon (who played the cripple), who acted well enough in an annoying role, written so atrociously that no actor could give an enjoyable performance. The production values were quite good, which only served to highlight the terrible story and screenplay.Things I hated: Stewart Granger looked so little like a western figure, what with his British accent, neat tailored outfit, and silly immaculate always-white kerchief tied around his neck. It got tiresome the way the townspeople and his son were constantly haranguing and insulting Granger, and he never spoke up or replied back. I know we are supposed to suspend disbelief and appreciate Westerns as symbolic morality plays, but this one broke the spell with it laughably unrealistic and predictable scenes, the worst being at the end where Granger miraculously, speedily and single-handedly plants dynamite around a canyon pass that the bad guy's cattle will pass through, and then Granger plants himself in the perfect spot so he can shoot the dynamite from a very far distance to create rock slides to bury and spook the cattle and bad guys, seemingly destroying them all, save the two main bad guys. Next worst is everything about the plot, which is loaded with soap opera scenes. Nothing in the movie seemed believable: I couldn't believe what all the conflict was about. The bad guy was driving his herd through to market and wanted the cows to chew some grass along the way; I don't see why something couldn't have been worked out. You need a land ownership dispute for that? Don't bother to see it.
[A]:
negative