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.

Mark Frechette stars as Mark, a college radical leftist. Mark is accused of killing a cop during a campus riot, and he flees all the way to the desert. He does so by stealing a small plane at the local airport, and flies it himself. Once out flying over the desert, Mark spots a car from the air. A young woman named Daria steps out, and sees Mark circling in the plane. Mark swoops the plane very low several times, causing Daria to duck or get hit. When he lands, he becomes acquainted with Daria, who is strangely charmed by Mark's aerial highjinks. After engaging in soulful conversation for hours, Mark and Daria get naked, and make love in the sand. But with Mark evading the law, they realize that he needs to keep running. So Mark and Daria's brief tryst is quite poignant, because it doesn't get to develop into a full-blown romance.Zabriski Point was the Eraserhead of the early 70s. Both films have a rambling, vague quality, along with complicated meanings and characters. Frechette was as reckless in person, as his character was in this film. A few years after making Zabriski Point, Frechette robbed a bank in real life. While serving his prison sentence, Mark died an ignoble death. He was killed by a 150 lb. weight, which fell on him when he was weightlifting. The best thing about this movie was the splendid cinematography, and special visual effects. The incredible, slow-motion scenes of debris floating in the air after an explosion, were a stroke of genius. Although not as ground-breaking a film as Easy Rider was, Zabriski Point still resonated with the early 70s counterculture. I recommend it, for those who like avant-guard films which showcase the upheaval, of the youth rebellion during the early 70s.
positive

As hard as it is for me to believe, with all of the awful reality shows out there over the past few years, this one has to take over the top spot for worst one yet. I am still wondering if this was actually just a spoof done by the SCTV gang. If Andy Kaufmann were still alive I'd be sure he was behind this. Can a rock band stoop any lower than has INXS to do such a shameful thing as this? The premise is simple and moronic. Audition a bunch of karaoke rejects to become the new lead singer of INXS, to take the place of Michael Hutchence (who committed suicide in 1997). Eight years and no hits later, the band commit the ultimate act of patheticness by subjecting themselves to auditioning a bunch of talentless wannabes to be the new lead singer of a band that is 20 years past its prime. So they trot all of these awful singers (I thought American Idol had its share of doozies) who do atrocious renditions of just about every classic (and predictable) rock song imaginable. And then they cut to the INXS band members who are seriously discussing the merits of each of these candidates. You could see better (and more original) rock performers at just about any night club in any city in the world.It has all the usual uncreative elements of every other reality show. Lame reality participants, lame interviews, lame host/emcee, lame "judging" of performances, and the lame booting of one participant at the end of each show. Can these shows get any more predictable? It's clearly a publicity stunt on the part of the band; a last gasp of hope at rekindling their lost stardom before they are finally buried into oblivion. Michael Hutchence, if he had any shred of dignity when alive, has to be rolling over in his grave. Not that INXS were ever a great band, but I had no idea they were this pathetic. If INXS are at all representative of what rock and roll has become, this show would be the final proof that rock and roll is once and for all, dead.
negative

i chose to see the this film on the day it opened nationally in france, as a personal way for myself to reflect on what had happened a year previous; the collection works as intended: it provokes a whirlwind of thoughts and emotions, working as an intellectual hommage, never stooping to cheap sentimentality nor knee-jerk reactionism.there have been many allegations made that the film is anti-american: while i cannot speak for everyone in this regard, i am one american who found such statements to be completely untrue. people make much noise about the egyptian segment, by Chahine, because it voices perspectives of palestinian suicide bombers asserting that civilians in a democracy are "fair targets" for they elect the governments the bombers are seeking to attack, but this ignores much else in the piece: several perspectives are discussed, no one being held up as the truth, and critics--if they even saw the piece--seem to forget the fondness and warm dialogue that takes place between the director and the ghost of the american dialogue, and the director's intense sadness upon hearing of the tragedy.pretty much all of the films are beautiful, thoughtful & inspiring, in particular the brilliant work by Mahkmalbaf, Tanovic, Loach & Inarritu. Nair, good as usual, effectively tells a true story of an injustice committed against a muslim family in the wake of anti-islam hysteria that swept--and still sweeps--the states. i did find Gitai's piece a bit vulgarly loud and simple in it's critic of media hysteria in the face of terrorism, and Penn's piece was too impressionistic and elliptical for my tastes, though i had expected to like it. Borgnine is very good and brave in it. SPOILER WARNING: one reviewer below incorrectly read the falling of the towers as being a happy moment for the character; my read is rather that the falling of the towers is what, because light floods his room, keys him into the loss in his life that he refused to recognize. again this is a sort of impressionistic piece, for we know that if the towers were really blocking the light to this man's flat, then there would have been nothing but smoke and ash, not light, flooding through his window.

positive