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: If there was ever a call to make a bad film that reflected how stupid humanity could become, this one would take the prize. The plot centers around bible prophecies that lie in hidden messages of the scriptures that prompt a group of power-seeking thugs to attempt total control of the world. Just how stupid does this writer believe people to actually be?  The acting was bad at best. Casper Van Dien wasted his talent doing this film. Michael York's work was a fair match for the role, since he was the center of the film, and did a good job.  This plot was sickening and very disturbing. No tender or immature minds should see this film. This is how a basic good vs. evil plot can go astray. There must be a lot of mental disease floating around the film circles, who look for ways to market this type of junk. There must have been something censored out to get a PG-13 rating, but it was still awful.

Answer: negative


Question: Hmmm, a sports team is in a plane crash, gets stranded on a snowy mountain, and is faced with the difficult decision to eat the flesh of their dead companions in order to survive. Sound familiar anyone? I refer to "Alive" from 1993. The only major difference here, of course, is that a big, white, drunken scare crow of a Yeti shows up a few times to drag off the dead. I guess humans taste better than yaks.Stupid: The man in the first scene does not have a reliable firearm when hunting the Yeti, nor does he have a backup.The plane crash is completely bogus. It would have either exploded in the air, exploded when it hit the ground, or become obliterated. The people would not have survived, but hey, it's sci-fi.Stupid: They survived, and they are cold. It might be a good idea to harness some of the burning debris nearby so as not to freeze to death. Fire being warm as it is...WTF: The pilot has frost formed all over his face while he's alive and talking, but oddly enough, no one else does.Stupid: One of the guys tells the others to look for matches and lighters, but there are scattered parts of the plane ON FIRE all around them.Stupid: They find coats and hoodies, and yet there in the cold of the Himalayas, they fail to use the hoods!Stupid: They're staring at a pile of sticks when, I reiterate, there are pieces of the plane ALREADY BURNING.Stupid: The Himalayas are notorious for its storms. It would be common sense for them to collect the debris in order to reinforce their structure rather than sitting outside bickering. There are a lot of pine trees around, the branches of which make excellent insulation.WTF: When in doubt, use a dead man's arm as a splint.WTF: If the one guy knows so much about the hibernation habits of squirrels, bears, and leopards in the Himalayas, then why doesn't he know enough to make shelter and set traps right from the start? Stupid: When attempting to trap wild animals, mindless conversation in the vicinity of said trap always helps.WTF: Do you know how hard it would be to cut a frozen corpse with a shard of glass?! WTF: The group was ready and armed to fight the Yeti while the other two were standing there defenseless. The Yeti ripped out the guy's heart and stomped the girl's head, and the gang did nothing. There's love.So two Yetis and a convenient avalanche to bury the evidence forever.... or so we think. Mwuhahahaa! The story continues into more idiocy but the most action occurs in the last 15 minutes, as usual. Nice thinking with the javelin and the chain, although this is some ingenuity (with the magically-appearing chain) that they lacked in the beginning of the movie when they couldn't even make fire despite the fact that it was all around them.As is typical for the Sci-Fi Originals, the loving couple kisses at the end like nothing horrible has just happened to them (not to mention they ate human flesh and haven't brushed their teeth in several days).The very end, however, is quote lame.

Answer: negative


Question: This show was appreciated by critics and those who realized that any similarities between "Pushing Daisies" style and anyone else's was not a steal. (Yes, I've seen "Amelie." "Pushing Daisies" is somewhat similar but still different enough to be original.) Rather, there are too few shows on TV that have this kind of quirky charm. The greatest similarity is to "Dead Like Me" but "P.D" comes by that similarity honestly: Bryan Fuller created both shows. (Both shows involve an "undead" young woman, For example.) This show never stopped being funny and charming, and it was always odd, yet was consistently humane.I must say a word about the conventions of on-going story lines. some people have complained that this show lacked a moral center because in the first (and several subsequent) episodes Ned seems to get away with causing the death of Chuck's father without consequences of any kind. First of all, this must be a new definition of "without consequences of any kind" because, in spite of the fact that Ned was only a boy and did not realize that he had caused the death of Chuck's father, he nevertheless felt guilty from the moment he realized what he had done. Further, about a dozen episodes into the series, Ned finally did confess to Chuck that he had caused her father's death with his gift. Now, there are no police to charge people with magically causing one person's death by bringing another person back to life, so the questions of absolution and restitution have to be taken up without societal guidance. In other words, it's between Ned and Chuck, who was not inclined to forgive Ned anytime soon.But this does point out a problem with continuing story lines in network dramas. I remember when David Caruso's character on "NYPD Blue" did something wrong and it seemed he got away with it--for a whole year--then he got caught and was forced to resign from the job (and left the show). The point is, viewers should learn by now and not assume that just because a regular character does something wrong in a single episode, and is not caught in that episode, that he has gotten away with it. There is always next week--and maybe even next year.

Answer:
positive