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:
Could this be by the same director as Don't Look Now or Bad Timing? Poorlyacted, clunkily edited. You only have to compare the various accident scenes in this with similar ones in Don't Look Now to see how much Roeg has lost histouch.Even the generally reliable Teresa Russell (looking a bit chunky these days, I'm afraid to report) cannot save this one. The plot is pure pseudo-religious hokum, the acting is wooden and Roeg's attempts at his trademark dislocation of time are pitiful.Avoid this one like the plague.
answer:
negative


question:
I really thought that this movie was superb. Not only is the history correct, but the style is sumptuous and yet intimate. I was a fan of Emily Blunt's portrayal of Victoria and how she kept her spirit even though she was forced into a virtual exile while in her youth. Blunt depicts the charismatic and sometimes dogmatic manner that Vicotria became famous (perhaps infamous) for. The romantic elements of the movie are so genuine and tender that by the end of the movie you genuinely understand why Vicotria chose to live the rest of her days in mourning of Albert.The technical aspects of the film are worthy of note as well. I appreciated the beautiful score, which moves quite wonderfully along with the dramatic movement of the story. I also considered the cinematography to be outstanding, some scenes leaving me quite breathless because of the lushness and splendor they depict.There have been so few movies this year as beautiful and tender as this film and it rates as one of 2009's best!
answer:
positive


question:
The best Laurel and Hardy shorts are filled to the brim with mishaps, accidents and destruction, mostly caused by Stan, but with Ollie receiving the bulk (!) of the punishment-- see the great 'The Music Box' (1933) or 'Towed in a Hole' (1932) as some some classic examples.Here, however, for some reason (is it because it was based on a sketch by Stan's father?) the boys play it 'straight' in a 'comedy' built around jokes and supposedly funny situations. It doesn't come off. It's merely another third-rate tedious 30s comedy, heightened only by the personalities of Stan and Ollie who never really display any of their trademarked gestures (Ollie's finger wiggling, Stan's blank stares, etc.) or comic abilities.The film begins with them running from the police. Since we never see or know why, it's hard to believe or accept their fear of being caught, and thus hiding in Colonel Buckshot's mansion. The premise for the 'humor', Ollie passing himself off as the Colonel and Stan passing himself off as both the butler and the maid are never very engaging. They are not playing 'Stan and Ollie' in this film. Their parts could have been played by any of the pedestrian studio actors and it would be just as poor.Stan could mime and make whatever he would do funny, but he doesn't get the chance to do any of that here. He's constrained by uttering too much dialog to 'move' the plot, but none of it rises much above the silly. We are treated to endless third rate comedy chestnuts such as the running gag of not correctly pronouncing Lord Plumtree's name, the "Call me a cab! Okay you're a cab!" joke, cops losing their clothes and being seen in long johns, and a non-sequiter ending of Stan and Ollie as the two parts in a painfully obvious horse costume as they make their escape on a bicycle for two, and James Finlayson is still doing his silent-era full body takes and Keystone Kop jumping jacks.Stan and Ollie do much better in a situation comedy in 'Sons of the Desert'(1933) where we get to see them do what we love about them -- be themselves. In fact, 1932-34 seem to be their best years.Since this film does not play to any of their strengths, why bother with it? I have to give it a 3.
answer:

negative