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.

This movie is so bad it hurts. The car doing 30 mph when it's supposed to go 100... the shift lever that's stuck (in Park!), the nurse that drives for almost 2 hours with the cell phone on the shoulder...can't any of the 2 morons take this damn phone? There's nothing credible in this crap. I would be ashamed to be seen in a movie like this!
negative

I am a big fan of the original book and this adaption is simply bad. First of all, it had trouble deciding if it is a kiddie toon or an adult one, that caused a strange mix of an adult story and some pretty violent scenes with a silly little duck that keeps giving "funny" moments in the beginning.But that's hardly important, the film is simply boring, unmoving and not true to the original story. It simply fails to transfer to the picture all the points Orwell tried to make to his book.{SPOILER}Second revolution?!! Haven't they guys learned anything?? Who be the next Napoleon then? Benjamin?!!
negative

Ah, noir. My favourite genre. Otto Preminger's follow-up to "Laura" is a film noir set in a postwar New York, where corruption and violence run rampant. It stars Dana Andrews as Sergeant Mark Dixon, a detective whose brutal tactics have landed him in hot water with his superiors. When he accidentally kills a murder suspect, Dixon tries to pin the blame on crime boss Tommy Scalese. Dixon is close to achieving his goal when he becomes involved with the dead man's wife, the beautiful Morgan Taylor. Of course, in typical noir fashion, things quickly go down hill.While the film does nothing interesting camera or narrative wise, it does have a constant tone of dread and gloom. Like most great noirs, it is also wonderfully paced, sucking the viewer in right from the start.Still, like most of Preminger's workmanlike films, it's not something I'd watch again. It lacks the verbal wit of Wilder, the visual flamboyance of Hitchcock or the spatial experimentation of Welles. Like Lang's later work, "Sidewalk" feels very much a "clone" of what a noir should be, instead of something really artistically genuine. Thematically the film is nothing special. It's about a cop who finds himself slowly becoming a criminal. In one scene Dixon explains that his father himself was a small time crook, the film flirting with the notion of predestination, but this one scene is as far as Otto goes, or dares to take his ideas.The camera work is likewise disappointing. There's no intelligence in Otto's camera. No effort is made to assign the camera to anything. It doesn't play with space or architecture or empahsise the step-by-step police procedural. It's just tripod set ups with the occasional dolly in and out. Meaningless, though most people don't care about these things. There is, however, one good shot where our hero is trapped in a car full of gangsters (noir cage) which itself enters a vehicle-lift (another cage) and is taken up into the chief gangster's lair. Like Lynch's "Blue Velvet", Otto retopologizes the film, constantly likens "upstairs" to hell. This works well, but the set design fails to reinforce it. 7/10 - Otto seems content to follow the Hawksian mould of what a noir is, rather than toy with the possibilities of where noir can go. Like "Detour", "Night in the City", "Scarlet Street", "In A Lonely Place", "Act of Violence", "Bomberang" and "Johnny Eager", "Where the Sidewalk Ends" is one of those well made second tier film noirs. It's competent and engaging, but lacks that extra special magic.

positive