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.

I saw the omen when i was 11 on tv. I enjoyed the Trilogy. So when the chance to finally see one at the cinema came around i didnt pass it up. I went in to the cinema knowing that what i was about to see wasnt a cinema release but a made for TV film. However being a fan i couldnt resist. But this Omen movie which i saw at a midnight screening didnt bring chills it brought laughter. Risible Dialogue such as "it is written that if a baby cries during baptism they reject there god". What nonsense.No decent set pieces. Faye Grant so Good in V is wasted with this script from hell. No suprises and no fun. However i did laugh out loud several times at our bad it was.Truly Pathetic.1 out of 10
negative

Jonathan Rivers (Michael Keaton) suddenly becomes a widower when his wife dies. Soon after, he's approached by a Dr. Price, an expert in Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP), who claims he's been receiving messages from Jonathan's departed wife Anna via sundry electronic gadgets. Is Anna trying to tell Jonathan something? Is this merely a hint of something on a larger cosmic or otherworldly scale? It's good to see Keaton in a leading role, but the story he's stuck with is convoluted and absurd at points; it's as if the movie doesn't know how to answer any of the questions it brings up, so it just distracts the viewer with new, unrelated questions.Keaton himself is pretty good, convincingly cast as the bereaving widower desperately trying to communicate with his late wife. He's matured quite a bit as an actor, leaving behind the frat-friendly waacky-hijinks roles he played 15 or so years earlier. He looks a little craggy, with a perhaps few more wrinkles than one might expect, but he's lost none of the guile and panache that he's shown during his quarter century in Hollywood.So it's not that Keaton turns in a mediocre performance, it's that the script itself is subpar. Written by Niall Johnson, the plot gets more confusing as it progresses, each tortuous path ending in another tortuous path. This is all well and good if the path leads to some sort of acceptable denouement, something that ties more or less everything together and explains... something. But not White Noise; I knew less about what had happened to Jonathan than I did before I'd first seen him.Keaton's really the only reason to watch this junk, although he gets fine support from Ian McNeice (as Dr. Price) and Deborah Kara Unger as the requisite love interest.
negative

I watched this movie when I was a young lad full of raging hormones and it was about as sexy a movie as I had ever seen-or ever was to see. It may not have been a great movie. My guess is it wasn't. I don't really remember much about it, to tell you the truth. I only remember the sexual chemistry between Crosby and Biehn. No woman in ANY movie has ever done it for me as the unbelievably sexy Cathy did in this movie. I haven't seen it since that first time I caught it on TV in the 70s and I don't think I'd want to see it again since I'm sure it would be a disappointment-my hormones aren't as raging and I've become more jaded over the years. Still, when I think back on the shower scene I can still remember how great it felt way back when.Added later: After watching the movie again, I discovered that it's dangerous to go home again. What was once erotic is now pretty tame. The older woman-younger man thing still works for me, just not as much as it once did, probably because I'm no longer a 12-year-old. That older woman is now younger than I am. Also, the amateurishness of the whole thing wasn't perceived by my twelve-year-old mind. Moral: Sometimes it's better not to revisit the past.

negative