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.

Errol Flynn is "Gentleman Jim" in this 1942 film about boxer Jim Corbett, known as the man who beat John L. Sullivan. Directed with a light hand by Flynn's good friend, Raoul Walsh, the film also stars Alexis Smith, Jack Carson, Alan Hale Sr., William Frawley and Ward Bond. Flynn plays an ambitious, egotistical young man who has a natural talent for boxing and is sponsored by the exclusive Olympic Club in San Francisco in the late 1800s. Though good-natured, the fact that he is a "shanty Irishman" and a social climber builds resentment in Olympic Club members; most of them can't wait to see him lose a fight, and they bet against him. Despite this, he rises to fame, even working as an actor. Finally he gets the chance he's been waiting for, a match with the world champion, John L. Sullivan (Ward Bond). Sullivan demands a $10,000 deposit to insure that Corbett will appear to fight for the $25,000 purse. Corbett and his manager (Frawley) despair of getting the money. However, help comes in the form of a very unlikely individual.This is a very entertaining film, and Jim Corbett is an excellent role for Flynn, who himself was a professional fighter at one time. He has the requisite charm, good looks and athleticism for the role. Alexis Smith plays Victoria Ware, his romantic interest who insists that she hates him. In real life, she doesn't seem to have existed; Corbett was married to Olive Lake Morris from 1886 to 1895.The focus of the film is on Corbett and his career rather than the history of boxing. Corbett used scientific techniques and innovation and is thought of as the man who made prizefighting an art form. In the film, Corbett is fleet of foot and avoids being hit by his opponents; it is believed that he wore down John L. Sullivan this way.Good film to catch Flynn at the height of his too-short time as a superstar.
positive

There seems to be an overwhelming response to this movie yet no one with the insight to critique its methodology, which is extremely flawed. It simply continues to propogate journalistic style analysis, which is that it plays off of the audiences lack of knowledge and prejudice in order to evoke an emotional decry and outburst of negative diatribe.Journalism 101: tell the viewer some fact only in order to predispose them into drawing conclusions which are predictable. for instance, the idea of civil war, chaos, looting, etc were all supposedly unexpected responses to the collapse of governmental infrastructure following Hussein's demise: were these not all symptomatic of an already destitute culture? doctrinal infighting as symptomatic of these veins of Islam itself, rather than a failure in police force to restrain and secure? would they rather the US have declared marshall law? i'm sure the papers here would've exploded with accusations of a police state and fascist force.aside from the analytical idiocy of the film, it takes a few sideliners and leaves the rest out claiming "so-and-so refused to be interviewed..." yet the questions they would've asked are no doubt already answered by the hundred inquisitions those individuals have already received. would you, as vice president, deign to be interviewed by a first time writer/producer which was most certainly already amped to twist your words. they couldn't roll tape of Condi to actually show her opinion and answer some of the logistics of the questions, perhaps they never watched her hearing.this is far from a neutral glimpse of the situation on the ground there. this is another biased, asinine approach by journalists - which are, by and large, unthinking herds.anyone wanting to comment on war ought at least have based their ideas on things a little more reliable than NBC coverage and CNN commentary. these interpretations smack of the same vitriol which simply creates a further bipartisanism of those who want to think and those who want to be told by the media what to think.
negative

There is only one use for a film such as Bulletproof: it reminds you just how bad bad can be. We often see films which we describe as "pretty awful" or "not much good", but then you come across a film like this and you can see that although all those other films aren't "good" they are no way as stinkingly bad as Bulletproof. This was a birthday gift from someone who spent less than two seconds rummaging thru' the DVD bargain bin at our local superstore to fulfil an obligation (i.e. to give me a present). It could have been a serendipitous find but it wasn't: this is so utterly clichéd, so badly written, so poorly directed, so badly acted that I'm surprised everyone involved hasn't been arrested and sent down for 10 years. God, it's awful. I suspected as much from about 30 seconds in, but carried on because sometimes - sometimes - bad films are so bad they can be enjoyable. This isn't one of them. It is simply bad. I stopped watching after 45 minutes, and tomorrow I shall throw it in the bin.

negative