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.

Same old same old about Che. It completely ignored the really interesting facts of Che's true character. Sodeberg redid the same boring narrative of Che. The silly seductive tale of an Argentinean rich-boy who was so shocked by poverty he became a Robin Hood fighting alongside the poor, until eventually he was murdered by the CIA. Yeah, yeah, heard it all before, BORING AND UNTRUE!. The reality of Che Guevara is very different and far more explosive! The facts show that he was a totalitarian with a messiah streak, who openly wanted to impose Maoist tyranny on the world. He was so fanatical that at the hottest moment in the Cold War, he even begged the Soviet Union to nuke New York, Washington or Los Angeles and bring about the end of the world. CHe urged Khrushchev to launch a nuclear strike against US cities. For the rest of his life, he declared that if his finger had been on the button, he would have pushed it. When Khrushchev backed down and literally saved the world, Che was furious at the "betrayal". If Che's recommendations had been followed, you would not be reading this review now. How a homicidal maniac became a pop icon would have made a much more interesting film. Incredible that no filmmaker has been daring enough to show the real side of Che and his posthumous media transformation. THAT WOULD MAKE AN Oscar WINNING FILM! I thought making independent film meant taking REAL RISKS and being GROUNDBRAKING! They only stick to "safe counterculture themes", to wit, "Che cool", "Wall Street bad", "Republican= Nazi", "Bush ex Hitler", "NRA is worse than KGB", "Christians are fanatics and stupid", etc...ad nauseum. Oooh, how daring, how mind blowing. Tres anti-mainstream and edgy. I wish they would have some real cojones and tackle the Independent Film Oligarchy! That would be truly daring!
negative

If you don't mind having your emotions toyed with, then you won't mind this movie. On the other hand, if you enjoy British crime mysteries, following clues and seeing how they all logically fall into place at the end, you'll be very disappointed.Here are some of the logical inconsistencies that lead to that disappointment: * While the police utilize the CCTV cameras early on to gather clues about the mystery, the huge truck that stopped and blocked the children's view just before her disappearance doesn't get caught on camera. This is a critical piece of the mystery. It's inconsistent to have the car the children were in caught on camera and not the big truck that is so critical to the mystery.* The movie goes to great lengths to show the sophistication of the equipment in tracking down the children's movements but misses the opportunity to utilize the same sophisticated equipment is tracking down vehicles that may have entered the crime scene from camera-visible locations adjacent to the crime scene as part of developing clues.* In England, driving is on the left. The director goes out of his way to have the car at the crime scene park on the right, several meters away from the flower kiosk, when it could have easily parked immediately behind, or even on the side; as the huge truck did.* The police forensics team is so meticulous as to find a discarded cell phone in a sewer drain several miles from the scene of the crime, but can't find any blood evidence from the head injury right at the crime scene, even though they secured the scene just hours after the disappearance and with no intervening rainfall.* Search dogs were not used at all to find the missing children; this from the country that is well known for developing the hound dog for search and hunting.* It is illogical that such a highly publicized news story would not turn up the presumably innocent truck driver that stopped at the flower kiosk.* It is illogical that the mother would go to such extremes and expend so much effort to leave carpet fiber clues under her fingernails for her eventual murder investigators even coaxing her daughter to do the same-- while she simply could not have crawled out of the unguarded mobile home. If she had enough sense about her to ask her daughter to get carpet fibers under her nails, she could of just as easily asked her daughter to call out for help or even leave the mobile home that was in a crowded residential park.* The suspect that abducted the little girl was portrayed as mentally slow/dimwitted --justifying his unknowingly drowning of the mother but, he was smart enough not to cooperate with the police and also fully exercise his rights not to self-incriminate.There are more inconsistencies like this that will lead to a true sleuth aficionado's disappointment. 'Five Days' is a very weak British crime story.
negative

Trying to conceive of something as insipid as THE SENTINEL would be pretty difficult. The problems are many. The result is terrible and loaded with plot holes.Michael Douglas stars as Pete Garrison, a Secret Service agent who "took one" for Reagan during the attempt on his life. Years later we find Pete assigned to the Whitehouse Family, mainly as a guard for the First Lady (Kim Basinger, L.A. CONFIDENTIAL). Troubles arise as we see Pete's close involvement with the First Lady, and a sudden threat against the President himself (David Rasche, UNITED 93). When Pete fails a polygraph test, he's singled out as a disgruntled agent by investigator David Breckinridge (Kiefer Sutherland, 24 TV series).As the presidential assassination plot unfolds, Pete finds himself on the run from his own people. His only confidant is the First Lady, and she's reluctant to tell anyone about their affections for one another (which is why Pete failed the polygraph in the first place). But is Pete really innocent? Or is he simply trying to buy time until he can kill the President? If he is innocent, how can he help prevent the assassination attempt while running from the Secret Service? The one, big, overwhelming problem with this film is that there's no justification for the reason behind the presidential threat. Isn't that what the movie's supposed to be about? One would think so! But the audience is never let in on why the assassin(s) want to kill the Prez. Hmm. Someone forget to put that in the script somewhere? And what's with David Breckinridge's (Kiefer's) new partner, Jill Marin (Eva Longoria, CARLITA'S WAY)? Seems that she was put in the film strictly as a piece of a$$-candy. What was her purpose again? Did she do anything other than look nice in tight pants and a low-cut blouse?There are so many problems with the basic premise of The Sentinel as to be laughable. The action is too easily stymied by the "What the...?" responses sure to be uttered by those unfortunate enough to watch the movie.

negative