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.

[Q]: It's difficult to know where this adaptation starts going wrong, because I think the problem begins with the books themselves. Alexander McCall Smith has worked out that you read them not for the detective stories, but for his deeply condescending and completely spurious vision of an Africa that does not exist. He's done for Botswana what Borat did for Kazakhstan - not as successfully, but based in as much fact.Once I realised this, it ceased to gall me that Jill Scott, an American singer/actress, is cast as Mma Ramotswe. If she is to represent a land that is not Africa, how appropriate that she is a black woman who is not African? She's not the only American on the cast; Mma Makutsi is played by Anika Noni Rose. Both women are far, far too young for the roles they're playing, and far too glamorous. Both brutally murder the local accents, and both focus so entirely on this brutality that they fail to offer much in the way of acting. Scott's Mma Ramotswe is bouncy, cute and soft. Rose's Mma Makutsi is an annoying motor-mouthed bitch.The result is almost unwatchable. The principal cast is redeemed only by the presence of Lucian Msamati, who turns in a decent performance as Mr JLB Matekoni. Hes comes off smarter and more intense than in the books, but I find myself unable to blame Msamati for this - he's a shining light in an ocean of suckage. The contradictions between his performance and the books are clearly laid at the feet of whichever committee of butchers wrote the script.To me, McCall Smith's writing has always been highly entertaining yet notoriously bad. He refuses to be edited. As a result, his books contain experiments in grammar that border on the scientific, and characters that change name mid-sentence. It is therefore something of an achievement that the writing team on this project actually made it worse.The dialogue is now largely Anglicised. Characters speak of "opening up" and "sensitivity to needs". Mma Ramotswe and Mr JLB Matekoni flirt openly. Mma Makutsi moans about not having a computer, but given her constantly restyled hair, makeup and jewellery, I'm surprised she doesn't have a MacBook in her handbag along with her Visa card.So what are we left with here? It's difficult to be upset with this crappy adaptation because honestly, most of the things I like about the original books are apocryphal anyway. McCall Smith paints a fictional Botswana populated with cute, non-threatening black people who are full of amusing and palatable wisdom-nuggets. It reads well despite linguistic travesty, but it is a vision of how a certain type of white person wishes black people were. It just isn't true.Given that, it's hardly surprising that this show sucks as much as it does. It remains to be seen whether European and American audiences will even notice, however.
[A]: negative


[Q]: In the ten years since Wildside aired, nothing has really come close to its quality in local production. This includes the two series of the enjoyable but overrated Underbelly, which have brought to life events in the recent criminal history of both Sydney and Melbourne. The miniseries Blue Murder (which also starred Tony Martin, but as someone on the other side of the law) may be the exception.Wildside is currently being repeated late at night on the ABC. Having not watched the show in quite a while, I'm still impressed by its uncompromising story lines and very human characters. The cast is excellent: Tony Martin as a detective haunted by the disappearance of his son, Rachael Blake (who later hooked up with Martin in real life) as a community worker struggling with alcoholism, and Alex Dimitriades as a young cop whose vice is gambling. Equally good support roles are provided by Aaron Pederson, Jessica Napier, Mary Coustas (yes, Effie herself), and a young Abbie Cornish.The ABC inexplicably released only the first three episodes on DVD a couple of years ago. The logic of this sort of marketing is beyond me, but I'm guessing it may have something to do with licensing disagreements with the original producers.A great series which has aged remarkably well. Here's hoping the ABC's DVD department gets its act together.(According to a moderator on an ABC message board, some sort of further DVD release is due in December 2009)
[A]: positive


[Q]: Johnathan Frakes is a good actor and, when he's not directing a family film, a fine director. But, he really shouldn't have directed this movie, and the screenplay should've been rejected. The director and writers must understand what the original TV show was really about, as well as who the characters were and how they worked. The original series had many episodes with razor-sharp writing using good dialogue and with situations that American producers would never consider using in children's programming, much less a movie, which made the original series so well received by adults. I mean, the Tracys were college graduates and some of them did even drank alcohol and smoked tobacco! And, there were characters who did get killed, although most were bad guys. If they had written it the way that it was originally done, which isn't dumbing things down with poor dialogue, kindergarten humor, and a weak plot, this Universal/Studio Canal joint venture wouldn't have such bad reviews. This motion picture is almost pure blasphemy. If you've seen the original Supermarionation series, then you'll know what I'm talking about! The first thing that was out of place and annoying were the constant references to Ford Motor Company, even going so far that Lady Penelope was riding around in a disfigured Ford Thunderbird made up to look like FAB-1 instead of using what would've been more appropriate considering Ms. Penelope's station (not to mention being more faithful to the original), a ROLLS-ROYCE FAB-1. She's supposed to be a distinguished member of British society, hence the preference for England's finest make of motorcars in the original series. One other reviewer here indicated that Penelope wouldn't be caught dead in a Ford. He's pretty much right in the context that the idea of her riding in a Ford doesn't work. At least they could have had Penelope ride in a Jaguar made up like FAB 1 since Jaguar is a British car make that is owned by Ford, but NO! They had to use a straight FORD! But the Ford product placement doesn't end there. EVERY single car you may see is a Ford! Even the news flash that is shown on the TV sets in the movie were sponsored by Ford! Ford, Ford, FORD! The predominance of Ford vehicles makes this movie an obvious marketing vehicle for Ford. The original series had a design that was futuristic for the 1960s and still remains ahead of its time even today. But, the futuristic design in the original series worked because there was an effort to make the design look practical and functional. This kind of treatment didn't exist in the movie, where everything is stylized to excess, defeating the sense of functionality and practicality. A lot of things that were done in the design of the movie were done strictly for style, many times with no sense of function to give that style a sense of reason.The original series relied on good acting performances of the voice talent to overcome the limited expressions in the puppets, bringing them to life in the episodes. The brilliant and lively music score by Barry Gray helped even further to connect the audience with the story, the characters, and how everything came together to help achieve the super objective (a little bit of Stanislavski talk). The movie, on the other hand, had some overly grating performances. Anthony Edwards overplayed Brains to a fault, Bill Paxton as Jeff Tracy just didn't work despite decent acting (one of few), there were better choices for the Hood than Ben Kingsley, and many others that I don't care to mention (it would take too long). Quite simply, the puppets were more believable! Second was the overly generic and underwhelming music score by Hans Zimmer, sounding more like a mix between "Days of Thunder" and "Apollo 13." And, of course, the Hood. The Hood in the original series had an ability to communicate with Kyrano through a statue of Kyrano as an outlet for ESP contact. But, that was where his extraordinary capability ended. He's a master of disguise and deception, which allows him to sneak around undetected (for the most part, anyways) to gather information of the Thunderbirds vehicles for his own means. He also uses weapons for his own defense, including pistols, and generally collects information using a film camera, although he tried to steal Thudnerbirds 1 and 2 in the 1960s United Artists release of "Thunderbird 6" (which was the last Thunderbirds show filmed in Supermarionation and was the second Thunderbirds theatrical release). But, while he is a nemesis of International Rescue, the Hood isn't the villain in every Thunderbirds episode and he tends to avoid direct confrontation with International Rescue. In the movie, he's obviously the main villain, but he and his cohorts seem to act more like morons, along with the Hood having extended mind control ability, including the ability to move objects and move himself into flight for brief periods of time. This totally deviates from the Hood as a character in the original series with one that may leave kids laughing and people familiar with the series scratching their heads in confusion or leaving the theater in disgust.There are more criticisms, but the 1000 word limit for IMDb reviews will not allow me to list all of them. So, I will close with the point being made that I didn't enjoy this movie. As a matter of fact, I think it sucks! Having seen the original series and Supermarionation movies (Thunderbirds Are Go, Thunderbird 6), I was hoping for something a lot better than this.The original Supermarionation was a lot more sophisticated and elegant than this live action farce. (And that's saying it nicely.) - Kip Wells
[A]:
negative