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: This might be the poorest example of amateur propaganda ever made. The writers and producers should study the German films of the thirties and forties. They knew how to sell. Even soviet-style clunky leader as god-like father-figure were better done. Disappointing. The loss of faith, regained in church at last second just in time for daddy to be "saved" by the Hoover/God was not too bad. Unfortunately, it seemed rushed and not nearly melodramatic enough. A few misty heavenlier shots of the angelical Hoover up in the corner of the screen-beaming and nodding- would have added a lot. The best aspect is Hoover only saving the deserving family and children WHO had "proven" their worth. Unfortunately, other poor homeless were portrayed as likable and even good- yet the Hoover-God doesn't help them. A better approach would have been shots of them drinking spirits to show the justice of their condition. Finally, bright and cheerful scenes of recovery (after Hoover saved the country from the depression) should have rolled at the end. We could see then how Hoover-God had saved not just THIS deserving family, but all the truly deserving. Amateurist at best.

A: negative
****
Q: "The House That Dripped Blood" is one of the better anthology films of the time period.**SPOILERS**Tracking down a missing film star, Inspector Holloway, (John Bennett) finds that the last reported sighting was in a large mansion in the countryside. During the course of looking through the house, he is told four different stories about past residents of the house.The Good Story(s): Method for Murder-Moving into the mysterious manor to get some peace and quiet while Charles pens his latest masterwork, Horror novelist Charles Hillyer, (Denholm Elliott) and his wife Alice, (Joanna Dunham) are thrilled with the story, which centers around a serial strangler named Dominic. After a series of strange accidents and experiences in the house, Charles begins to believe that the creation my have come to life and is haunting him and his wife. Probably one of the better entries in the film, it's easily the creepiest. The atmosphere here is what sets it apart. The scenes with the fictional character are genuinely creepy, the mystery surrounding him is really effective and there's always a classic creep-out moment. The classic moment is the kill in the psychiatrist's office, which is an all-time high for creepiness. The build-up to it, with the creaking sounds, quick flashes of a mysterious being, and the thunder and lightning in the back ground work well for this one's favor.Sweets for the Sweet-Moving into a new house, widower John Reid, (Christopher Lee) hires former school teacher Ann Norton, (Nyree Dawn Porter) for his young daughter Jane, (Chloe Franks) while he's away on business. Ann gradually begins to unravel a dark secret from Jane's past, which John vehemently denies. When she learns the true nature of what has happened, it's far more shocking that what she could've thought possible. With the creepiest outright plot and the biggest twist of the stories, this is a quite pleasant entry. The mystery of the family is wonderfully played out, with small amounts of clues piled up here and there, and the final revelation is downright nerve-wracking. That part alone is the main reason why this one works, and Lee doesn't harm it either.The Bad Story(s): Waxwork-Tortured by memories of his lost love, Phillip Grayson, (Peter Cushing) and his friend Neville Rogers, (Joss Ackland) both become infatuated with a statue of a woman in a Wax Museum, as the statue takes over their lives, they discover a shocking secret about the museum that haunts the both of them. There's a clever premise here, and it does provide an excuse to spend time in a wax museum, which are always creepy. This is no exception, and it looks eerie, which is helped by the florescent lighting on display on the sculptures. A dream sequence provides a great moment of suspense, but what ultimately kills this one is the slow pace. It takes a long time for events to unfold out, and most of the time is spent on exposition. It also builds up to a shock ending that can be seen coming from a mile away. Those really lower this one a bit. Had the twist been changed, it would've scored higher, the rest is acceptable.The Cloak-Veteran horror film actor Paul Henderson, (Jon Pertwee) upset at the lack of realism on the set of his new film, goes off and buys a new vampire cloak from a specialty store. The cloak soon turns him into a vampire, going crazy on the set with co-star Carla, (Ingrid Pitt) and other vampiric acts at home. Unconvinced the cloak is the cause, he does everything he can to prove it's just in his imagination. This has a pretty decent premise, and there is plenty of opportunity for some decent scares, but what sinks it is several factors. First, it's just too goofy for it's own good. The plot twist at the end is a perfect example, which is so overdone that it's not really a shock at all, and just comes across as just plain silly. There's so few scenes of scares or attempted scares that it's just a bore to sit through. It's the weakest one in the film.The Final Verdict: A quite decent omnibus film, there's a few small problems scattered through each of the stories that renders this a less than perfect but still highly watchable film. Highly recommended for those into the similar films at the time or who enjoy British horror films.Today's Rating-PG-13: Violence

A: positive
****
Q: All I can say is, before watching the movie I did not have a hint indication who Annemarie Schwarzenbach was or what was her life story..and I have to confess that the movie was hardly a help to reach these data.. and even it was not successful to persuade me to do some research by typing few words on google website; however, all I can say is that the actress Jeanette Hain was great with her mute facial expression she really played well and showed a deep depression mental status, as it is in real.After all , based on the script the movie has happened in turkey and Tehran as well as Afghanistan.. but believe me I am familiar with the area , it was all about an Arabic desert in morocco.. Turkish people and persian people are completely different in face and culture as well as in language which is not arabic..I suppose for making a film like this- documentary type- a thorough research about all these minor elements is mandatory..

A:
negative
****