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: First, this was a BRAVE film. I've seen Irreversible and can understand the comparisons. However, I cannot begin to understand the people who've trashed this film. I can see how the end may have come off extreme but I'd be lying if I didn't say I wished that every guy who's ever forced a woman into sex deserved exactly what Jared got. Conversely, it didn't solve anything or make anything better and the fact that the film doesn't pretend to is what made me appreciate it.The comment prior to this one called the film pathetic and claimed no adult would stick with. I certainly did and intently. I'm 24 years old. The way the film drags made it realistic to me. People have become so used to eye candy and fast paced plots on screen that if you ask them to concentrate too long on one brick in the foundation of a film, not only do they lose interest, they demolish whatever has been built, and call it rubbish. When in actuality it's their lack of patience and comprehension that needs fine tuning and not the product of a creative mind such as Talia Lugacy's.Rosario Dawson displayed the numbness of self-destruction flawlessly. I think she portrayed Maya pre and post assault with great ease and the transition between the two is an act I rarely ever see done well. Often times, much like the films "aimed at teens" mentioned in the prior comment, the effects of rape are displayed as either extremely manic and impulsive or terribly depressed, isolated and lifeless. Dawson, in my opinion, manages to perform the balancing act so many survivors fall prey to: drone-like existence in the waking hours, working some dead end job to survive (and distract) and then overindulging in vices in order to lose themselves in the haze of substance abuse rather than face what sobriety brings.I thought this film told the truth and I appreciated it for finally showing people a different side of rape. So many people let the end of this film devour the middle and the beginning...I believe that Maya's face during the act was the end...not the act itself...not the vengeance or the meaning behind it...just her face...thank you

A: positive
****
Q: OK, a slasher movie. a very, very stupid slasher movie.We got your stereotypical teenagers in a house thing going. We got a FBI agent that's seen Dirty Harry one time too many. "So what's the secret....punks?" We got about 4 different little camera shots and scene that make no sense at all. "Hey man, i'm fixing the sprinklers" ((that guy was my favorite part of the movie)) Suddenly there's a preacher tied up on a couch watching home movies, he gets killed.they follow the killer into the middle of nowhere, with no cops. suddenly she's in a church, wearing a wedding dress. i swear this is the stupidest slasher movie i've ever seen.

A: negative
****
Q: Really no reason to examine this much further because of a few very glaring and bias misleading statements.A perfect example is when the filmmaker claims "Saul" or Paul of Tarus (the writer of The Book of Hebrews He asserts) has no idea Jesus is or was a human being, this assertion is either purposely false as he accuses others of presenting, or he is ignorant of what "The Bible" says.first we can examine his misleading claim about Hebrews 8.4; which he shows a quote "If Jesus was on earth, he would not be a priest", hence right here He sets up the ignorant and unlearned viewer to accept his false premise.. why? He does what most so called Bible believing people he accuses of doing, the same.. That is TAKING things out of context.verse one of Hebrews 8 is; 1.."Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens" The context above is CLEARLY speaking of a Jesus who was on earth and ASCENDED into heaven after his alleged resurrection.It has nothing to do with how the filmmaker wants the viewer to take his out of context scripture. Here he offers a foundation, that "Paul was not aware of a HUMAN Jesus, but only one in "heaven"follow?lets see if the filmmaker is being honest; Hebrews 7; 14. "For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Judah; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood."heh, didn't the filmmaker just quote from the writer of Hebrews trying to show the writer of that book has no knowledge of a "Human Jesus"? it's likely anyways Paul didn't write Hebrews, but I will not go into that here, but The film maker asserts Paul did, and that is the premise of the point given here.It is not like this film maker does not make decent points in certain areas, he does, but he is engaging in the same blind bias of the religion he is bashing on. Once he engages in these tactics, in my strong opinion, he loses credibility as the religion he picks out, and the film is no longer a documentary, but a personal opinion, and a bias of the film maker, nothing more, nothing less.

A:
negative
****