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.
--------
Question: Jonathan Rivers (Michael Keaton) suddenly becomes a widower when his wife dies. Soon after, he's approached by a Dr. Price, an expert in Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP), who claims he's been receiving messages from Jonathan's departed wife Anna via sundry electronic gadgets. Is Anna trying to tell Jonathan something? Is this merely a hint of something on a larger cosmic or otherworldly scale? It's good to see Keaton in a leading role, but the story he's stuck with is convoluted and absurd at points; it's as if the movie doesn't know how to answer any of the questions it brings up, so it just distracts the viewer with new, unrelated questions.Keaton himself is pretty good, convincingly cast as the bereaving widower desperately trying to communicate with his late wife. He's matured quite a bit as an actor, leaving behind the frat-friendly waacky-hijinks roles he played 15 or so years earlier. He looks a little craggy, with a perhaps few more wrinkles than one might expect, but he's lost none of the guile and panache that he's shown during his quarter century in Hollywood.So it's not that Keaton turns in a mediocre performance, it's that the script itself is subpar. Written by Niall Johnson, the plot gets more confusing as it progresses, each tortuous path ending in another tortuous path. This is all well and good if the path leads to some sort of acceptable denouement, something that ties more or less everything together and explains... something. But not White Noise; I knew less about what had happened to Jonathan than I did before I'd first seen him.Keaton's really the only reason to watch this junk, although he gets fine support from Ian McNeice (as Dr. Price) and Deborah Kara Unger as the requisite love interest.

Answer: negative


Question: Because 'cruel' would be the only word in existence to describe the intentions of these film makers. Where do you even begin? In a spout of b*tchiness, I'm going to start with the awful acting of nearly everybody in this movie. Scratch that. Nearly does not belong in that sentence. I can't think of even one character who was portrayed well. Although, in all fairness, it would be nearly impossible to portray these zero dimensional characters in a successful way. Still, the girl who played Katherine (whose name I purposefully don't include - I'm pretending she doesn't exist) remains one of the worst actors I've ever seen, only eclipsed by the guy who played Sebastian. The story was God awful. It attempted to mirror the brilliance that was the first one but failed in so many ways. Pretty much every part of it was pointless - though I will admit (grudgingly) that the plot twist was quite good it its surprise. And the ending was at least slightly humorous. But this film is up there with the worst I've seen. Don't watch it. Just don't. There is absolutely no value in watching it. None. It only takes away the enjoyment of the first.

Answer: negative


Question: I saw this movie only after hearing raves about it for years. Needless to say, the actual experience proved a bit anticlimactic. But still, Alec Guiness energetically leads a wonderful cast in a jolly, if formulaic, romp through industrial post-WWII England.This is the familiar tale of the woes of inventing the perfect everyday product. Remember the car that runs on water? Remember the promise of nuclear energy? In this case, it's a fabric that doesn't wear out, wrinkle, or even get dirty! Of course, fabric manufacturers and their workers are horrified at the prospect of being put out of business, and so the plot gets a bit thick.Guiness makes the whole enterprise worthwhile, and watching him blow up a factory research lab over and over again is quite a blast! (Those Brits ... always the stiff upper lip when under fire.) The film might chug along exactly like Guiness's goofy invention, but it's a good ride all the same.

Answer:
positive