instruction:
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:
This is one of the greatest love story movies I have ever seen. Yes, I can agree that some parts may seem dated, but this does not distract from the film. One should try to observe, criticize and enjoy any art form from the perspective of the time. Clearly by the "Sex in the City" standards, Charlie Chaplin was horribly boring. However, when judged from the prospective of 1925 America, he was fantastic. Likewise Sayonara is a breakthrough film in its look into a mixed-race love affair, American "manifest destiny" arrogance and prejudice, and the complexity of different cultures. It is a natural next step to such films as Gentleman's Agreement. Its purpose, however, was not just social commentary, rather, it is entertaining and enjoyable, with innumerable lines that one just doesn't forget.However, even when taken only as a love story, it is terrific. Although, some attack Brando's accent, he is at his near best in nuance and characterization. Buttons and Umeki (who both won Oscars) and the rest of the supporting cast add much to the film.Taka, the real star, does a fabulous job making you feel the passion she has for Brando, while being torn by her sense of obligation and loyalty. Her speech when she first meets and speaks with Brando is a classic and something rarely if ever matched in cinema. The dialog between Taka and Brando in her dressing room in Tokyo at the film's end is equally good. Of course, it doesn't have the mouth-sucking, spit-swapping and worse, that exemplifies love in today's movies, but that makes it all the better. It portrays true love and passion, and not just "heat." If this movie doesn't touch you, then you are just too young, too cynical or dead.
answer:
positive


question:
I found this film to be an utter dissapointment. The talent available to the director- notably Stanley Tucci, Chris Walken, Hank Azaria and Alan Arkin (without even mentioning the four main leads)- have been completely wasted on an unfunny, mediocre story, whose conclusion one couldn't really care about once introduced to the dire, stereo-typed characters. Julia Roberts is feeble, Zeta-Jones is just plain annoying (appearing to reprise her role from high fidelity, minus the humour), Crystal just plays his same old hyper-active, neurotic, annoying alter-ego and Cusack simply walks through his part, apparently bored with the whole project.For what is supposed to be a 'Romantic comedy', there is absolutely no romance between the central characters, let alone chemistry, and as for the comedy- (possible SPOILERS)well, the only moments of mild humour came off the back of Cusack's role in Grosse Pointe and his relationship with Alan Arkin- the scriptwriter obviously unable to show any originality whatsoever. (Spoilers) Azaria was reasonably amusing as the Mexican lover and Walken did quite an amusing turn as a parody of an arthouse-maverick-Dogme type director- but these parts constituted very little screen time and instead (Spoilers) we were treated to Billy Crystal having his groin sniffed by a dog. Pure genius.For a huge fan of the majority of John Cusack's work, not to mention the rest of the fantastic cast, I was completely let down by a film with plenty of good ideas, and at the same time completely unwilling to explore or elaborate on any of them, instead resorting to the same old genre cliches and even lowering itself to the depths of almost 'gross-out, teen-movie' humour at times.A very poor 4/10.
answer:
negative


question:
In spite of the great future-design touches, the clever Asimov premise, and Will Smith's dependable cool performance, this movie doesn't live up to expectations. The clichés come thick and fast; (waking from a recurring nightmare, maverick cop has his badge revoked by hardass lieutenant, to list more would be spoiling it - you can see the end a mile off). This movie is also stagebound - you never feel that you have travelled anywhere; what's supposed to be a global disaster never leaves an obviously CGI Chicago. The robots themselves are good in closeup, but the 'crowd' scenes look more like bad Disney -the CGI is overdone again and again. And if you can destroy the robots by smashing them, why do they need to inject 'nanites'? You know it's a duff movie when stupid questions like that start to bother you before the climax. It could have been great, but it's less than the sum of its parts, mainly due to the utterly predictable plot that could have come from any action film of the last forty years.
answer:

negative