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 kind of storytelling is unacceptable The only reason this film is anywhere above the 5 stars out of 10 line is because it's got George Lucas behind it, and it has the words "Star" and "Wars" in its title. That is an insult to aspiring filmmakers, and many others out there who have made clearly superior films with superior story, writing and acting, but did not get the credit. This is a travesty.First things first. The story. Anakin's evolution? There is none. Apart from a little make-up around the eyes, and a little yelling, there is none. He becomes young, stupid, cocky Anakin Skywalker to Darth Vader in a single blow. The only thing consistent about Darth Vader in the original series was his intelligence, how good he was at almost everything he did, planning, fighting, you name it. The only consistent thing about Anakin that is perceived in the prequel trilogy is his consistent stupidity. He even loses his body because of a bout of stupid cockiness.What part of the Emperor Palpatine telling him legends of the Sith does not point to the Emperor being a Sith? Unacceptable!The fight scenes used too many digital doubles. Everyone's flying all over the place like teddy bears in a make-believe doll house. Count Dooku, Emperor Palpatine, Anakin, Obi-Wan, almost every fighter had a rubbery digital double jumping around.In one specific fight scene, Obi-Wan and Anakin in the climactic battle, they both actually stop in the middle of parries and ripostes, to twirl their sabers a few times while inches apart. I realize the fights are choreographed, but that just got me shaking my head in disbelief and disgust.The writing was awful. All the dialogue was of tremendously low quality. The good actors like Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman did the best they could with their lines, but that just wasn't enough. I can't say enough bad things about this film. Too much special effects, plot holes bigger than the centre of the universe, and absolutely no insights into any of the characters. This is the biggest mistake of this film: nothing new is offered. We know the rough picture of everything, all Lucas did was colour it in.We knew Anakin lost his limbs. We knew Luke and Leia are brother and sister, we knew Luke is Anakin's son, we knew Obi-Wan and Yoda go to exile, we knew everything. Nothing new is offered in this film. If that's all the fans wanted, then that's fine, Lucas couldn't have gone wrong.But when Anakin finally becomes Darth Vader, and he asks after Padme, and hears she is dead, he reaches out his arms awkwardly and screams "Nooooooooooooooooooooo." That scene screamed B-movie all the way, and I was half expecting Darth Vader to go "DANGER WILL ROBINSON, DANGER" at any time. That is what this is. A B-movie, disguised by a huge budget and a ultra-loyalist fan base that will settle with anything now that the first two movies have pulled their standards down to the pits of the Earth.

Answer: negative


Question: There are many adaptations of Charlotte Brontë's classic novel "Jane Eyre", and taking into consideration the numerous reviews written about them there is also a lively discussion on which of them is the best. The short film adaptations all suffer from the fact that it is simply not possible to cram the whole plot of the novel into a movie of about a 100 min. length, consequently these movies only show few parts of the novel. The TV series have proved to be a more suitable format to render all the different episodes of the heroine's life.There are three TV mini series, released in '73, '83 and 2006. The 2006 version is not only the worst of these three, but the worst of all Jane Eyre adaptations and a striking example of a completely overrated film. The novel's beautiful lines are substituted by insipid and trivial ones, and crucial scenes are either deleted or replaced by scenes which have nothing whatever to do with the novel. What it all leads to then is that the characters portrayed have not only nothing in common with the Rochester and Jane of the novel and behave in exactly the opposite way as described in the book, but that also their behaviour and language is absolutely not consistent with the behaviour of the period in which the novel is set. It is a silly soap opera, in which the actors look and act as if they had been put in the costumes of the 1850ies by mistake. This "Jane Eyre" (as it dares to call itself) is indeed a slap in the face of Charlotte Brontë.The 1973 version is very faithful to the novel in that the long dialogues between Mr. Rochester and Jane are rendered in nearly their full length. But what works beautifully in the novel does not necessarily work beautifully on the screen. At times the language of the novel is too complex and convoluted as to appear natural when spoken on screen, and the constant interruptions of the dialogues by Jane's voice-overs add to the impression of artificiality and staginess. And despite the faithfulness to the novel the essence of the scenes is not captured. Another problem is the casting of the main characters. Sorcha Cusack's portrayal of Jane as a bold, self-confident, worldly-wise young woman is totally at odds with the literary model, and Michael Jayston, although a good actor, does simply not possess the commanding physical presence nor the charisma necessary to play Rochester. Although a decent adaptation it simply fails to convey the passion and intensity of the novel and never really captivates the audience.All the faults of the '73 version stand corrected in the TV mini series of '83 with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. Although from a purist's point of view Timothy Dalton is too handsome, tall and lean to be Rochester, he possesses the essential qualities for the role: He has an imposing physical presence, great magnetism and an air of self-assurance and authority. And despite his undeniable handsomeness he looks grim and stern enough to play the gloomy master of Thornfield convincingly. But the excellence of his performance lies in the way he renders all the facets of Rochester's character. Of all the actors who have played Rochester he is the only one to capture them all: Rochester's harshness, nearly insolence, his moodiness and abruptness, as well as his humorous side, his tenderness, his solicitude and deep, frantic love. Dalton's handling of Charlotte Brontë's language is equally superb. Even Rochester's most far-fetched and complicated thoughts ring absolutely true and natural when Dalton delivers them. He is the definitive Rochester, unsurpassed and unsurpassable, and after watching him in this role it is impossible to imagine Rochester to be played in any other way or by any other actor.Zelah Clarke delivers an equally excellent performance in a role that is possibly even more difficult to play well than the one of Rochester. She portrays exactly the Jane of the novel, an outwardly shy, reserved and guarded young woman, but who possesses a great depth of feeling and an equally great strength of will. She catches beautifully the duality in Jane's character: her modesty and respectfulness on the one hand, and her fire and passion on the other, her seeming frailty and her indomitable sense of right and wrong. She and Dalton have wonderful chemistry and their scenes together are pure delight.As regards faithfulness to the literary model this version also quotes verbatim from the novel as does the '73 version, but with one important difference: The dialogues are shortened in this version, but the core lines which are essential for the characterisation of the protagonists and the development of the plot are rendered unchanged. Thus the scriptwriter avoided any artificiality of speech, while still fully preserving the beauty and originality of Charlotte Brontë's language. And in contrast to the earlier BBC version the essence of each scene is perfectly captured.The plot of the novel is followed with even greater accuracy than in the '73 series. It is nearly a scene for scene enactment of the novel, where equal time and emphasis is given to each episode of Jane's life. It is the only Jane Eyre adaptation that has a gypsy scene worthy of the novel, and the only one which does full justice to the novel's pivotal and most heartrending scene when Jane and Rochester meet after the aborted wedding. Timothy Dalton in particular plays that scene with superb skill. He renders with almost painful intensity Rochester's anguish as he realizes Jane's resolution to leave him, his frantic attempts to make her stay and his final despair as she indeed leaves him. It is a heartbreaking, almost devastating, scene, which will stay with the viewer for a long time.With even the smaller roles perfectly cast, an excellent script and two ideal leading actors this is the definitive and only true "Jane Eyre".

Answer: positive


Question: Escaping the life of being pimped by her father(..and the speakeasy waitressing)who dies in an explosion, Lily Powers(Barbara Stanwyck, who is simply ravishing)sluts her way through the branches inside a bank business in big city Gotham. When a possessive lover murders who was supposed to be his next father-in-law(and Lily's new lover), the sky's the limit for Lily as she has written down her various relationships in a diary and subtlety makes it known the papers will receive it if certain pay doesn't come into her hands. Newly appointed president to the bank, Courtland Trenholm(George Brent), sends Lily to Paris instead of forking over lots of dough, but soon finds himself madly in love after various encounters with her in the City of Love. This makes Lily's mouth water as now she'll have reached the pedestal of success seducing a man of wealth and prestige bring riches her way. Though, circumstances ensue which will bring her to make a decision that threatens her successful way of achieving those riches..Trenholm, now her husband, is being indicted with jail certain and has lost the bank. He needs money Lily now has in her possession or he'll have absolutely nothing.Stanwyck is the whole movie despite that usual Warner Brothers polish. Being set in the pre-code era gives the filmmakers the chance to elaborate on taboo subjects such as a woman using sex to achieve success and how that can lead to tragedy. Good direction from Alfred E Green shows through subtlety hints in different mannerisms and speech through good acting from the seductive performance of Stanwyck how to stage something without actually showing the explicit act. Obviously the film shows that money isn't everything and all that jazz as love comes into the heart of Lily's dead heart. That ending having Lily achieve the miraculous metamorphosis into someone in love didn't ring true to me. She's spent all this time to get to that platform only to fall for a man who was essentially no different than others she had used before him.

Answer:
positive