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:
Simply one of the best ever! Richard Brooks' adaptation of Truman Capote's non-fiction novel is truly an artistic achievement. Stunning black and white cinematography (that should have won an Oscar), a haunting Quincy Jones score and tremendous performances by Robert Blake and Scott Wilson as the oddly-matched killers. This film was 0 for 4 at the Academy Awards and wasn't even nominated for Best Picture while Dr. Doolittle was. Go Figure! Although you don't get to know the Clutter family as well as you do in the book, it was a good decision to focus more on Perry and Dick and the pain-staking process of tracking these guys down. John Forsythe is also impressive as Alvin Dewey. There are simply no flaws in this one. 10 out of 10. Best performance = Scott Wilson with R. Blake a close second. Highly recommended!
answer:
positive


question:
Home Alone 3 is one of my least favourite movies. It's the cream of the crop, or s*** if you tend to be more cynical, as it ranks up (or down) there with stuff like Battlefield Earth and Flinstones: Viva Rock Vegas. In fact, it could even be worse than those two, since those two at least intermittently made me laugh at their stupidity. This just made me cringe in pain constantly and clap when the credits started rolling. No other movie has made me cringe in pain. Now I will point out exactly why this movie is so incredibly atrocious.First off, the plot is ridiculous. It revolves around a chip in a remote control car (?!) that is misplaced and how these terrorists want it. Dumb stuff.The action that ensues is similar to that of the other two Home Alones, with boobytraps and all, but watching these boobytraps being executed is, rather than being funny, incredibly unpleasant to watch. I didn't laugh (or even so much as smile) once, rather, I cringed constantly and hoped that the terrorists would nail the kid. The bird, rather than providing comic relief, was unfunny and annoying.The acting, as done by a bunch of no names, ranges from poor to atrocious. There is not a single good performance here. Alex D.Linz is absolutely unlikeable and unfunny as the kid, while the terrorists act (and judging by their movie credits, look) as they've been hastily picked off the street...and well, that's it.I can see some people saying: "Man, it's for the kids. Don't dis it, man." Well MAN, kids may like this, but they can get a hell of a lot better. See Monsters Inc. and Toy Story before even considering getting this out. Hell, even Scooby Doo and Garfield (which suck - see those reviews for more) are better than this! So in short, this is an irredeemably atrocious movie. This was clearly recycled for the money, as it almost completely rips off the first two; the only thing is, it completely insults the first two as well. No human, kid or otherwise, should find any reason to see Home Alone 3. Ever. It's THAT bad.0/5 stars
answer:
negative


question:
1st watched 8/3/2003 - 2 out of 10(Dir-Brad Sykes): Mindless 3-D movie about flesh-eating zombies in a 3 story within a movie chronicle. And yes, we get to see zombies eating human flesh parts in 3D!! Wow, not!! That has been done time and time again in 2D in a zombie movie but what usually makes a zombie movie better is the underlying story not the actual flesh-eating. That's what made the original zombie classics good. The flesh-eating was just thrown in as an extra. We're actually bored throughout most of this 3-part chronicle because of the lame(twilight-zone like) easily understood and slow-pacingly revealed finale's. The last story is actually the story the movie started with(having a reporter investigating a so-called ghost town) and of course we get to see flesh eating zombie's in that one as well. Well, I think I've said enough. Watch the classics, not this 3D bore-feast.
answer:

negative