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:
Errol Flynn is "Gentleman Jim" in this 1942 film about boxer Jim Corbett, known as the man who beat John L. Sullivan. Directed with a light hand by Flynn's good friend, Raoul Walsh, the film also stars Alexis Smith, Jack Carson, Alan Hale Sr., William Frawley and Ward Bond. Flynn plays an ambitious, egotistical young man who has a natural talent for boxing and is sponsored by the exclusive Olympic Club in San Francisco in the late 1800s. Though good-natured, the fact that he is a "shanty Irishman" and a social climber builds resentment in Olympic Club members; most of them can't wait to see him lose a fight, and they bet against him. Despite this, he rises to fame, even working as an actor. Finally he gets the chance he's been waiting for, a match with the world champion, John L. Sullivan (Ward Bond). Sullivan demands a $10,000 deposit to insure that Corbett will appear to fight for the $25,000 purse. Corbett and his manager (Frawley) despair of getting the money. However, help comes in the form of a very unlikely individual.This is a very entertaining film, and Jim Corbett is an excellent role for Flynn, who himself was a professional fighter at one time. He has the requisite charm, good looks and athleticism for the role. Alexis Smith plays Victoria Ware, his romantic interest who insists that she hates him. In real life, she doesn't seem to have existed; Corbett was married to Olive Lake Morris from 1886 to 1895.The focus of the film is on Corbett and his career rather than the history of boxing. Corbett used scientific techniques and innovation and is thought of as the man who made prizefighting an art form. In the film, Corbett is fleet of foot and avoids being hit by his opponents; it is believed that he wore down John L. Sullivan this way.Good film to catch Flynn at the height of his too-short time as a superstar.
answer:
positive


question:
This is the biggest piece of lamo I've ever watched. It is excruciatingly boring I would have rather sat through a seminar on creationism than have watched this if i had known it was going to be as boring as it was. Not even the 40 seconds of the hot chick in the bikini with the big ta tas redeems this of anything lower than a 1.The reviews of this movie claiming that this movie is "unintentionally funny" are absurd and just plain WRONG. Not one thing is funny about this movie. they spend the first 50 or so minutes walking through the woods talking about stuff you wouldn't understand nor care about and it is just as lame when the people start dying because you don't even know who the people are because they are so UNINTERESTING. Honestly though, I didn't watch it to the ending, but that should say something about how horrible it is. WORST MOVIE EVER.Immediately after ejecting this filth from my DVD player I started scraping it against the cement in front of my house, not wanting other blockbuster customers to have to fall upon the same mistake i had made as to rent this movie. Then Zach peed his pants. Thankyou for your time.
answer:
negative


question:
REALLY? REALLY???? I know if you make a political war movie you will get noticed but this movie was just garbage. Horrible in every sense. Terribly inaccurate in so many ways. I have an easier time believing the president of the United States suiting up, flying a jet fighter, and shooting down aliens. It is easier to note the few things that were right. My jaw dropped when I saw some one say that this movie was the best in the last 25 years. It was overacted, seemingly pointless plot diversions, and had questionable cinematography at times.X-box, YouTube, ACUPAT utilities did anyone check that these things did not exist in 2004? It's not like you had to do extensive research, it was only five years before this movie came out. I am an Iraq war Veteran and if you spent ONE day with an infantry platoon or an EOD squad you would realize how B.S. this movie is. To compare this to Platoon or Saving Private Ryan is ludicrous. Why don't you just throw Commando and Red Dawn in there too; I think those might be more accurate. If for some reason you can see past the unbelievable plot, the historical and factual discrepancies, then this movie might just be OK. Nothing more. If you keep on hearing "Oscar buzz", and have to add your own pompous review, go right ahead. As for me, I am writing the director to see if I can get my 131 minutes back.
answer:

negative