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 movie strikes me as one of the most successful attempts ever at coming up with plausible answers for some of the nagging questions that have cropped up in recent scholarship concerning the "Passion" (suffering and death of Christ) accounts in the New Testament. (What motivated Judas if money was not the issue? What could bring the Sanhedrin to meet on a high holy day? Why did Pilate waffle?) It is a movie for the serious, thinking Christian: fans of "The Passion of the Christ" will no doubt be disappointed by the lack of gory spectacle and arch characterization. As for myself, I find the portrait painted here--of the willingness of ordinary people to so blithely sacrifice common decency when their own self-interest is at stake--far more realistic and deeply unsettling. (The disinterested, "just doing my job" look on the face of the man who drives the first nail in Christ's wrist is as chilling as any moment in film.) The film makes no claim to "authenticity", but the settings and costuming invariably feel more "right" than many more highly acclaimed efforts. It is a slow film but, if you accept its self-imposed limits (it is, after all, "The Death"--not the Life--"of Christ"), ultimately a very rewarding one.
answer:
positive


question:
Unbelievably awful film. I watched part of this on T.V. recently. My jaw dropped as I watched a horrendously conceived plot and listened to mind-numbing drivel. Not a single line from the master of one-liners could come close to producing anything resembling a chuckle. It was so bad it made me want to exhume Rodney Dangerfield's body, slap him around and scream, "How could you?" I know many films are done in haste, hoping to cash in on the popularity of a given actor or theme. But please, Hollywood, show a little respect for your audience. It's sad and scary that people were expected to pay to see such tripe. The bottom of the cesspool, even by Sunday afternoon television standards.
answer:
negative


question:
My only minor quibble with the film I grew up knowing as STAIRWAY TO HEAVEN, is the fact that the wonderful RAYMOND MASSEY is relegated to the last twenty or so minutes in the trial scene. And the trial itself, IMO, is the least interesting portion of this fascinating fantasy.David NIVEN and KIM HUNTER are wonderfully cast as the young lovers, but it's ROGER LIVESEY who gives the liveliest and most credible performance. French accented MARIUS GORING is a delight (he even gets in a remark about Technicolor) as the heavenly messenger sent to reclaim Niven when his wartime death goes unreported due to an oversight. Goring has some of the wittiest lines and delivers them with relish.Seeing this tonight on TCM for the first time in twenty or so years, I think it's a supreme example of what a wonderful year 1946 was for films. The Technicolor photography, somewhat subdued and not garish at all, is excellent and the way it shifts into B&W for the heavenly sequences is done with great imagination and effectiveness.The opening scene is the sort that really draws a viewer into the fantasy aspects of the story--and Niven's tense talk with radio operator Hunter while his plane is crashing toward earth, unexpectedly leads to a memorable romantic encounter. Truly a marvelous film from beginning to end, another triumph for Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger.
answer:

positive