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.

[Q]: I didn't expect a movie as good as "In The Line of Fire" or an episode of "24", but it looked like this movie was made for TV and did a mediocre job at best. The (good) cast couldn't disguise the fact that the plot was all too predictable and actors had to struggle (they really try their best I think) through their lines of bad script, giving their rather flat characters any extras. When I watched the movie I got the feeling that I had seen most of this in other (better) movies. In it you had car chases, big shootouts, romance, plot twists etc. etc; This movie has none.** Spoiler** As soon as you see another woman talking into the phone to Cuba's character, you know who's behind all this and all the hints you're being given ("you stand too close to the president, see it from my perspective.." ) sound silly. If it were up to me (and maybe it's a good thing that it isn't) I would rewrite the plot like this:First lady orders the murder of her husband because she is sick and tired of writing checks to Cuba all the time.
[A]: negative


[Q]: Loved the movie. I even liked most of the actors in it. But, for me Ms. Davis' very poor attempt at an accent, and her stiff acting really makes an otherwise compelling movie very hard to watch. Seriously if any other modern actor played the same role with the same style as Ms. Davis they would be laughed off the screen.I really think she 'phoned this one in'. Now if it had Myrna Loy or Ingrid Bergman playing the part of the wife I would have enjoyed it much more.I guess I just don't 'get' Bette Davis. I've always thought of her as an actor that 'plays herself' no matter what role she's in. The possible exception is Now Voyager.I'm sure many of the other reviewers will explain in careful (and I hope civil) detail how I am totally wrong on this. But, I'll continue to watch the movies she's in because I like the stories/writing/supporting casts, but, I'll always be thinking, of different actresses that could have done a better job.
[A]: positive


[Q]: Same old same old about Che. It completely ignored the really interesting facts of Che's true character. Sodeberg redid the same boring narrative of Che. The silly seductive tale of an Argentinean rich-boy who was so shocked by poverty he became a Robin Hood fighting alongside the poor, until eventually he was murdered by the CIA. Yeah, yeah, heard it all before, BORING AND UNTRUE!. The reality of Che Guevara is very different and far more explosive! The facts show that he was a totalitarian with a messiah streak, who openly wanted to impose Maoist tyranny on the world. He was so fanatical that at the hottest moment in the Cold War, he even begged the Soviet Union to nuke New York, Washington or Los Angeles and bring about the end of the world. CHe urged Khrushchev to launch a nuclear strike against US cities. For the rest of his life, he declared that if his finger had been on the button, he would have pushed it. When Khrushchev backed down and literally saved the world, Che was furious at the "betrayal". If Che's recommendations had been followed, you would not be reading this review now. How a homicidal maniac became a pop icon would have made a much more interesting film. Incredible that no filmmaker has been daring enough to show the real side of Che and his posthumous media transformation. THAT WOULD MAKE AN Oscar WINNING FILM! I thought making independent film meant taking REAL RISKS and being GROUNDBRAKING! They only stick to "safe counterculture themes", to wit, "Che cool", "Wall Street bad", "Republican= Nazi", "Bush ex Hitler", "NRA is worse than KGB", "Christians are fanatics and stupid", etc...ad nauseum. Oooh, how daring, how mind blowing. Tres anti-mainstream and edgy. I wish they would have some real cojones and tackle the Independent Film Oligarchy! That would be truly daring!
[A]:
negative