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: Despite much style, flash, and glitter, this French musical fails to speak. The tunes are repetitive, predictable, and tedious. The story is uninteresting, as are the many characters. People break into song and dance, without motivation or reason. Most of the cast wears phony looking wigs and hairpieces, and the sets look hopelessly studio bound.To be honest, this video of the restored version was stopped before the end, so negative an effect it had on me. Certainly a shame, to have such a multi-talented cast in so feeble a final effort. Goes to show, I guess, where followups (in this case, to the great classic, "Umbrellas") often do go awry. One cannot recapture, only recreate.

A: negative
****
Q: This is one strange hacked together film, you get the feeling that the bond company had to come in on this one, I'm not surprised there's no credits on it, who would want to be associated with this film. The Acting of all involved is terribly stilted and the plot jumps around all over, it all makes very little sense. As I said before it looks like the bond company had to come in because it seems like there was alot of footage that wasn't shot that needed to be, and all the music was very ill-fitting library music (cheap I guess). Very, very odd. I might actually buy a DVD of it though, if it could let me in on what the hell was going on, and what happened to this movie.

A: negative
****
Q: This is a extremely well-made film. The acting, script and camera-work are all first-rate. The music is good, too, though it is mostly early in the film, when things are still relatively cheery. There are no really superstars in the cast, though several faces will be familiar. The entire cast does an excellent job with the script.But it is hard to watch, because there is no good end to a situation like the one presented. It is now fashionable to blame the British for setting Hindus and Muslims against each other, and then cruelly separating them into two countries. There is some merit in this view, but it's also true that no one forced Hindus and Muslims in the region to mistreat each other as they did around the time of partition. It seems more likely that the British simply saw the tensions between the religions and were clever enough to exploit them to their own ends.The result is that there is much cruelty and inhumanity in the situation and this is very unpleasant to remember and to see on the screen. But it is never painted as a black-and-white case. There is baseness and nobility on both sides, and also the hope for change in the younger generation.There is redemption of a sort, in the end, when Puro has to make a hard choice between a man who has ruined her life, but also truly loved her, and her family which has disowned her, then later come looking for her. But by that point, she has no option that is without great pain for her.This film carries the message that both Muslims and Hindus have their grave faults, and also that both can be dignified and caring people. The reality of partition makes that realisation all the more wrenching, since there can never be real reconciliation across the India/Pakistan border. In that sense, it is similar to "Mr & Mrs Iyer".In the end, we were glad to have seen the film, even though the resolution was heartbreaking. If the UK and US could deal with their own histories of racism with this kind of frankness, they would certainly be better off.

A:
positive
****