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: First of all, this movie isn't a complete disaster. If you had never heard of the real story of Gram Parsons then it might seem a reasonably entertaining diversion. Johnny Knoxville can't really be criticised for his performance as Phil Kaufman - he's pretty good at looking laid-back and down to earth and you can sort of root for his long-suffering everyman. Michael Shannon is due credit for pretty much the same reasons, except he's a hippy stoner. There are some good individual comedic scenes - the hippy-hearse crashing into the airport hanger door stands out. But that's where the good things end, and we begin to see the aspects that make this movie so truly disappointing. The character of Robert Forster as Gram's actual father is an invention so disgraceful as to cast a taint over the entire film. We all know his real father committed suicide when he was young - something that could surely be compared to Gram's life on the edge by a better film-maker. Having Forster as his supposed real father, and not his step-father would be bad enough, if not for the well known difficulties Gram had with the man who actually flew to collect his body. It has been suggested that his step father had admitted to providing Gram's mother with alcohol as she lay dying and that this enraged Gram when he later found out about it. Also the controversy over where Gram's body was buried would surely be reason enough not to invent a benevolent made-up father who actually catches up to the duo and their hearse, but then allows them to go ahead with the burning. Whatever the truth about the man who Gram got the name Parsons from, he certainly bore no resemblance to Forster's character here, and it is hard to see why this role was written. Then there's the addition of Christina Applegate as a greedy chick (yet very pretty of course) who wants Gram's body back so that she can begin to cash in on his estate. Her character, and her acting are non-existent and one wonders why the director didn't just go the whole hog and include a lesbo scene between her and the chick who plays Kaufman's girlfriend(it wouldn't have lowered the tone a whole lot more). When you think of the ingredients that could have been used in a good movie about Parsons, the shortcomings of this film are easily apparent. Country music being changed by a young, polite, southern gentleman - who was also long haired, drug loving, popular with the ladies and ultimately self destructive. Real events like the hanger door crash and the painted hearse and friends like Keith Richards. Instead of these things we have to concentrate wholly on Kaufman's input into Gram's life. Kaufman is obviously still lapping up the cult status he received for what he did (he certainly is a little cult). From interviews it is obvious that he's delighted with the attention. Remember this is the man who made a remark about the genitalia of the naked corpse of Gram Parsons as he was preparing to set it alight. What he did was not an act of great loyalty, but a doped up alcoholic escapade. Looking at Knoxville and the director in interviews, a few things become clear also. It's obvious that they have no real grasp of the story of Gram's life, nor do they wish to have. They want a hit movie about an event that is infamous and crazy. It was an amazing life with a strange end. That the end is the only thing covered by this movie shows how limited an understanding of Gram Parsons the makers had.

Answer: negative


Question: Walt Disney & his 9 Old Men put their own 1950 spin on the classic fairy tale of Cinderella, which I guess you could say helps form an unofficial "fairy tale princess trilogy" from the classic Disney years.THE PLOT: Cinderella is a nice girl who can't catch a break. She is the daughter of a nice, wealthy widower who loved her dearly, but her mother passed away when Cinderella was very young, and Cindy's father felt she needed a mother figure, so he eventually married the woman who would become known as Lady Tremaine, herself a widow with two daughters about the same age as Cinderella, Anastasia and Drizella. At first they all seemed to get along, but then Cinderella's father died, and Lady Tremaine's true nature was revealed - she was a cold, cruel, callous, heartless, mean spirited woman, and she passed those traits on to her daughters, who were spoiled, bratty, and equally mean spirited. Anastasia & Drizella hate Cinderella because they know deep down that she's better looking and an overall nicer, more attractive lady than themselves (i.e., more appealing to men), and their mother, Lady Tremaine, hates Cindy for pretty much the same reasons. As the years passed Lady Tremaine began to squander the family fortunes in a stubborn but futile quest to improve/refine her awkward, unattractive daughters (to call them "homely" would be an insult to homely people everywhere) while all three relegated Cinderella to being the multi-tasking servant of the house, abusing her, mistreating her and humiliating her every chance they get (they are particularly fond of increasing her already absurd workload). That brings us to Cinderella in the present, where she has blossomed into a good looking young lady who somehow manages to remain kind hearted and nice despite her abusive step family and holds on to the hope that one day the tables will turn in her favor. Cinderella gets her shot at freedom & happiness when a royal ball is held to introduce the local prince to an eligible young maiden so that he can take her as a wife, settle down, start a family, etc. Naturally, her step family tries to keep her from attending, even going so far as to physically assault her and rip up the dress she had procured for herself (with a little help from her mice friends - the dress belonged to her biological mother). Finally pushed beyond her breaking point, Cinderella runs out into the courtyard and cries in despair. It is at that point that her Fairy Godmother, a short, plump, jolly woman, arrives and provides Cinderella with transportation and a transformed dress (after all, Cinderella wouldn't make a very good impression at the ball if she entered the scene looking like she had just gotten gang raped). Cindy arrives at the ball, the Prince falls hard for her, but that pesky midnight rule gets in the way, forcing her to flee, but leaving behind a glass slipper. Make a long story short - after a long harrowing quest to find the mystery girl via trying on the glass slipper, Cinderella is found and she and the prince get married, giving her the happy ending she deserves.Overall, an enjoyable Disney classic. Not without its flaws, the most glaring of which is that the Prince is little more than a MacGuffin to help push the plot along - he has very little screen time and even less dialogue, so we never get to know him very well or get a good look at his relationship with Cinderella (which is unfortunate since, according to the making of documentary, the Prince was originally meant to play a bigger role), and a few additional scenes to help flesh out Cinderella herself might have been helpful (there was a song that showed her fantasizing of turning into an army of maids to clean up the house as well as eavesdropping on her step-family post ball to show her amusement at their jealousy, which was cut because Walt himself thought it made her look spiteful). Still, Cinderella herself is a likable enough heroine, even if she is upstaged by her mice friends, and there's a sweetness to the film that is becoming harder to find these days. Of course, if this were being made now, Cinderella would probably put up more of a struggle against her family during the dress ripping scene and would probably free herself in the climax (either by picking the lock herself or making an impractical yet exciting jump down from her window) but this is beside the point.And for all those who say Cinderella sets a bad example for young girls, well, consider this - at least Cinderella didn't go around getting publicly drunk and indecently exposed, unlike some modern day "princesses" (you know who I mean).

Answer: positive


Question: Burt Kennedy used to be a very good director, but you'd never know it by this lumbering mess. Not only does this film look cheap, it IS cheap--most of the battle scenes are lifted from the far superior "The Last Command" from 1955, and that footage, shot 32 years previously, looks more contemporary than anything in this picture. The few action scenes that were actually shot for this movie are disorganized, confused and incompetent, looking just as shoddy as the rest of the picture. This has the look and feel of a bad student film (and the budget didn't seem to be a whole lot more). It moves like molasses, the acting for the most part is either over-the-top ham or under-the-top comatose--although Raul Julia comes off better than most of the rest of the cast--and it's chock full of annoying historical inaccuracies. On top of that, it's WAY too long. If you're going to make a boring film, do it in an hour or so and get it over with--don't stretch it out over three hours, like this one does. If you want to see a good movie about the Alamo, check out John Wayne's 1960 version, or even the 1955 film from which this movie stole its action scenes. Hard to believe it took six producers to make a movie this lousy. Skip it.

Answer:
negative