TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: It does touch a few interesting points.. But! - It fails to show evidence of all the 'exclusive' studies shown. Who are the 'friends' and 'small groups of scientists' that gathered this data? - What's up with all the Al Gore biography going on there? Like how he liked playing with the cows on the ranch or that his kid got hit by a car.. too bad but.. what does that have to do with the ozone layer?I've seen MUCH better stuff, in much less time, on Discovery Channel.. I really don't understand why this has such a high score on IMDb. Unless you've been living under a rock, this 'documentary' shouldn't be any news to you... all this is old news... And all Al Gore is trying to do is get some popularity points. P.S. i'm not American so don't even try saying that i'm a bush fan :p

SOLUTION: negative

PROBLEM: Semana Santa is jaw-droppingly bad. It's so wrong in so many ways I don't where to begin. So, let's see...Mira Sorvino, whose judge husband has been shot while protecting her, goes from Madrid to Seville for her cop job. During the holy week (Semana santa, see?...everybody begins to fall sleep..told u it was bad in so many points, even from the beginning), a killer executes his victims like bulls in a bullfighting arena. She teams up with male chauvinist pig Olivier Martinez and nice Feodor Atkine. Soon she discovers she'll be the next target of the killer (who wears a red robe). Why, oh but why?Why..;that's the questionthat has been in my head the whole movie.Q :Why did go to see that A : Because i love Mira Sorvino (i even excuse her for that AT FIRST SIGHT crap)Q : Why were we only 8 people in the theater this saturday on the first week end of release? A : ah-ah-ah. Spider-man got relaesed the same day. But also the fact that the movie has been blast with execrable reviews.Q : Why this movie has been made? A : Money I guess. But boy did Mira need the money.then...why???????????? first of all, there's always something wrong with european co-productions. here you got a french-english-german-italian-spanish-danish production. yi-ha.Then it wants to play on the same playgroung as US thrillers/slashers/whodunit/mysteries/whatever. Even VALENTINE, though unnecessary and badly scripted and shot, was much better in the suspense and the fun.Then , to give some credit to the story, the screenwriter wanted to add some political sight to the story. Wrong : done in flash-backs in a Traffic-like photography, it's certainly the most interesting thing i n the movie. Could have stick to it, it wouldn't have to sit through the whole movie. Better go straight to Guillermo del Tros's THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE (El espinazo del diablo)for some clever fun.Then the homophobia. Bullseye! The first victims are S&M drug addicted gay twins who got stabbed to death. The annoying olivier Martinez goes to a dating agency held by a badly shaved overweight transvestive with a blond platinum wig. Calls mira Sorvino's character a big dyke all the time. Do we need this kind of stuff? Nah. Just needless offensive remarks, just like ol'times.Then the suspense. Yipee. No apparent motive. The first murders are plain illusion as they're a representation of a famous painting. But no. And the revelation of the killer (a horrible fascist, of course) could have been done from the beginning as he appears at the end of the movie as, I guess, it was time for the director to say "weel, time to finish that damn movie. let's reveal right now who the killer is and why he kills".Then the director thinks he's a director. Wrong : no sense of suspense, no sense of directing the actors, no knowledge of change of pace. A Giant, mega-bore. The scenes of the holy week are needless (maybe a co-production rule saying : ok, shoot in Sevilla but show some creditsof this beautiful and historical town with the celebrations of Easter. There we are : a mystery movie for tourists!)Then the actors. All wrongs. Mira Sorvino bores herself to death : she does practicly nothing except getting stabbed in the right hand. Everything she did best (the Replacement Killers, Mighty Aphrodite...) were like they never existed. Olivier Martinez...hello, anybody here? When the producers will learn that he's not an actor but a mannequin with no ability of speech nor feelings? Feodor Atkine, bland and transparent. Only do we pay great respect to Alida Valli, one of the greatest actress this last century (and I hope for some more roles in this current one). She's tha main attraction here as she's the only one to give life to her poor lines. I won't mention the other actors as they're only one-sided characters, uninteresting and shallow.Incoherent direction, inconsistent actors, implausible plot. Idiocy incarnated.Superwonderscope says : 1

SOLUTION: negative

PROBLEM: Apparently none of the previous reviewers,most of whom praise the film for its accuracy, have actually read a biography of Louis Pasteur.The most glaring inaccuracy is in the relationship between Pasteur and Napoleon III.Back in the 1930's the latter was invariably shown in a bad light.While far from an admirable character-he was an inept politician and a self-appointed "military genius" who allowed France to be dragged into a disastrous war,he was not the stupid reactionary depicted here. He had an intelligent interest in science,and like many other people in the 19th century saw a bright future because of the improvements it would bring.Far from exiling Pasteur, he was his PATRON,building him a laboratory and providing him with all the resources that he needed for his research.While the lab was under construction, Pasteur became gravely ill.A bureaucrat, deciding it was a waste of money to build a laboratory for someone who would soon be dead, ordered work halted on his own authority.When the emperor heard about this, his outrage shook the bureaucracy so that there was a flurry of buck-passing, and work promptly resumed.The Emperor personally visited Pasteur to comfort him and reassure him that he would get his lab.The emperor would often bring members of his court to admire Pasteur's projects,and it was obvious to everyone that Pasteur was one of the emperor's favorites.Pasteur's main worry concerning the Emperor was that Napoleon thought Pasteur was virtually a miracle worker who could do almost anything, and was constantly assigning him tasks outside of his previous experience.Pasteur, a very modest man, was always protesting this, but Napoleon would say that he had complete faith in him,and Pasteur despite his misgivings, always came through.They always had a close and friendly relationship,and after the Emperor was overthrown, Pasteur refused to say a bad word about him,grateful to the end of his life.The part about his daughter having the baby, and Pasteur sacrificing his principles to get a doctor, never happened.The part about the anthrax and rabies, for which he was famous, is generally correct, but the notion that the anthrax experiment raised him from obscurity to fame is false.He was famous and respected at the time this happened.This movie is OK from a dramatic standpoint,but very distorted as biography.

SOLUTION:
negative