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:
Canadian filmmaker Mary Harron is a cultural gadfly whose previous films laid bare some the artistic excess of the Sixties and the hollow avaricious Eighties. With "The Notorious Bettie Page" she points her unswerving eye at Fifties America, an era cloaked in the moral righteousness of Joe McCarthy, while experiencing the beginnings of a sexual awakening that would result in the free love of the next decade. Harron and her co-writer Guinevere Turner, are clearly not interested in the standard biopic of a sex symbol. This is a film about the underground icon of an era and how her pure unashamed sexuality revealed both the predatory instincts and impure thoughts of a culture untouched by the beauty of a nude body. If the details of Bettie's life were all the film was concerned about, then why end it before her most tragic period was about to begin. Clearly, Harron is more interested in America's attitudes towards sexual imagery then and now. Together with a fearless lead performance by Gretchen Mol and the stunningly atmospheric cinematography of W.Mott Hupfel III, she accomplishes this goal admirably, holding up a mirror to the past while making the audience examine their own "enlightened" 21st Century attitudes towards so-called pornography. As America suffocates under a new conservatism, this is a film needed more than ever.
answer:
positive


question:
How they got Al Pacino to play in this movie is beyond me. This movie is absolutely terrible. I discovered, after reading some of the other reviews, that a couple of people actually enjoyed this film, which deeply puzzles me, because I do not see how anyone in their right mind could possibly enjoy a movie as awful as Revolution. It's not just that it's a bad movie, with a lame plot and overall strangeness that is extremely unpleasant, but it seems as if the filmmakers were either mentally retarded (which is a very possible explanation as to why this movie sucks like it does, though it probably still sucks even compared to other films made by retards) or deliberately made every illogical decision to make this movie suck as much as possible. For example, we see Donald Sutherland running around with a huge, fat ugly mole on his face. He does not normally have a mole. The mole does not add to his character. It is extremely ugly and distracting. It's not like Robert De Niro's mole; it's much worse. Why the hell has he got that mole? It's as if the filmmakers just said, "Let's see, how could we make this movie even worse than it already is? I know, let's give Mr. Sutherland a giant, ugly-ass mole right on his face."Another example of the filmmakers' stupidity is the character Ned. We see, for the first three-quarters of the movie, young Ned. At one point, "six months later" appears on the screen. We see Ned again, and it is, of course, the same actor playing the boy. Five minutes later, "three weeks later" appears on the screen, and all of a sudden we've got a different actor playing as the now older Ned. What, do they think we're idiots? Good God! Again, it's like the filmmakers are saying, "How can we possibly make it any worse? I don't think we can...Oh wait! I just had a terrible idea!" I know a kid doesn't grow much in half a year, which is fine, but he at least grows more than he does in three weeks. Just don't get another actor to play Ned, or at least get him to play the five minutes when he's three weeks younger. Furthermore, the kid who plays the "older" Ned does not look any older than "young" Ned. As a matter of fact, he just looks completely different, much skinnier, and no taller or older than the original actor, which is very confusing, as I, like any rational human being, thought at first that it was a new and different character.What, did the first kid die while they were filming the movie? Because he was in it for the first hour and a half, and then all of a sudden, three weeks later, the guy from Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is playing Ned for the last five minutes of the movie. And even if the original actor did die, the filmmakers should have at least gotten an actor who looks like him to play the remainder of his role, and re-shoot the measly five minutes of "six months later" scenes. Better yet, just scrap the movie completely, never finish it and never release, never even tell anybody about it, because by that point they should have realized that their movie sucks and in finishing it they would only waste more money and time and succeed in making one of the worst movies of all time.I'm not saying that this movie is so bad you shouldn't watch it; it's so bad that you SHOULD watch it, just to see how badly it sucks. It's terrible, terrible.
answer:
negative


question:
Alright, so I've been dying to see this movie. Stoked about the, "who's who" in horror land that are in the film....well, my friend rented this, brought it over, and we started watching it. It's supposed to be a comedy....I did not smirk even ONCE, until the 40min mark.Does it have to do with the budget? Not at all, in fact, there's films out there that cost CLOSE TO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and they're amazing (to me anyways). Also, while watching this film, I couldn't help but realize the similarities (i.e., STEALING) to a low budget indie film titled, "ACTRESS APOCALYPSE", read my review about it (it DESTROYS this film BTW).This film...it had potential it really did. It had the "star power", stolen plot (lets film the behind the scenes of the making of a movie...IE..."ACTRESS APOCALYPSE"....seriously, this angers me the more and more I think about),...it really could've been funny. A LOT, A LOT of the jokes fall flat. The acting is alright for what it is. But it dragged on, wasn't funny, and the plot was totally stolen.I give this a two, because it wasn't SOOO AWFUL, but that's the ONLY reason.
answer:

negative