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: I'm feeling a little protective of this film because it was my introduction to the U.N.C.L.E.-verse. The year was 1972, and I.T.V. ran all eight features in one bumper run ( followed by re-runs of 'The Persuaders' starring Tony Curtis and Roger Moore ) on Saturday evenings. 'The Karate Killers' was chosen to open the season. It commenced with a cool action sequence as Solo and Kuryakin's sports car got attacked by a squadron of THRUSH mini-copters. I was a fan for life from that moment on.After the main credits ( nice to see a special title sequence here instead of the usual practice of slowing down action footage ) we go to the laboratory of Dr.Simon True ( Jim Boles ), inventor of a new formula to extract gold from seawater. True's wife Amanda ( Joan Crawford ) has been having an affair with THRUSH agent Randolph ( Herbert Lom ). A ruthless fellow indeed, he kills both the doctor and his wife, before hunting for the formula. True has prepared for the event - he has divided it into five segments, each written on a photograph of himself, and sent it to his five daughters, all of whom are scattered throughout the world.Solo and Kuryakin set out to get the formula first, leading to a string of episodes in different locations, and cameos from the likes of Telly Savalas ( as a tight-fisted Italian Count ), Terry-Thomas, and Curt Jurgens. One of Dr.True's daughters - Sandy ( Kim Darby ) - accompanies the U.N.C.L.E. boys on their global quest.Having assembled the formula, THRUSH turns up and makes them hand it over, before whisking them off to their secret base at the North Pole...Of all the U.N.C.L.E. feature films, this is the one I feel should have been produced specially for the cinema. It hurts by being a television product, albeit even one more slightly expensive than usual. No location filming was done, and the various segments come across as repetitive, usually culminating in a scrap between U.N.C.L.E. and THRUSH. Of the cast, Joan Crawford is memorably hammy in her small role, and Curt Jurgens badly miscast as a sugar daddy. As a London bobby, Terry-Thomas is as delightful as ever, and Herbert Lom good as the chief villain. Kim Darby grates though as 'Sandy'. She should have been told to stay at home.What is surprising about this is that it manages to be more amusing and entertaining than many official cinema releases of the time, including 'In Like Flint', 'Casino Royale' and 'The Ambushers'. I'd love to know how Solo and company escaped from THRUSH H.Q. after Randolph's death though.

Answer: positive


Question: Seriously the only good thing about this year ceremony were the winners.Although the ceremony itself was pretty short it still was somewhat boring. I think it's seriously time to look for a new director and producers for the show, who can come up with something REALLY new. It's pretty obvious that they tried to make the show more 'hip' and appealing for a younger audience this year by letting Beyonce perform and letting P. Diddy and Prince present a category. Also letting Chris Rock be the presenter was an attempt to re-new the ceremony and make it more appealing. None of it really worked out.Sure, Chris Rock is a funny guy but he wasn't really a good presenter. I really merely saw him as a guy who just talked every now and then in between of the different categories. His presence wasn't really as 'big' as for instance Billy Crystal's.Also the handing out of the awards was pretty dumb at times. Not letting everybody come to the stage but also handing out some of the awards in the middle of the theater was plain weird.Still, I can't remember being any more satisfied with the award winners. None of the movies really swept away the awards as the last couple of years always had been the case. So does that mean it had been a good year for movies with lots of competitive contestants? I don't think so. I think most of the movies will be largely forgotten in 20 years from now, with the exception of "Million Dollar Baby" and "The Passion of the Christ" maybe. Sure I don't agree with every single award that was handed out this year, for instance Caleb Deschanel should had won for best cinematography, not that I don't like Robert Richardson's work, he really did some amazing work for most of Oliver Stone's work but I really feel that Deschanel deserved the award way more. Also I would had liked seeing Jim Miller and Paul Rubell win for best editing and John Debney for best music. But oh well, there is no way the Academy Awards can please everybody of course, I understand that. There will always be people complaining about the winners.It also was funny to see that most of the award presenters were way more nervous than the nominees and winners. Did Prince said any of the nominees names right at once? And were is Sean Penn's sense of humor? Al Pacino and Jeremy "I hope they missed" Irons were the best presenters of the night.Overall a very forgettable show but with nice winners.4/10

Answer: negative


Question: The Robin Cook novel "Coma" had already been turned into a pretty successful movie in 1978. A couple of years later it was the turn of another Robin Cook bestseller to get the big screen treatment , but in the case of "Sphinx" virtually everything that could go wrong does go wrong. This is a dreadful adventure flick consisting of wooden performances, stupid dialogue, unconvincing characters and leaden pacing. The only reason it escapes a 1-out-of-10 rating is that the Egyptian backdrop provides infinitely more fascination than the story itself. Hard to believe Franklin J. Schaffner (of "Patton" and "Planet Of The Apes") is the director behind this debacle.Pretty Egyptologist Erica Baron (Lesley Anne-Down) is on a working vacation in Cairo when she stumbles across the shop of antiques dealer Abdu-Hamdi (John Gielgud). Hamdi befriends Erica and is impressed by her enthusiasm and knowledge. Consequently, he shows her a beautiful and incredibly rare statue of Pharoah Seti I that he is keeping secretly in his shop. The very existence of the statue arouses intense excitement in Erica, for it could provide vital clues in locating Seti I's long-lost tomb, a prize as great as the discovery of Tutankhamun's tomb in 1922. Before Hamdi can tell Erica any more he is brutally murdered in his shop, with Erica watching in silent terror as he meets his grisly end. Afraid yet tantalised by what she has seen, Erica attempts to track down the treasure. She finds herself helped and hindered in her quest by various other parties, none of whom are truly trustworthy. For one there is Yvon (Maurice Ronet), seemingly a friend but perhaps a man with sinister ulterior motives? Then there is Akmed Khazzan (Frank Langella), an Egyptian for whom Erica feels a certain attraction but who may also be hiding dangerous secrets from her.The biggest problems with "Sphinx" generally result from its total disregard for plausibility. Down couldn't be less convincing as a female Egyptologist  one assumes she would be quite well-educated and resourceful, yet she spends the entire film screaming helplessly like some busty bimbo from a teen slasher flick. On those rare occasions that she actually isn't running from a potential villain, she does other brainless things such as taking Polaroid flash photos in a 4,000 year old tomb! The plot twists are heavy-handed to say the least, mainly comprising of revelations and double-crosses that can be predicted well in advance. One can't even try to enjoy the film on the level of dumb but entertaining action fare, because the pacing is awfully sluggish. What little action can be found is separated by long stretches of tedium. A famous review of the movie declared: "Sphinx stinks!" Never before has a 2-hour film been so aptly summed up in 2 words.

Answer:
negative