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: There seems to be an overwhelming response to this movie yet no one with the insight to critique its methodology, which is extremely flawed. It simply continues to propogate journalistic style analysis, which is that it plays off of the audiences lack of knowledge and prejudice in order to evoke an emotional decry and outburst of negative diatribe.Journalism 101: tell the viewer some fact only in order to predispose them into drawing conclusions which are predictable. for instance, the idea of civil war, chaos, looting, etc were all supposedly unexpected responses to the collapse of governmental infrastructure following Hussein's demise: were these not all symptomatic of an already destitute culture? doctrinal infighting as symptomatic of these veins of Islam itself, rather than a failure in police force to restrain and secure? would they rather the US have declared marshall law? i'm sure the papers here would've exploded with accusations of a police state and fascist force.aside from the analytical idiocy of the film, it takes a few sideliners and leaves the rest out claiming "so-and-so refused to be interviewed..." yet the questions they would've asked are no doubt already answered by the hundred inquisitions those individuals have already received. would you, as vice president, deign to be interviewed by a first time writer/producer which was most certainly already amped to twist your words. they couldn't roll tape of Condi to actually show her opinion and answer some of the logistics of the questions, perhaps they never watched her hearing.this is far from a neutral glimpse of the situation on the ground there. this is another biased, asinine approach by journalists - which are, by and large, unthinking herds.anyone wanting to comment on war ought at least have based their ideas on things a little more reliable than NBC coverage and CNN commentary. these interpretations smack of the same vitriol which simply creates a further bipartisanism of those who want to think and those who want to be told by the media what to think.

A: negative
****
Q: Saving Grace is a feel good movie with it's heart in the right place. Grace is recently widowed and realizes her late husband left her with a lot of debts. She could lose her lovely house and sees no other solution to her misery than to start growing marijuana. She's living in a beautiful village where most viewers would love to live and the villagers are all wonderful people most viewers would love to have as neighbors. There's only one thing wrong with this picture and that is the way it portraits the effect marijuana has on it's user. It's obvious none of the actors or writers of this film actually ever did smoke the stuff. The way the villagers act after smoking a joint is ridiculous and only supposedly funny. It's precisely in those scenes that wit is replaced by English slapstick, and that is a pity in a movie that is none the less very enjoyable.

A: positive
****
Q: I doubt much of this film is based on a true story. At the beginning it says based on a true story, sort of. I bet the only truth to it was there was an ex-model turned bounty hunter possibly named Domino.Anyways, it begins with Domino talking to Lucy Liu, who works for the FBI. Domino is being interrogated about what she knows about a theft of 10 million dollars. Through flashbacks, we see Domino as a child, then as a model, and how she became interested in being a bounty hunter. She basically tells 2 other bounty hunters off, Ed and Choco. They let her join the group. She's tough, can use any kind of weapon, and will use her good looks if needed.They get involved with a scam that Clarmont, a bailsman, has going. Along the way, the group starts a reality TV show, and that's where Ian Zering and Brian Austin Green become involved. They are sort of like hosts and must have been really desperate to appear in this.I thought the story was entertaining and it had some laughs. The editing didn't bother me. There's also a lot of violence, mainly using guns, and blood. It could have been a little shorter.FINAL VERDICT: Good enough to watch.

A:
positive
****