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:
A few summer space campers actually were accidently sent into space by a robot. And the oxygen in ship was running short. They had to sent someone to a space station to get the gas tanks, etc, etc.First of all, this movie's plot is not possible in real life. But it gives a warm feelings of anything is possible if you set your heart in.It is amazing to see those young actors who still look about the same after so many years. (I saw this movie for the first time in the year of 2000, it was filmed in 1986) There are quite a few people in that movie who are still working in Hollywood.The view was great from outer space. It does not look unreal. It is about 2 hours long, it runs so fast that you won't even notice. You know that it is not real, but you just get sucked into it until the end.Overall, it is a good family movie.
answer:
positive


question:
A good picture is worth all the words. This film has the most poetic scene ever dreamed of about people with Down's syndrome. And I won't spoil it by telling you. You'll want to see it yourself.Pasqual Duquenne is an amazing actor. I did not need to understand a single word he said to understand his meaning.The film has a magic of it's own. After watching it I understood better that we put too much value on achievement and not enough on the people we love. Passion and simplicity is all we need.
answer:
positive


question:
Woody Allen, when at his best, has one of the sharpest pens around. He can make an acute observation and wrap it around a punch line like nobody else. However, when he's at his worst his movies can stench of pretentiousness. Unfortunately, "Melinda and Melinda" has this stench from opening to closing. The set up is one of his more intriguing ideas in a while. Four friends sit in a restaurant discussing whether the essence of life is comedy or drama. To help settle the argument, one man relates the beginning of a story and asks the two other men arguing (one a comic playwright, the other a dramatic playwright) whether the story is a comedy or a tragedy. The two men then continue the story and the movie plays out the stories that they weave. Now, when I first heard about this film, my understanding was that they tell the exact same story, the genre (comedy or drama) only changes by how you look at it. Now that would have been interesting. However, the stories only share one main element and a few side elements. They are entirely different stories with major plot differences. The drama is so stiffly scripted and pretentious that it can only really work as self-parody. If this was the point, then it failed because these elements prevent the audience from feeling any emotional investment in any of the characters. The comedy is the story that has moments of success, but they are still short and fleeting. Will Farrell is obviously meant to be the stand-in for Woody, but he could have played this character so much more believably without adding Woody's stutters and hand-ticks. Woody is the best at being Woody. When someone else tries, they're not playing a character, they are modeling a recognizable actor. This type of thing only pulls the audience out of the story.My favorite Woody Allen movies make me leave the theater a little bit lighter in spirit than I walked in. This one made me wish I could get my money back.
answer:

negative