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]: While it contains facts that are not widely reported, it is not exactly the truth. They took a lot of liberties in rearranging events, excluding people, and using sets that do not meet the facts of their lives in the 30's. There were more than just Bonnie, Clyde, and W.D. in the gang at various times, and those people had as much to do with the facts as those included. Buck and Blanche went to convince Clyde to go straight much earlier than the one shootout, and in fact got drawn back into crime. Some of the events that were portrayed in daylight actually took place at night. Bonnie's wound was much more severe and never healed right. It was so bad she had to be carried around by someone until it healed up, and even then it stiffened up so she walked stiffly. Clyde also walked with a limp because while in prison he cut off a big toe. I know, I'm being nit picky, and it was a TV movie, but even without these factual errors in this "TRUE" story, the movie moves too fast from event to event and comes across more as several separate snapshots of their lives, rather than being a cohesive flowing story.I'd recommend reading a book or seeing a documentary if you want to get closer to the truth.
[A]: negative


[Q]: Jungle Fever is too highly stylized, stereotyped, and comes across as essentially dishonest. Wesley Snipes was wrong for the lead and there was no chemistry between him and Annabella Sciorra. Even though there's plenty of talent in this movie, it's mostly wasted because the parts are reduced to little more than decorative cameos. Also, instead of simply showing racism for the ugly and stupid thing it is, Spike Lee chooses to wave it around like a flag in a most whining and irritating manner. I made it through most of the film but I couldn't quite finish it, and that, for me, rarely happens.
[A]: negative


[Q]: A few weeks ago, I read the classic George Orwell novel, 1984. I was fascinated with it and thought it was one of the best books I've read recently. So when I rented the DVD, I was intrigued to see how this adaptation measured up. Unfortunately, the movie didn't even come close to creating the ambiance or developing the characters that Orwell so masterfully did in his book. The director seems to think that everyone watching the movie has read the book, because he makes no attempt to demonstrate WHY the characters act and feel the way they do. John Hurt, the main actor, is droll the entire way through, and hardly does any acting until the end. We never really find out what he does for a living, or why his love affair is forbidden, or what the political climate is and why the main character desires rebellion. This book cannot be done justice in movie form without proper narration and explanation of the political system oppressing the characters, and the fact that those are missing is the greatest shortcoming of this film. Besides that, John Hurt was a terrible casting choice, looking about 15 years older than the 39 year old Winston he was supposed to be portraying. On a more positive note, however, the rest of the cast was well chosen. It's just too bad they were put in such a horribly adapted film with the wrong lead actor. -Brian O.
[A]:
negative