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: If there was ever a call to make a bad film that reflected how stupid humanity could become, this one would take the prize. The plot centers around bible prophecies that lie in hidden messages of the scriptures that prompt a group of power-seeking thugs to attempt total control of the world. Just how stupid does this writer believe people to actually be?  The acting was bad at best. Casper Van Dien wasted his talent doing this film. Michael York's work was a fair match for the role, since he was the center of the film, and did a good job.  This plot was sickening and very disturbing. No tender or immature minds should see this film. This is how a basic good vs. evil plot can go astray. There must be a lot of mental disease floating around the film circles, who look for ways to market this type of junk. There must have been something censored out to get a PG-13 rating, but it was still awful.

A: negative
****
Q: Leslie Charteris' series of novels of the adventures of the slightly shady Simon Templar ("The Saint") was brought to the screen in the late 1930s with the up and coming George Sanders as Templar. It was a careful choice - Sanders usually would play villains with occasional "nice roles" (ffoliott in FOREIGN CORRESPONDENCE, the title hero in THE STRANGE CASE OF UNCLE HARRY, the framed "best friend" of Robert Montgomery in RAGE IN HEAVEN). Here his willingness to bend the rules and break a law briefly fit his "heavy persona", while his good looks and suave behavior made Templar a fit shady hero like Chester Morris' "Boston Blackie", and (to an extent) Peter Lorre's "Mr. Moto". The films are not the best series of movie mystery serials - but they are serviceable. Like Rathbone's Holmes series or Oland's Chan's series the show frequently had actors repeating roles or playing new ones (the anti-heroine in the film here was played by Wendy Barrie, who would show up in a second film in the series). This, and slightly familiar movie sets make the series a comfortable experience for the viewers, who hear the buzz of the dialog (always showing Sanders' braininess in keeping one step ahead of the bad guys), without noting the obvious defects of the plot. All these mysteries have defects due to the fact that even the best writers of the genre can't avoid repeating old ideas again and again and again.Here the moment when that happened was when one of the cast admitted his affection for Barrie, which she was long aware of. Shortly after he tries to protect her from the police. But as the film dealt with the identity of a criminal mastermind, it became obvious that this person was made so slightly noble as to merit being the mysterious mastermind (i.e., the script disguised him as the least likely suspect).Barrie is after the proof that her father (who died in prison) was framed by the real criminals in a robbery gang. She has several people assisting her - mugs like William Gargan - and she gets advice from the mastermind on planning embarrassing burglaries that can't be pinned on her. The D.A. who got her father convicted (Jerome Cowan) is determined to get Barrie and her gang. The only detective who seems to have a chance to solve the case is Jonathan Hale, who is shadowing Sanders but reluctantly working with him. The cast has some nice moments in the script - Hale (currently on a special diet) is tempted to eat a rich lobster dinner made for Sanders by Willie Best. He gets a serious upset stomach as a result, enabling Sanders and Barrie to flee Sanders' apartment. Best has to remind him (when he feels better) to head for a location that Sanders told him to go to at a certain time.There is also an interesting role for Gilbert Emery. Usually playing decent people (like the brow-beaten husband in BETWEEN TWO WORLDS) he plays a socially prominent weakling here - whose demise is reminiscent of that of a character in a Bogart movie.On the whole a well made film for the second half of a movie house billing in 1939. It will entertain you even if it does not remain in your memory.

A: positive
****
Q: Okay...so i've seen a lot of really odd/unusual movies in my day. Fear and loathing in Las Vegas comes to mind when I think of that. Well not anymore...from here on out, whenever someone asks me, "hey, what's the most unusual movie you've ever seen?" Slipstream is what i'll say! And I do not mean "unusual" in a good way.From the very beginning of the movie, it was obvious that this was going to be one of those "trippy camera effect" movies. By that I mean, little things like flashing images on the screen, rewinding and fast-forwarding people's words and scenes, messing with the color on the screen, flash forwards and flash backs constantly...then you have the actual acting itself. People randomly get violent, shoot things/people, say the weirdest things that just don't make much, if any sense.The movie is about a writer who starts to intermingle real life with the book he's writing and for a lack of a better way to explain it, you basically see this "trip" he goes on throughout the movie. The thing is, Johnny Depp went on a similar trip in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas but the only difference is that his trip was entertaining to watch, not painful! Honestly, I had a real hard time even finishing Slipstream. It kind of hurt my brain a bit.I can see some film buff making a claim as to this movie having certain cinematic nuances that make it not only unique but add to the feeling of dementia...blah, blah, blah. Point is, this movie hurts your brain when you watch it....it makes very little sense, it takes all of your concentration to even remotely try and understand what is going on and even at the end, the only thing you can be happy about is that it's over...and you can say you actually sat through it! So in closing, if you want to see a movie that will have you saying "what the heck" over and over again both out loud and in your head, go ahead and waste an hour and 30 minutes and check this out.Mr Hopkins, while I applaud you as an actor and commend your choice to take a stab at directing....please, do not ever make a movie like this again. Next time, try something that relies a little more on great storytelling than camera techniques that tend to leave the viewer with a headache.

A:
negative
****