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: This is the 2nd time I've seen this movie in about 12 years. These remarks come from someone who finds Kane and Ambersons to be amazing, worthy films. But the remainder of Welles career is, unfortunately, squandered on material unworthy of his talent and too flimsy to withstand his filmic embroidering. And when he makes a potboiler like Shanghai, the lack of anything substantial to hang his filmic tricks on, is just kind of sad. I couldn't tell you what he was exploring here. It's all as mannered as Welle's godawful Irish brogue; which takes a lot of effort, but adds absolutely zero to the film. Several Welles projects became this overdeveloped and baroque. Mr Arkadin (pick a version, any version) is a similarly belabored project. The material is inconsequential. It just can't bear the weight of all this noodling. For a director trafficking in reality-based drama (as here), he never feels any pull to tie his bundle of conceits back to reality; or to a coherent story. The murder-for-hire scheme is ridiculous. Kudos to Welles though, for having Hayworth cut her hair, and getting that performance out of her. The camera loves her. She's the classiest, most upscale, sultry and ravishing femme fatale ever put on film. But her treachery comes so late in the film it feels like some desperate decision, made so the movie will have some genre it fits into. The movie can't be saved by a noir convention deployed in the last 60 seconds.When all is said and done in L.F.S., the convolutions are all for what?; to convince you you've seen something thoughtful? to give Welles more to do? to make you roll your eyes? Welles has no sensitivity to the scale of a story, or to telling a story directly. One wonders what Shanghai has to say to anyone who isn't a crippled billionaire, arranging a quadruple-cross murder-for-hire scheme, or a fanboy in love with filmic conceits devoid of meaning or substance. Overwrought, preposterous, unengaging.

A: negative
****
Q: OK the plot is, wait you got me there is no true discernible plot here just a string of optically fogged sex scenes, strung together by scenes of photographers taking pictures of pretty ladies (Sometimes a combination of the two) Then a demon comes around kills the men, rapes and kills the women, and waxes poetic about the meaning of life. Moronic special effects, bad acting and bizarre philosophy aside, you get what you expect from a film with a title like this. I guess it would have to be someone's cup of tea, just not mine as I have yet to see a good Kazuo 'Gaira' Komizu directed film.DVD Extras: Subtitled Interview with Director Kazuo Komizu Part 1 (Part 2 is on the Entrails of a Beautiful Woman DVD); and Theatrical TailerMy Grade: F

A: negative
****
Q: Of all Arnold's mid-'80s movies who would have thought that most relevant today would be The Running Man. A chilling and surprisingly realistic tale of reality TV gone mad. It may have been far-fetched back then but not so now. Not when you think about it. Currently, Reality TV shows are either scraping the bottom of the barrel or desperate to raise the bar. If the next one isn't more controversial as the last, it's a dud. How long will it be before we really do see shows like The Running Man? How long before we have 'court-appointed theatrical attorneys' or the entertainment division of the Justice Department? There is so much satire and intelligence in this movie that may have been missed back in 1987 that is desperate to be seen again considering the current state of TV shows.The biggest message of all is 'You are being lied to'. It's no secret that the Government and the media work in cahoots. And the masses believe what the media tells them to believe. It's a very scary state of affairs and unless more accurate representations of the truth emerge we may easily accept a brutal show like the Running Man in the near future. It's no secret that Reality TV is not very realistic. It's edited and reshaped before being aired and it's only what the networks want you to see. Usually it's far from the real truth.Although rather different than Stephen King's book (the ending is completely changed) the script does conform to the typical Arnie formula. Yes, he does have numerous and very corny one-liners and he does say 'I'll be back' (which he never REALLY said that often anyway, when you think about it) in the most ironic situation yet but he's still a zillion times better in the role then Christopher Reeve or Dolph Lundgren would have been (these two were considered BEFORE Arnie believe it or not).The director is none other than Dave Starsky himself (Paul Michael Glaser). It may not be artistic but it is still strong enough to generate excitement and his use of neon and flourescent colors gives each individual set a pretty cool look. Andrew Davis (not a director I particularly like) was attached before Glaser, though no matter who directs, the film is still marred by a very heavy 80's feel.First of all, Harold Faltermeyer's score (remember him?) is incredibly dated and robs the action scenes of any timeless integrity. And the fashion sense of the movie is far too excessive to be convincingly set in the future. Apart from the dated feel, the only other thing that bugs me is the poorly staged shoot-out that passes as the climax.This new DVD is a zillion times better than the original release. Gone is the horrid letterbox picture. In its place is a brand new hi-definition 1.85:1 anamorphic transfer. The colors sparkle and literally pop from the screen. The new Dolby 5.1 EX and DTS ES soundtrack are also amazing. There constant use of the surround channels to great effect and the bass is strong and powerful. Definitely one of the best re-masters I've seen so far. Two intriguing documentaries, a trailer and a 'Meet the Stalkers' gimmick are included in this 2-disc set that comes in a rather neat slip case.

A:
positive
****