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: I'm a horror/gore movie freak and this flick was so bad, I felt embarrassed for not only the "actors", but also the director and the poor sap of a producer who actually put his money up for this schlock.From the title, you'd expect some great carnage, somewhat of a storyline and at LEAST some direction or dialog. Instead, you get what looks like a slightly more violent and sexual Three Stooges episode. At least I laugh at the Three Stooges. While watching this crap, I turned another TV on and started watching Howard Stern until something interesting happened.Needless to say, I kept watching Stern.Watching this "film" I realize that I could produce a film with three monkeys, 2 DV cameras, $50 dollars in loose change and a broken PC. This film is my inspiration to get into no-budget film making. Watch this movie if you dare, but be warned...there is a lot of nothing in here but a whole lot of talking and very little action. This makes "KaZaam" look like a Meryl Streep film.I'm sure Germany didn't ban it due to sex or violence. Other countries need to take heed.

Answer: negative


Question: 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.

Answer: positive


Question: I'm going to review the 2 films as a whole because I feel that is how it should be considered, and watched. When I talk about 'the film' I am talking about parts 1 & 2 together when watched one after the other, as they should be.Thank you Jon Anderson, Steven Soderbergh & Benicio Del Toro.This film is a refreshing, bold, gritty and true film. And, it hearkens a new style of film making. No Faux drama. No Swelling sound track. Not Faux Documentary style. Just clean shots and an attempt to stick to the facts. I have been reading Jon Anderson's "Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life" and recently finished Fidel's Auto biography, and this had helped my ability to soak this film in properly. But I have to say that it is Jon Anderson's exhaustive, penultimate and wonderful biography that has given this film the proper historical back bone. Anderson was consultant on this film (or these 2 films). What makes this film a true thing is that it is clean. No swelling music or slow-motion photography to heighten drama, and even more importantly; no fake documentary shaky camera. Just square shots and straight forward shooting style. The type of camera used makes you feel right there in the jungle. Benicio Del Toro should be given full honors for this, I never doubted him as Che throughout the film... not once. He did a wonderful job and I will respect him for ever for this. Some people complain that the film only deals with 2 slices of his life and not the whole. But I think this is one of the true beautiful aspects of this film: it doesn't try to be everything. It doesn't try to 'tell the story'. A person's life is too multifaceted to try and tell in 2, 4, 8, 16 or 32 hours. This is one of the subtle beauties of this film, it resists that temptation, and stays focused on the intent of letting us GET A FEEL FOR CHE, HIS DEVELOPING MILITARISTIC MIND AND THE FORCES AROUND HIM. It focuses on 3 slices of time: The Battle to over throw Batista, Che's U.N. speech and the Gorilla preparations in Bolivia. "Motorcycle Diaries" already told his young man side, and I applaud S. Soderbergh for focusing on other aspects instead. I keep referring to Jon Anderson's book and the film stays true. The only weak link for me are the casting (not the performance) of Matt Damon. In a film so loaded with true to life performances, an American, (Matt Damon) playing a Bolivian is a clunky stretch - he does well, but after so much care in the casting, this was an over-site. Small and completely forgiven. The reality that the rest of the casting gives you, and most notably Benicio Del Toro's amazing job, put's this film at the top of my list.The fact that this film went almost straight to video say's something about how the cold war ethics that would never allow the 'revolutionized Cuba' to become what it might have, are still at work keeping it's story quiet. If not out of clandestine muffling, then out of the effects of properly done propaganda that has prejudiced this topic.This is a must see film, and Jon Anderson's "Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life" is a must read if you want to start to get a grasp of the early effects on the global mind set regarding the expansion of international / political financial chess moves of the 40's, 50's & 60's that placed unfair pressure on our South American neighbors, and the effects it fostered.

Answer:
positive