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: A convict serving time comes forward to give the Cold Case unit information about the murder of a policeman, committed years before. The murder of Sean Cooper, a good cop, was never solved. Naturally, the detectives believe the new evidence will help them put together all the pieces of the puzzle that frustrated their colleagues.In flashbacks we are taken to the baptism of James Bruno's baby. Sean and Jimmy were partners. There is tension as Sean, who is the godfather, arrives disheveled and late for the rite. Eileen Bruno doesn't appear to be happy being there. The real mystery is revealed by her. She caught Sean, who was drinking with Jimmy in the backyard, kiss her husband, and more shocking yet, Jimmy responding willingly.Somehow at the station the partners become the center of gossip. Sean has not endeared himself to his superior because he discovered the involvement with a criminal in his area who controlled the drug business. Sean realizes this man is in with the drug strong man because he always makes an excuse to free the scum bags Sean and Jimmy haul into the station all the time. The pressure is too much on Jimmy. Sean is comfortable in his homosexuality and wants to be honest about it. Cooper's own father doesn't want anything to do with a queer son. Even his superior McCree wants him out of his jurisdiction, but the case is complicated because Cooper comes from a long line of Irish men serving in the police force. Sean is killed because his homosexual condition, and for knowing too much on his peers' involvement in taking dirty money.Tom Petit wrote this honest portrayal of the life of a police officer in the closet and his secret love with another fellow cop. We thought it was a frank account of a serious matter no one talked about in those days. Sometimes the people involved with the show, fearing reprisals from sponsors, or the networks, don't dare to present these real situations. Jeannot Szwarc, shows a sensitive approach to this thorny issue, which is dealt without the sensationalism the case might have been shown with a different team.There is a rare Chad Everett appearance as the older Jimmy Bruno. His take is right on target with a touch of sentimentality that doesn't get out of hand. Shane Johnson makes an excellent contribution to the show as Sean Cooper. The cast is marvelous and it includes good all around performances from everyone under Mr. Szwarc's direction.In this episode, Nick Vera, gets closer to his neighbor, the mother of the basketball player the detective took his ball away. Nick is heading for romance with the woman!

A: positive
****
Q: This 1991 NBC-TV movie aired six months before John Goodman's big-screen version of the life of Babe Ruth came out. For my money, there is no comparison between the two. The TV production isn't perfect but it presents the Babe's story with more depth and complexity than Goodman's one-dimensional telling. I especially enjoyed the film's depiction of the complex love-hate relationship Ruth had with Yankee manager Miller Huggins, who always understood his star player's brilliance and also kept trying to point out why Ruth's own character flaws would never let him become a manager or leader of players. The TV-movie rightly notes how Ruth never fulfilled his dream of managing the Yankees because of his flaws, while the horrible Goodman version tries to push the falsehood that Ruth was denied what should have been his for the taking.This film makes a great companion piece to "Eight Men Out" since the story starts with Ruth's arrival in New York in 1920, one year after the Black Sox Scandal and when his home run exploits literally saved baseball from ruin. Indeed, the continuity between the two films is even accentuated with John Anderson reprising his "Eight Men Out" role as Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis.

A: positive
****
Q: this film tries to be immensely clever, and Tarantino-like before you try that though, you need solid filmic fundamentals. these include good sound, editing, set design etc...lets talk about the sound in this movie. absolutely atrocious. i have never been more distracted by a sound track, everand before we talk about low budget, film made in Chile etc.. lets bear in mind that desent sound these days is far more achievable than it ever has been. anywhere. and more info on technique is available then ever beforethe sound in this movie is plain bad. the foley in particular is out of place and inappropriate throughout, the atmos is equally terrible. i heard at least four loud clicks during the movie, which are the result of poor sound editing. the sound inside cars is awful, the sound of car doors closing is awful. the sound of the lady singing is wrong. foley is either overboard, or simply not there like the sound person just got bored and gave up. the spaces are wrong. everything about it is wrong and yet, not letting limitations of creativity get in the way, at the same time the movie tries boldly to be clever. for example the sound of the aquarium is used in the following street scene. we hear sound when we're not supposed to. sound edits precede visual cuts. every trick in the book is used, and yet the foundations are just not thereediting-wise we have scenes using heavy jump cuts, we have tinkering around with the time line etc etc etc, yawn. all of these techniques are imitated to a splendidly low standard overall the mix is crap, the sound is crap. and so, the film is crap. how can a movie with so many fundamental flaws be considered for awards and high praise? Chile's cinematic new wave? the best creative output that Chile has to offer? i hope not, and i think not.my theory is that Chile's more selective and better talent avoided this film like the plague maybe due to its risque content. equally, the film has likely received so much unwarranted critical acclaim from so called 'world-cinema' enthusiasts for the same grubby reasons. they likely revel in it's trashiness. of course film critics rarely pay attention to technical details and quality this film is rubbish. it's all mouth and no trousers and is never deserving of a 6.8 rating. the film has all the production quality of a cheap Tarantino, new wave inspired porno!

A:
negative
****