instruction:
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:
There seems to be an overwhelming response to this movie yet no one with the insight to critique its methodology, which is extremely flawed. It simply continues to propogate journalistic style analysis, which is that it plays off of the audiences lack of knowledge and prejudice in order to evoke an emotional decry and outburst of negative diatribe.Journalism 101: tell the viewer some fact only in order to predispose them into drawing conclusions which are predictable. for instance, the idea of civil war, chaos, looting, etc were all supposedly unexpected responses to the collapse of governmental infrastructure following Hussein's demise: were these not all symptomatic of an already destitute culture? doctrinal infighting as symptomatic of these veins of Islam itself, rather than a failure in police force to restrain and secure? would they rather the US have declared marshall law? i'm sure the papers here would've exploded with accusations of a police state and fascist force.aside from the analytical idiocy of the film, it takes a few sideliners and leaves the rest out claiming "so-and-so refused to be interviewed..." yet the questions they would've asked are no doubt already answered by the hundred inquisitions those individuals have already received. would you, as vice president, deign to be interviewed by a first time writer/producer which was most certainly already amped to twist your words. they couldn't roll tape of Condi to actually show her opinion and answer some of the logistics of the questions, perhaps they never watched her hearing.this is far from a neutral glimpse of the situation on the ground there. this is another biased, asinine approach by journalists - which are, by and large, unthinking herds.anyone wanting to comment on war ought at least have based their ideas on things a little more reliable than NBC coverage and CNN commentary. these interpretations smack of the same vitriol which simply creates a further bipartisanism of those who want to think and those who want to be told by the media what to think.
answer:
negative

question:
This is, in my opinion, a very good film, especially for Michael Jackson lovers. It contains a message on drugs, stunning special effects, and an awesome music video.The main film is centered around the song and music video 'Smooth Criminal.' Unlike the four-minute music video, it is normal speed and, in my opinion, much easier to watch.The plot is rather weird, however. Michael Jackson plays a magical 'gangster' that, when he sees a shooting star, he transforms into a piece of machinery. Throughout the film, he transforms into a race car, a giant robot, and a space ship.The robot scene in particular is a bit drawn out and strange. I found it a little out-of-whack compared to the rest of the film.A child is kidnapped, Michael tries to save her, is tortured and beaten, and suddenly turns into a giant robot that blows up all the bad guys. A little weird? Yeah.But besides the bizarre robot scene, it's a very good movie, and any Michael Jackson fan will enjoy both the Smooth Criminal music video and the movie.
answer:
positive

question:
Sort of family parody blending "An Officer And A Gentleman", "Heartbreak Ridge", "Full Metal Jacket" (and without doubt other movies I am not able to remember now) into a rather dull movie, with some bright spots. The gags are always there where you would expect them, and Damon Wayans's lines are, well, predictable. As I said, unfortunately this movie never surprises you...
answer:
negative