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: Cliche-ridden story of an impending divorce - or is it? - through the eyes of a 6 year-old child. Corny dialogue, cardboard characters, stock situations, a red herring zombie sub-plot and, worst of all, absolutely no payoff, either emotionally or dramatically.Does no-one teach creative writing any more? The true sign of a weak storyteller - when you cannot create any kind of satisfying denouement - just end the story. I'm compelled to ask, "what made you think this was a story worth telling in the first place!?" Good, but wasted, debut by child actor Anthony De Marco - the rest of the cast was, at best, forgettable. And they wonder why no-one watches indie films! This is ninety minutes of my life I will never get back.

A: negative
****
Q: Because 'cruel' would be the only word in existence to describe the intentions of these film makers. Where do you even begin? In a spout of b*tchiness, I'm going to start with the awful acting of nearly everybody in this movie. Scratch that. Nearly does not belong in that sentence. I can't think of even one character who was portrayed well. Although, in all fairness, it would be nearly impossible to portray these zero dimensional characters in a successful way. Still, the girl who played Katherine (whose name I purposefully don't include - I'm pretending she doesn't exist) remains one of the worst actors I've ever seen, only eclipsed by the guy who played Sebastian. The story was God awful. It attempted to mirror the brilliance that was the first one but failed in so many ways. Pretty much every part of it was pointless - though I will admit (grudgingly) that the plot twist was quite good it its surprise. And the ending was at least slightly humorous. But this film is up there with the worst I've seen. Don't watch it. Just don't. There is absolutely no value in watching it. None. It only takes away the enjoyment of the first.

A: negative
****
Q: Hmmmm, want a little romance with your mystery? This has it. I think if the romance was ditched this would have made for a better movie. But how could the romance be ditched when the story's borrowed from something called a Harlequin Romance novel, whatever the heck that is. Had the romance been ditched, the story might have been a little too weak. The mystery here wasn't too bad, quite interesting but nothing on the level of Mission Impossible international espionage. Oh well. I thought Mel Harris was pretty good; her short skirts, i think, added some sex appeal... but this Rob Stewart guy probably could have been better cast, maybe with a more well known TV movie actor. The directing was decent and the writing could have been improved on - both could have been a little edgier, a little darker, more adventurous. One thing that was great about this was the use of real European locations. That could easily have been changed so this could have been filmed in Canada but they really were in magnificently beautiful places like Budapest. Possibly a drawback was the director and/or cinematographer's choice to frame certain shots picture postcard perfect. Not good. Had this been a more dramatic motion picture shot for the big screen, picture postcard perfect scenes really need to take a backseat and just be a nice part of the background. This was just a tv-movie, though, so they had to add some Ummmph to the picture and some of that Ummmph came from the scenery. Overall, twasn't really a bad movie. I'll tell you what, this was absolutely the best Canadian-Hungarian production I have ever seen! (and the only that i know of.) I hereby proclaim this to be a mediocre made-for-tv movie, giving it a grade of C-

A:
positive
****