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: I am a big fan of the original book and this adaption is simply bad. First of all, it had trouble deciding if it is a kiddie toon or an adult one, that caused a strange mix of an adult story and some pretty violent scenes with a silly little duck that keeps giving "funny" moments in the beginning.But that's hardly important, the film is simply boring, unmoving and not true to the original story. It simply fails to transfer to the picture all the points Orwell tried to make to his book.{SPOILER}Second revolution?!! Haven't they guys learned anything?? Who be the next Napoleon then? Benjamin?!!

A: negative
****
Q: First of all, this movie isn't a complete disaster. If you had never heard of the real story of Gram Parsons then it might seem a reasonably entertaining diversion. Johnny Knoxville can't really be criticised for his performance as Phil Kaufman - he's pretty good at looking laid-back and down to earth and you can sort of root for his long-suffering everyman. Michael Shannon is due credit for pretty much the same reasons, except he's a hippy stoner. There are some good individual comedic scenes - the hippy-hearse crashing into the airport hanger door stands out. But that's where the good things end, and we begin to see the aspects that make this movie so truly disappointing. The character of Robert Forster as Gram's actual father is an invention so disgraceful as to cast a taint over the entire film. We all know his real father committed suicide when he was young - something that could surely be compared to Gram's life on the edge by a better film-maker. Having Forster as his supposed real father, and not his step-father would be bad enough, if not for the well known difficulties Gram had with the man who actually flew to collect his body. It has been suggested that his step father had admitted to providing Gram's mother with alcohol as she lay dying and that this enraged Gram when he later found out about it. Also the controversy over where Gram's body was buried would surely be reason enough not to invent a benevolent made-up father who actually catches up to the duo and their hearse, but then allows them to go ahead with the burning. Whatever the truth about the man who Gram got the name Parsons from, he certainly bore no resemblance to Forster's character here, and it is hard to see why this role was written. Then there's the addition of Christina Applegate as a greedy chick (yet very pretty of course) who wants Gram's body back so that she can begin to cash in on his estate. Her character, and her acting are non-existent and one wonders why the director didn't just go the whole hog and include a lesbo scene between her and the chick who plays Kaufman's girlfriend(it wouldn't have lowered the tone a whole lot more). When you think of the ingredients that could have been used in a good movie about Parsons, the shortcomings of this film are easily apparent. Country music being changed by a young, polite, southern gentleman - who was also long haired, drug loving, popular with the ladies and ultimately self destructive. Real events like the hanger door crash and the painted hearse and friends like Keith Richards. Instead of these things we have to concentrate wholly on Kaufman's input into Gram's life. Kaufman is obviously still lapping up the cult status he received for what he did (he certainly is a little cult). From interviews it is obvious that he's delighted with the attention. Remember this is the man who made a remark about the genitalia of the naked corpse of Gram Parsons as he was preparing to set it alight. What he did was not an act of great loyalty, but a doped up alcoholic escapade. Looking at Knoxville and the director in interviews, a few things become clear also. It's obvious that they have no real grasp of the story of Gram's life, nor do they wish to have. They want a hit movie about an event that is infamous and crazy. It was an amazing life with a strange end. That the end is the only thing covered by this movie shows how limited an understanding of Gram Parsons the makers had.

A: negative
****
Q: This is is a thoroughly unpleasant, if slickly made, movie. I tried it because it stars Richard Dreyfus and Jeff Goldblum, two good actors, and because the plot line - a mob boss is about to be released from a mental institution - sounded promising. The movie is billed as a comedy, sorta. What we have is an endless series of shots - you should pardon the pun - of people in dimly lit and elegant, if somewhat surreal, interiors, shooting each other - in the head, stomach, kneecap, foot, heart (no part of the anatomy is avoided, it seems) while uttering vague and cryptic dialogue, some of which is supposed, evidently, to be humorous in a sort of post-modern way. Goldblum's dialogue for the whole movie could fit on a 3x5 card, and he wears a single facial expression - a sardonic grin - throughout. Ellen Barkin and Gregory Hines do the best they can. Burt Reynolds does a cameo. The credits list Rob Reiner and Joey Bishop, but I somehow missed them (good move on their part). The whole thing is cold, sterile, mechanical and unsavory; an heir, I suspect, to the style of 'Pulp Fiction', 'Fargo' and 'Natural Born Killers'. If you liked those, you'll probably like this.

A:
negative
****