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: In the mid-1930s Hollywood was regaining its confidence after the difficulties of the talkie transition. Although all the technical problems of sound had been solved very quickly, it took longer to resolve the questions of how talking pictures should look, how they should be structured and how they should be acted. The Informer is a key picture in that it shows the extent to which wordless moments can convey story, asserting the power images without ignoring the necessities of sound and dialogue.This is not to say the Informer is truly a throwback to the golden days of the silents. For one thing, many silent pictures were not so purely visual in their narrative, and were overburdened with title cards. But what the Informer has is the self-assuredness to extend moments between dialogues, to focus on reactions more than speeches, and to let shots play out simply for atmosphere.Director John Ford, for all his capability, was a filmmaker who appears to have put in effort in proportion to how interested he was in the material. If he thought a story was silly, he just did it half-arsed. Luckily the Informer, with its depiction of community, honour, working class life and most importantly Irish setting, was everything Ford loved, and the result is one of his finest works. In it, Ford only really employs too kinds of shot. The first is of places the Dublin streets shrouded in mist and darkness so their furthest depths cannot be seen; dingy interiors where the walls and ceilings seem to press in on us. The second is of faces, striking close-ups against plain backgrounds, usually without dialogue, focusing us upon the inner conflicts of these people.Lead man Victor McLaglen fits perfectly within this character and this manner of filming him. McLaglen's performance does not look like much, being as it is about 90% drunk act. But the other 10% is heartfelt emoting, as here and there his Gypo Nolan has what alcoholics refer to as a moment of clarity. With such performances are Oscars won. McLaglen is backed by a spot-on supporting cast, among whom there are no weak links. In particular it is nice to have Donald Meek and Una O'Connor, usually only seen in comic relief roles, playing straight dramatic parts for once (although Meek's appearance does contain one or two jokes, the tone of the scene and much of his manner is serious). Not only do these two deliver incredibly deep performances, their familiarity to most viewers as comedy players gives an added note of poignancy to their part in this tragedy.RKO, who produced the Informer, were perhaps the most adventurous and willing to take risks of all the major studios. Thanks to this, we are able to see a dismal story with a despicable anti-hero at its centre, which could easily have been a clunky, over-earnest mess, instead filled with a moody atmosphere and depth of character which keeps us watching and draws us into its world.

A: positive
****
Q: Oh if only I could give this rubbish less than one star! There were two mildly amusing parts in the whole film and that is it! one was where a line or two from the song Don't Worry, Be Happy was sung by the slugs and the other was where Roddy fell of the toilet roll and landed with his feet and legs apart so that everything else he landed on on the way down hit him in the groin. That is it there was nothing more amusing than that, at least not for me anyway! Doctornappy2 is not right in saying 'Fans of the completely terrible "Shrek" might enjoy, but "Wallace & Gromit" fans will probably turn away in disgust.' As I loved Shrek 1 2 and 3 and I also love Wallace and Gromit. You see what it boils down to is that if an animation is done extremely well then it is definitely worth watching, this however was about as far from done well as you can possibly get! The continuity mistakes were too big in number. Some were pointed out by the makers of this site others were not. I won't point out all of the others, but here are a few more to see: When the young daughter leaves at the start of the film the catch to the cage door comes down and the hook part of it that is on the right clearly goes back around behind the round knob thus effectively making sure Roddy would not be able to get out and yet he does just by simply kicking at it. At one point the ruby falls down Roddy's back and gets pushed straight up into the the air by Rita all the while the ship is moving forwards. In the next scene Roddy has caught it again. This is impossible. Seeing as how the ship is moving forwards the only place when the ruby was ejected out from under the back of Roddy's shirt the only place it could have landed was in the water not in Roddy's hand. There was a third one I wanted to point out but for now I have forgotten it.Too many, for want of a better word, 'jokes' were repeated in one way or another, there was not enough time to establish any sort of connection with any of the characters, the characters were hollow, shallow and empty, and the whole film left you wanting....wanting to watch 85 minutes of anything else! Paint drying or grass growing are two superb options!

A: negative
****
Q: I saw "Shiner" on DVD. While I was watching it, I thought, "This is a really bad porn flick without the porn." I also thought, "Whoever wrote this has some real issues." Then I watched the director/writer Carlson explain his process as a special feature. Yeah, it was real special.The emphasis of the film is placed on two alcoholic losers who hit each other to get off. They are marginally attractive. There is frontal and full nudity. These factors probably account for the film being seen at all.The most upsetting element of the film is the gay bashing and the subsequent further gay bashing of the same victim who tries ineptly to exact revenge from his assailants, the two drunken losers. Not only is the subject handled absurdly and badly from a technical point of view, but the acting is horrendously bad.Then there's the boxer-stalker theme. This is really insane, not just absurd. This hunky boxer is somehow traumatized by the persistent attentions of a fleshy momma's boy who works at his gym's parking lot. This is in LA, mind you. The boxer is so traumatized that he turns up at the stalker's house, strips in front of him and gets excited in the process.Well, all I can say is, why would a boxer who is at heart an exhibitionist be so traumatized by the attention of a stalker? It simply makes no sense. And, I'm afraid, some psycho-dynamics actually do make sense, if you take the time to read about them. However, bad scripts seldom make sense at all.The director/writer seems to have thought that this film represents a considerable minority within the gay community. Well, he may be correct, I suppose. We may never know, since that minority would be so dysfunctional they would hardly be able to get organized enough to ever get to an obscure gay film festival or DVD store, the only two places they could possibly find this turkey. Thank goodness for that.

A:
negative
****