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:
Same old same old about Che. It completely ignored the really interesting facts of Che's true character. Sodeberg redid the same boring narrative of Che. The silly seductive tale of an Argentinean rich-boy who was so shocked by poverty he became a Robin Hood fighting alongside the poor, until eventually he was murdered by the CIA. Yeah, yeah, heard it all before, BORING AND UNTRUE!. The reality of Che Guevara is very different and far more explosive! The facts show that he was a totalitarian with a messiah streak, who openly wanted to impose Maoist tyranny on the world. He was so fanatical that at the hottest moment in the Cold War, he even begged the Soviet Union to nuke New York, Washington or Los Angeles and bring about the end of the world. CHe urged Khrushchev to launch a nuclear strike against US cities. For the rest of his life, he declared that if his finger had been on the button, he would have pushed it. When Khrushchev backed down and literally saved the world, Che was furious at the "betrayal". If Che's recommendations had been followed, you would not be reading this review now. How a homicidal maniac became a pop icon would have made a much more interesting film. Incredible that no filmmaker has been daring enough to show the real side of Che and his posthumous media transformation. THAT WOULD MAKE AN Oscar WINNING FILM! I thought making independent film meant taking REAL RISKS and being GROUNDBRAKING! They only stick to "safe counterculture themes", to wit, "Che cool", "Wall Street bad", "Republican= Nazi", "Bush ex Hitler", "NRA is worse than KGB", "Christians are fanatics and stupid", etc...ad nauseum. Oooh, how daring, how mind blowing. Tres anti-mainstream and edgy. I wish they would have some real cojones and tackle the Independent Film Oligarchy! That would be truly daring!
answer:
negative

question:
Loved the movie. I even liked most of the actors in it. But, for me Ms. Davis' very poor attempt at an accent, and her stiff acting really makes an otherwise compelling movie very hard to watch. Seriously if any other modern actor played the same role with the same style as Ms. Davis they would be laughed off the screen.I really think she 'phoned this one in'. Now if it had Myrna Loy or Ingrid Bergman playing the part of the wife I would have enjoyed it much more.I guess I just don't 'get' Bette Davis. I've always thought of her as an actor that 'plays herself' no matter what role she's in. The possible exception is Now Voyager.I'm sure many of the other reviewers will explain in careful (and I hope civil) detail how I am totally wrong on this. But, I'll continue to watch the movies she's in because I like the stories/writing/supporting casts, but, I'll always be thinking, of different actresses that could have done a better job.
answer:
positive

question:
the acting itself wasn't even that bad, since it did't come to mind in the movie but whatever had this director in mind? the intended climb towards some climax completely missed the mark,..almost all scenes involve acting that stand so far from our own intentions and way of reacting on things that you don't really attach to any actor in the movie,..Empty silences,..In this case, see through cheap method of boasting your way into potential metaphorical brilliance,..which just wasn't here at all,..I guess I'm bitching but shit,..2 hours of my time,..
answer:
negative