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: Johnathan Frakes is a good actor and, when he's not directing a family film, a fine director. But, he really shouldn't have directed this movie, and the screenplay should've been rejected. The director and writers must understand what the original TV show was really about, as well as who the characters were and how they worked. The original series had many episodes with razor-sharp writing using good dialogue and with situations that American producers would never consider using in children's programming, much less a movie, which made the original series so well received by adults. I mean, the Tracys were college graduates and some of them did even drank alcohol and smoked tobacco! And, there were characters who did get killed, although most were bad guys. If they had written it the way that it was originally done, which isn't dumbing things down with poor dialogue, kindergarten humor, and a weak plot, this Universal/Studio Canal joint venture wouldn't have such bad reviews. This motion picture is almost pure blasphemy. If you've seen the original Supermarionation series, then you'll know what I'm talking about! The first thing that was out of place and annoying were the constant references to Ford Motor Company, even going so far that Lady Penelope was riding around in a disfigured Ford Thunderbird made up to look like FAB-1 instead of using what would've been more appropriate considering Ms. Penelope's station (not to mention being more faithful to the original), a ROLLS-ROYCE FAB-1. She's supposed to be a distinguished member of British society, hence the preference for England's finest make of motorcars in the original series. One other reviewer here indicated that Penelope wouldn't be caught dead in a Ford. He's pretty much right in the context that the idea of her riding in a Ford doesn't work. At least they could have had Penelope ride in a Jaguar made up like FAB 1 since Jaguar is a British car make that is owned by Ford, but NO! They had to use a straight FORD! But the Ford product placement doesn't end there. EVERY single car you may see is a Ford! Even the news flash that is shown on the TV sets in the movie were sponsored by Ford! Ford, Ford, FORD! The predominance of Ford vehicles makes this movie an obvious marketing vehicle for Ford. The original series had a design that was futuristic for the 1960s and still remains ahead of its time even today. But, the futuristic design in the original series worked because there was an effort to make the design look practical and functional. This kind of treatment didn't exist in the movie, where everything is stylized to excess, defeating the sense of functionality and practicality. A lot of things that were done in the design of the movie were done strictly for style, many times with no sense of function to give that style a sense of reason.The original series relied on good acting performances of the voice talent to overcome the limited expressions in the puppets, bringing them to life in the episodes. The brilliant and lively music score by Barry Gray helped even further to connect the audience with the story, the characters, and how everything came together to help achieve the super objective (a little bit of Stanislavski talk). The movie, on the other hand, had some overly grating performances. Anthony Edwards overplayed Brains to a fault, Bill Paxton as Jeff Tracy just didn't work despite decent acting (one of few), there were better choices for the Hood than Ben Kingsley, and many others that I don't care to mention (it would take too long). Quite simply, the puppets were more believable! Second was the overly generic and underwhelming music score by Hans Zimmer, sounding more like a mix between "Days of Thunder" and "Apollo 13." And, of course, the Hood. The Hood in the original series had an ability to communicate with Kyrano through a statue of Kyrano as an outlet for ESP contact. But, that was where his extraordinary capability ended. He's a master of disguise and deception, which allows him to sneak around undetected (for the most part, anyways) to gather information of the Thunderbirds vehicles for his own means. He also uses weapons for his own defense, including pistols, and generally collects information using a film camera, although he tried to steal Thudnerbirds 1 and 2 in the 1960s United Artists release of "Thunderbird 6" (which was the last Thunderbirds show filmed in Supermarionation and was the second Thunderbirds theatrical release). But, while he is a nemesis of International Rescue, the Hood isn't the villain in every Thunderbirds episode and he tends to avoid direct confrontation with International Rescue. In the movie, he's obviously the main villain, but he and his cohorts seem to act more like morons, along with the Hood having extended mind control ability, including the ability to move objects and move himself into flight for brief periods of time. This totally deviates from the Hood as a character in the original series with one that may leave kids laughing and people familiar with the series scratching their heads in confusion or leaving the theater in disgust.There are more criticisms, but the 1000 word limit for IMDb reviews will not allow me to list all of them. So, I will close with the point being made that I didn't enjoy this movie. As a matter of fact, I think it sucks! Having seen the original series and Supermarionation movies (Thunderbirds Are Go, Thunderbird 6), I was hoping for something a lot better than this.The original Supermarionation was a lot more sophisticated and elegant than this live action farce. (And that's saying it nicely.) - Kip Wells

A: negative
****
Q: Some war movies succeed where others do not, and that can be judged from a variety of angles. The humanistic angle, one where you can feel the raw emotions (the terror of being under attack, the camaraderie amongst soldiers, the arduous trials people face inside them when in combat, etc..) are always movies I find compelling. Movies like Das Boot and A Midnight Clear are but two examples of movies that you sense a connection to the characters in the film.This film succeeds on that level as well. It speaks of "The Highest Honor" and that honor is doing the right thing. These 23 soldiers did the right thing, they had honor and it is recognized in a way wholly incompatible with Western thought, but it is, to the very end, a true story of honor. Unforgettable movie. Based on the true story.

A: positive
****
Q: First of all, 'St. Ives' the film is only fairly loosely based on the Robert Louis Stevenson story of the same name, but for once, this is not a criticism. The original novel was a work-in-progress, unfinished at the author's death, and in freely adapting it and giving it an ending, the film-makers have brought to life some endearing characters who, although different from Stevenson's originals, would, I am sure, have charmed and amused him.It is 1813: Capitaine Jacques de Keroual de Saint-Yves is a Breton aristocrat, orphaned by the Revolution's guillotine, now serving as a hussar in Napoleon's army. We meet him going out for the evening, claiming that since a hussar who is not dead by 30 is "a blackguard", he, at 34, is now "on borrowed time"! Certainly, as he faces a string of challenges to duels, our dashing hero seems in danger, but a surreal prank on his Colonel provides him a way out of the duels and into the bed of a beautiful courtesan/singer. Unfortunately, it also results in losing his commission... Further misadventures result in him being taken prisoner by the British, and sent to a POW camp in a Scottish castle.While carving toys and boxes, Jacques catches the attention of Flora, the young niece of Miss Susan Gilchrist, a well-travelled woman of the world who lives at Swanston Cottage. They fall in love, and most of the story concerns Flora helping Jacques to escape and to find his emigre grandfather, the old Comte. Of course, there is a problem. Jacques' older brother, Alain, a dissolute alcoholic, is - perhaps understandably - far from pleased when Grandfather disinherits him in front of the whole household, the very instant that Jacques has appeared... Cue treachery! There is also an entertaining subplot of the romance between the awkward, naif but good-hearted Major Farquhar Chevening and Aunt Susan, who has travelled through most of the Ottoman Empire and been a prisoner of the Turks.Even allowing for a natural prejudice in favour of any film in which the heroines share my surname, 'St. Ives' is magic! It combines splendidly swashbuckling swordfights, a balloon-flight, comedy and romantic adventure. I would recommend it to anyone who loves 'the kind of film they don't make anymore' - Fairbanks, Colman, Flynn, & co. The acting is splendid. Anna Friel makes Flora a spirited and appealing heroine, and Jean-Marc Barr is delightful as Jacques, a genuinely lovable hero. Miranda Richardson and Richard E. Grant are already great favourites of mine, and have great fun as Susan and Farquhar, whose relationship runs as a comic counterpoint to that of the leads. As the rakish, scheming, but ultimately tragic Alain, Jason Isaacs shows, as he did more recently in 'The Patriot', that he has the classic swashbuckling style, besides the dashing good looks! Please, please will someone cast him as a *hero* in the genre?!!!My main quibbles with the film concern settings and costumes. In the book, the castle in which Jacques is a prisoner is clearly Edinburgh, but the film, shot in Ireland, Germany and France has 'Highlandised' the setting, making the retention of place names such as Swanston, Inveresk and Queensferry decidedly incongruous. The costumes too are a real hotch-potch, from 1780s through to the period in which it is set. While this would not be implausible with more down-market characters "making do", it seems odd for well-to-do ladies such as the heroines to be wearing 1780s gowns in 1813. Clearly, the costuming decision was sthetic: these earlier styles are visually far more appealing and elegant than Regency fashions, and they work in the idealised world of the film. As a whole, 'St. Ives' is 90 minutes of pure delight.

A:
positive
****