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]: THE TEMP (1993) didn't do much theatrical business, but here's the direct-to-video rip-off you didn't want, anyway! Ellen Bradford (Mel Harris) is the new woman at Millennium Investments, a high scale brokerage firm, who starts getting helpful hints from wide-eyed secretary Deidre (Sheila Kelley). Deidre turns out to be an ambitious daddy's girl who will stop at nothing to move up the corporate ladder, including screwing a top broker she can't stand and murdering anyone who gets on her bad side. She digs up skeletons in Ellen's closet, tries to cause problems with her husband (Barry Bostwick), kills while making it look like she is responsible, kidnaps her daughter and tries to get her to embezzle money from the company.Harris and Kelley deliver competent performances, the supporting cast is alright and it's reasonably well put-together, but that doesn't fully compensate for a script that travels down a well-worn path and offers few surprises.
[A]: negative

[Q]: THAT'S certainly a strange way to promote a film upon which a great deal rested. And it seems like plain suicide on the part of the studio, given that (1) The feuds between the cast were well known long before the movie's release. (2) The feud between the Producer(Robert Fryer) and Director ( Michael Sarne) was also common knowledge. (3) The cast made no secret of their contempt for the film and made it public at every opportunity, with daily bulletins from the set gleefully reported by gossip columnists everywhere.And (4) The author, Gore Vidal hated it practically from day one. Nevertheless, that tagline just about sums it up. Raquel Welch does give a decent performance as Myra, and she looks lovely besides. John Huston is very funny as Buck Loner, the ex-Cowboy Star who runs a phony acting academy. Mae West, (in her first screen appearance since 1943) naturally rewrote her part to suit herself, and she is great as ''oversexed'' (and that's putting it mildly) ''Talent Agent'' Leticia Van Allen. Still, she must have wondered (after waiting so long for a good vehicle in which to return) how she ever ended up in this mess.Tom Selleck (in his film debut) is one of her ''clients''. John Carradine and Jim Backus, as Doctors, also amble in briefly. Rex Reed as Myron, Farrah Fawcett and Roger Herren, as the victims of Myra/Myron's sexual passion, are neither here nor there. The same goes for the script, which not only fails to focus on the basic plot of the book, but seems to head in at least three different directions at once. Although West's part was originally larger, she was reduced to a cameo role by the time Sarne was through with the editing. And, partly because of this, she seems to be in a different movie. Apparently, at some point, the Producers realized that Mae was going to be the film's big draw, and, unable to replace most of her cut footage, they rushed her back to the set at the end of filming for the second of her two songs, both of which come out of nowhere. The device Sarne used of throwing in old film clips of bygone stars to emphasize whatever points he was making, doesn't work at all. By the time the movie concludes, all a weary spectator can do is wonder what in the hell it was all about. Not surprisingly, just about everyone connected with the production felt the same way, and it died at the box office. A technically flawless DVD includes, (among other extras) separate commentaries from both Welch and Sarne, each of whom have completely opposite opinions of just what went wrong.No doubt it's home video re-release was prompted by a 2001'' Vanity Fair'' piece, which attempted (in great detail) to do the same thing. True, the structure of the novel made a screen adaptation a dubious undertaking, but, with Sarne at the helm of what was obviously a ''troubled'' production, it really never had a chance.
[A]: negative

[Q]: The problem with portraying a real life individual is that the performance can be good, but still not work if the audience doesn't believe that the actor is portraying the person. That's the main issue with "Young Mr. Lincoln:" Henry Fonda gives a terrific performance, but I found it hard to believe that Abraham Lincoln was as soft-spoken as Fonda portrays him.This is essentially a courtroom drama with a young Abraham Licoln at the forefront. Whether or not this was a true story, I don't know, but if it isn't, then why tell it using Lincoln as the central character? Never mind though. In the film, Lincoln is defending two young men who are accused of murder.There's really not much to the film, and as a result, it seems rather empty. I wanted more story and character development. The film is 100 minutes long, but it doesn't feel like it. There are some little scenes featuring Lincoln and the blooming relationship with Mary Todd, but they seem superficial.The acting is good all around, but as I said, Fonda's performance works as a character, but not Abraham Lincoln. I just don't believe that the real Lincoln was that soft-spoken. True, he has a big voice when he needs to, such as when he persuades a drunken lynch mob to let the accused stand trial, but Fonda portrays Lincoln too meekly. The other performances are solid though, especially Alice Brady as Abigail Clay, the mother of the accused. She's a nice lady who we can really feel for. Simple and uneducated, yet very sweet; we can see why Lincoln wanted to help her.John Ford seems to think of this film as an epic, and at the time of its release, it probably was. But even then, there's just not enough material to present it as such.It's a nice watch, but not a classic.
[A]:
positive