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: Home Alone 3 is one of my least favourite movies. It's the cream of the crop, or s*** if you tend to be more cynical, as it ranks up (or down) there with stuff like Battlefield Earth and Flinstones: Viva Rock Vegas. In fact, it could even be worse than those two, since those two at least intermittently made me laugh at their stupidity. This just made me cringe in pain constantly and clap when the credits started rolling. No other movie has made me cringe in pain. Now I will point out exactly why this movie is so incredibly atrocious.First off, the plot is ridiculous. It revolves around a chip in a remote control car (?!) that is misplaced and how these terrorists want it. Dumb stuff.The action that ensues is similar to that of the other two Home Alones, with boobytraps and all, but watching these boobytraps being executed is, rather than being funny, incredibly unpleasant to watch. I didn't laugh (or even so much as smile) once, rather, I cringed constantly and hoped that the terrorists would nail the kid. The bird, rather than providing comic relief, was unfunny and annoying.The acting, as done by a bunch of no names, ranges from poor to atrocious. There is not a single good performance here. Alex D.Linz is absolutely unlikeable and unfunny as the kid, while the terrorists act (and judging by their movie credits, look) as they've been hastily picked off the street...and well, that's it.I can see some people saying: "Man, it's for the kids. Don't dis it, man." Well MAN, kids may like this, but they can get a hell of a lot better. See Monsters Inc. and Toy Story before even considering getting this out. Hell, even Scooby Doo and Garfield (which suck - see those reviews for more) are better than this! So in short, this is an irredeemably atrocious movie. This was clearly recycled for the money, as it almost completely rips off the first two; the only thing is, it completely insults the first two as well. No human, kid or otherwise, should find any reason to see Home Alone 3. Ever. It's THAT bad.0/5 stars

Answer: negative

Question: Thank God this wasn't based on a true story, because what a story it is. Populated by despicable characters whose depravity knows no bounds, Before The Devil is a mesmerizing, jaw-dropping excursion into perversion which would be laughable (and sometimes is, even with - or perhaps because of - the sickeningly tragic undercurrent of human dysfunction throughout) if it weren't carried out with such magnificent, overwhelming conviction by its stars. The excellent script by Kelly Masterson and superb direction by none other than Sidney Lumet doesn't hurt either.The main dysfunction here is of a family nature, with the two majorly screwed up brothers (brilliant portrayals from Philip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke) deciding to rob their own parents' jewelry store, an attempt that goes pathetically awry.The story is told with time-shifts (which are noted on screen, such as: "Charlie: Two Days Before The Robbery", so no one should be confused); some people have said they didn't like this device but I thought it worked perfectly, adding to the skeweredness of the whole affair, considering that the two brothers in question are hardly playing with full decks - between them you couldn't make a decent poker hand to save your life. Throw in these cheesy extra tidbits: one of the brothers is a drug addict, married to Gina (Marisa Tomei, also excellent), who is having an affair with the other brother, toss in some monumental sibling rivalry, along with the fact that said drug addict brother hates his father (a wrenching performance from Albert Finney), who has apparently caused him serious past pain, and you've got a Shakespearean/Greek tragedy on your hands. Proceed with caution.

Answer: positive

Question: I can just about understand why some people might wish to stress this film's link with the Eighties but I really wouldn't say it's an accurate depiction of most peoples' lives in that era - even on the poorest Bradford estates. It is however typical of the blunt agitprop rubbish the dear old Royal Court Theatre was churning out at that time. Plenty of 'right-on' artistry for small, small audiences but enough well-connected backslapping to ensure future commissions for turgid playrights. IThe simple fact is that if you want to reflect upon truer common experience you'll find millions more nodding in knowing agreement to love and live as depicted in 'Gregory's Girl'. I would be tempted to call this a 'kitchen sink' drama but that would be doing a great disservice to the plumbing industry. However, as far as having a decent script is concerned, this film is indeed all washed up. For some reason it has accrued an odd following amongst Guardian reading film-goers - I can only assume they get a visual frisson out of pretending to slum it. Steer clear my friends. It is a poor film with a poor script that likes to think it is breaking boundaries by adding humorous insights into grim life on the estates. it isn't..but it is grim. Do the washing up instead.

Answer:
negative