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]: KING KONG VS. GODZILLA (1963; which I recall having rated BOMB) had been my introduction to cult director Honda's work; this one isn't necessarily better  it's just that I've learned to be more tolerant towards such intrinsically lowbrow fare! Here, we actually get two Kongs for the price of one: an ugly and dopey-looking giant ape and a robot variation of it which looks even worse! The simian creature lives on the island of Mondo(!)  where it's shown fighting a couple of other monsters, and befriends a trio of humans. Naturally, it falls for the blonde (and bland) heroine; in fact, more intriguing is a femme fatale in cahoots with the film's villainous mad genius  called Dr. Who and sporting the anemic look and cape usually associated with a vampire!!He kidnaps King Kong and hypnotizes it in order to retrieve the Element X, which is embedded in the icy wastes of the North Pole; apparently, the giant ape is more impervious to radiation than its mechanical counterpart (and, to ensure its full co-operation, Who even captures its three 'companions')! The female agent then has a change of heart, helps the heroes (one of whom, typically, is a nondescript American) and is killed by Who. Kong eventually escapes and makes it to Tokyo, where it has a final showdown with the robot. The doctor flees the ensuing mayhem in his sub  which, on a request by Kong's dreamgirl, is summarily trashed by the giant ape.
[A]: negative


[Q]: Aside for being classic in the aspect of its cheesy lines and terrible acting, this film should never be watched unless you are looking for a good cure for your insomnia. I can't imagine anyone actually thinking this was a "good movie."
[A]: negative


[Q]: Before Stan Laurel became the smaller half of the all-time greatest comedy team, he laboured under contract to Broncho Billy Anderson in a series of cheapies, many of which were parodies of major Hollywood features. Following a dispute with Anderson, Laurel continued the informal series of parodies at Joe Rock's smaller (and more indigent) production company.Most of Laurel's parody films were only mildly funny at the time, and even less funny for modern audiences who haven't seen the original movie which Laurel is parodying. 'West of Hot Dog' is a fairly generic parody of cowboy shoot-'em-ups. It's marginally a specific parody of 'West of the Pecos', an oater released two years earlier with no major actors. Since 'West of the Pecos' was never a huge success, it's difficult to see why Stan's film unit chose this particular movie as a target for their lampoonery, much less why they waited so long after its release to parody it. And where did they get that title 'West of Hot Dog'? Possibly it's down to the fact that 'Hot dog!' was a sexual interjection favoured by American lechers in the 1920s. (As in the opening scene of the stage play 'Machinal'.) 'West of Hot Dog' was produced and co-directed by Joe Rock. Among his many other achievements, Rock introduced Laurel to Lois Neilson, and he was subsequently best man at their wedding. Full disclosure: In the last years of his life, I had the great privilege of befriending Joe Rock and interviewing him. Nearly ninety years old at the time, Rock's memory was impressively clear ... but he remembered nothing at all about 'West of Hot Dog', and I can't blame him. This movie is eminently forgettable.The leading lady's character is named Little Mustard: If that's meant to be a parody of something in 'West of the Pecos', I don't get it. There are a couple of 'impossible' gags here, including Laurel's method for mounting a horse. For just one moment in this movie, Stan Laurel reminded me of the great Buster Keaton when he suddenly broke into a run. 'West of Hot Dog' is vaguely similar in subject matter and tone to Keaton's short comedy 'The Frozen North', but Keaton's version is much funnier. The plot of this film somewhat anticipates a situation in Keaton's feature 'Our Hospitality' but (again) suffers by comparison: here, two tough varmint brothers expect to inherit the Last Chance Saloon, but the previous owner has bequeathed it to weakling tenderfoot Stan. However, the brothers will become the legal heirs if Stan dies. Hmmm...Seriously, though: is such a bequest legal? As soon as Stan takes possession of the property, surely any further questions of ownership or inheritance become his decision, not the previous owner's decision. I had plenty of time to consider such points of law while watching this dull comedy.At one point, a gag involves some crude animation drawn directly onto the film stock. It looks cheap and isn't funny.This 'Hot Dog' is no weiner, and no winner: it's just a whiner. My rating: one point out of 10. Hang on, Stan: in a few more years you'll be one-half of a comedy legend.
[A]:
negative