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: When I saw this film on FearNet, I thought it would be a scary movie. Apparently, it wasn't. I have no clue how this movie was allowed to be featured on that site. FearNet is a site that shows scary horror movies.The acting is wonderful from all the actors. I hated the story. The story was stupid. The movie starts out with a man with a scroll with a signia stamped onto it. He breaks the seal and certain disasters happen. The water turns to blood, the oceans die out, the moon turns red, etc. The female character was annoying as well. A lot of the stuff she did didn't make sense. Like when she sees a piece of paper with a date on it. Coincidentally, it's the date she's expected to give birth to her baby and she starts freaking out about it and starts researching it and asking religious people what it all means.*Spoiler Alert* The two worst things happened in this movie are the execution of a mentally retarded man who claimed that God told him to murder his parents and the end where Demi Moore dies after giving birth to her baby and transferring her soul into it.Here's what happens. The mentally retarded person gets shot and killed and the apocalypse begins. Demi Moore gets into a hospital in the middle of a massive earthquake and gives birth to her child. She touches her child's head, transferring her soul into the child and then dies. Then, the apocalypse stops.Why does God all of a sudden have a change of heart? He gets furious when the Governor allows the execution of a mentally retarded man then he's all about forgiveness once a lone woman transfers her soul into her baby? *End Spoiler* The movie is pretty stupid. It's another religious end of the world propaganda piece. The acting from Demi Moore and Michael Biehn and everybody else is excellent. That's about all there is.I give this movie 2 stars out of 10. Good acting with a lot of nonsense!

Answer: negative


Question: When I go to see a movie about zombie's, I'm not expecting oscar calibre performances, or writing on the level of The Godfather, but I do expect the actors to at least not look like their straining to read their cue cards, and dialogue that doesn't sound like it was typed out 10 minutes before the actor reads it into the camera. This movie was just awful, I actually got up and left about 25 minutes in and went next door and watched Cold Creek Manor, that wasn't very good either, but it seemed like Citizen Kane compared to this pile of crap. On the plus side, the girls were very pretty, that's probably the only thing that kept me in my seat for longer than the first 5 minutes, in fact I left after the hottest one got killed, there wasn't anything to hold my interest after that.

Answer: negative


Question: I disagree strongly with anyone who might dismiss this film as "just" entertainment. Set right after the carefree, roaring 20s, during the early days of the Great Depression, Dance, Fools, Dance is at its heart an earnest cautionary tale, with a clear message about how best to endure these hard times. Yet this fast-paced and tightly-plotted film is far from being a dreary morality tale.In the 30s, Hollywood had a knack for churning out one entertaining *and* enlightening audience-pleaser after another, all without wasting a frame of film. Dance, Fools, Dance -- one of *four* films that Harry Beaumont directed in 1931 -- is barely 80 minutes long, yet its characters are well developed, its story never seems rushed, and despite its many twists in plot, the audience is never left behind.With the lone exception of Lester Vail as flaccid love interest Bob Townsend, the supporting cast is uniformly strong. Worthy of note are William Bakewell as Crawford's brother, Cliff Edwards (best known as the voice of Jiminy Cricket) as reporter Bert Scranton, and Clark Gable in an early supporting role as gangster Jake Luva.But this is Joan Crawford's film, and she absolutely shines in it. Made when she was just 27, this lesser-known version of Crawford will probably be unrecognizable to those more familiar with her later work. However, here is proof that long before she took home an Oscar for Mildred Pierce, Crawford was a star in the true sense of the word, a terrific actress with the charisma to carry a picture all by herself.Score: EIGHT out of TEN

Answer:
positive