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]: Holy crap this movie was bad. I watched it just as a joke. It isn't even so bad that it's good in an unintentional way. This film seemed to be designed to personally make me angry. It worked really well at doing that. It's as if the people who made this just took all of the really annoying stuff about the movie PRIEST, added in a bunch of ugly dudes, took out anything interesting, funny, or even remotely sexy and clever out of the concoction, and then added in a bunch of old rotten cheese. That's all this is. Cheese. There isn't a single person this film could possibly connect to. There isn't any universe this film could possibly take place in. Why can't a film like this just be about enjoying life and being happy? Why did they have to make this already stupid idea for a film even more ridiculous than it already is? Why couldn't they at least even tried to make it an okay film, or even a B-movie. Now that I think of it, what they hell were they trying to do with this film? I watched it expecting a campy love story and instead I got some boring student project about some idiot who has to find the strength and courage to marry his boyfriend while his annoying Christian brother tried to destroy it all!!! No, I'm not joking. That's what it's about. Does that sound good? This film is pretty ignorant against people of the Christan religion, with it's stereotyping of all Christians being loudmouthed, rude, and hellbent on making as many people as miserable as possible. A lot of Christian people I know would never speak or act like these freaks. The film, however, is just as unfair and ignorant to the gay community as well. These have got to be the most tastelessly crafted stereotypical gay men since the guy on the radio station on that ROADKILL video game. It's so nerve wracking and simply irritating to the point that I wasn't able to fully pay attention to this film. The makers of this train-wreck had no strategy for set design, acting, camera angles, lighting, script, authenticity, or an idea to make this entertaining or interesting. There isn't even a single sex scene, or at least not a believable one. Jamie Brett Gabel was the only guy in the film that looked any good at all, but his good looks were sadly put to waste. This is trash. In a perfect world, this film would get voted a 0.0. It's worth 0 as a film alone. A mentally handicapped nun who is blind, deaf, and has tiny little bones for arms and legs and whose face is located on her armpit could write, direct, and produce a better film, and she'd probably be a better actor as well. the fact that this film exists is a crime against the word "film" itself. This film is so bad that other films should be ashamed of being available in the same watchable format. I could put a broom in a chair and then record it with a camera and then stop the film and then replace it with a mini x-mas tree and then record that and I've already made a film that will always be better than BEN & ARTHUR by at least half. There are only two things worse than death. Torture and watching BEN & ARTHUR. I'm a homosexual and I will probably be the gayest person you will ever meet if you ever met me, and I don't think I've ever been more offended by an entire film than I was by the first five seconds of this film alone. If this movie was a mistake, I will personally find a way to change the famous phrase "It's okay to make mistakes" to "It's okay to make mistakes unless that mistake was BEN & ARTHUR." You know how people always say things like, "Good things come out of everything!"? I think that BEN & ARTHUR was primarily invented so that there could be something on this earth that nothing good would ever come out of. To call this movie the worst movie I've ever seen would be giving it WAY too much credit. It's as if this film were designed just so that it could qualify in a category of it's very own. There are good movies, there are bad movies, and then there's BEN & ARTHUR. This is BEN AND ARTHUR.
[A]: negative


[Q]: I'm easily entertained. I enjoyed "Hot Shots" and "The Naked Gun" and their many sequels, even when most people found them unbearable. I've even managed to enjoy most Pauly Shore movies. There is only one movie that I've seen that I can honestly say was bad...and this was it. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I do remember sitting in the theater thinking, "This is a dumb movie. Why did I see this?" It's honestly the only movie that I cannot recommend.
[A]: negative


[Q]: NYC, 2022: The Greenhouse effect, vanished oceans, grinding unemployment and scarcity of water, power and food.. and New York's population has topped 40 million. This is a little gem of a picture, not least because a resource-depleted future is a reality for us 21st Century citizens. The low-budget opening titles of this movie are great: set to music, a low-tech 'tape-slide' sequence composed entirely of archive stills from the dawn of photography right up to 1973, depicts an unspoiled American pastoral developing into a polluted and crowded Hell in less than 2 minutes. Succinct and unambiguous, it's truly memorable. Budget limitations are also behind rather unimaginative cinematography and other constraints, at odds with the story's brilliant premise. The police station sequences are like an episode of some 70's TV detective show, and the other interior sets look basic at best. The budget probably all went on trying to 'futurise' the Soylent Executive's 'Chelsea West' apartment with state-of-the art goodies, meaning the other costumes are perfunctory, some establishing shots are bizarrely underpopulated and the daytime exteriors seemingly all shot through a smoke filter.The memorable scene where Sol and Thorn (Charlton Heston) share a meal of expensive and rare food neatly summarises their society: They enjoy real bourbon, lettuce, celery, tomato, apple, and beef, and we really sense their lip-smacking appreciation of someone else's wealthy privileges.Robinson's pivotal death scene, in which his character is willingly euthenased at a place called 'Home', depicts him immersed in images of the world's once-beautiful flora and fauna as he remembered them, beautifully contrasted with the jaundiced Thorn's dawning realization that the future has been bankrupted, among other horrors.This is one smart film, and its core message is as pertinent today as it was in the early 70s. Yes, I know we're not eating the dead yet, but with our resource-sapping longevity, spiraling poverty gap, corporate global capitalism and unchecked habitat destruction leading to climate change, the lasting prediction of 'Soylent Green' may come to pass.
[A]:
positive