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.

The Devil Dog: Hound of Hell is really good film. It has good acting by the cast including Richard Crenna and R.G. Armstrong.The music is spooky and gives that devilish chill!I liked the effects on the dog and I think the creature itself looked really cool with its horns,frill like part on his neck, and acted really viscous!If you like horror films and haven't seen The Devil Dog: Hound of Hell before and are able to find and buy this rare film then do so because its a good movie and I don't think you'll be disappointed!
positive

How could I possibly pass up the chance to see Orlando Bloom and Heath Ledger together? Well, I couldn't and so, I rented this mess of a movie.I had never heard of Ned Kelly and was surprised by what I found out about this young man's legend. I was also surprised at how mediocre this movie was. Perhaps the fact that it was very, very late and at the end of a 4 hour movie marathon or maybe it was because it really is a little slow, I found this story difficult to follow. Not because the story is complicated, but because it is slow. Even with a slow story, Ledger and Bloom managed to create interesting, dimensional characters. Though I flounder to recommend this as a must see, it is a great story of Australian history (considering how young the country is, this is very rare and should be appreciated) and the film does have some good actions sequences. 6/10 see it for historical value....(yeah right...and that's the only reason to see it... ;) )
positive

I saw "Shiner" on DVD. While I was watching it, I thought, "This is a really bad porn flick without the porn." I also thought, "Whoever wrote this has some real issues." Then I watched the director/writer Carlson explain his process as a special feature. Yeah, it was real special.The emphasis of the film is placed on two alcoholic losers who hit each other to get off. They are marginally attractive. There is frontal and full nudity. These factors probably account for the film being seen at all.The most upsetting element of the film is the gay bashing and the subsequent further gay bashing of the same victim who tries ineptly to exact revenge from his assailants, the two drunken losers. Not only is the subject handled absurdly and badly from a technical point of view, but the acting is horrendously bad.Then there's the boxer-stalker theme. This is really insane, not just absurd. This hunky boxer is somehow traumatized by the persistent attentions of a fleshy momma's boy who works at his gym's parking lot. This is in LA, mind you. The boxer is so traumatized that he turns up at the stalker's house, strips in front of him and gets excited in the process.Well, all I can say is, why would a boxer who is at heart an exhibitionist be so traumatized by the attention of a stalker? It simply makes no sense. And, I'm afraid, some psycho-dynamics actually do make sense, if you take the time to read about them. However, bad scripts seldom make sense at all.The director/writer seems to have thought that this film represents a considerable minority within the gay community. Well, he may be correct, I suppose. We may never know, since that minority would be so dysfunctional they would hardly be able to get organized enough to ever get to an obscure gay film festival or DVD store, the only two places they could possibly find this turkey. Thank goodness for that.

negative