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: OK...this one's a weirdy....Honestly, I can't tell you all the inner plot-points of THE BEAST, cuz I started losing interest when nothing happened during the first 45 or more minutes - but just wait, it definitely does "pick up"...The plot involves something about a monster in the woods that some French aristocrat chick screwed back in the day. Eventually you see "THE BEAST", which looks like a guy dressed in a giant rat-bear costume with a horse cock attached to it. The scene takes place with the aristocrat woman running around the forest looking for a lost sheep. The sheep ends up dead and the woman gets scared. THE BEAST pops up, rapes the chick and shoots 400 gallons of spunk all over her. Eventually the chick starts to enjoy the beast's "attention" which results in some pretty novel simulated sex scenes, including an unnervingly erotic foot masturbation scene where the woman jerks the beast off with her feet while the monster shoots more huge loads everywhere (yeah, I've got a twisted foot-fetish - so sue me....)...The whole film is told in flashbacks and long-winded dialog scenes that tended to be a bit tedious. A "shocking" but predictable ending concludes this extremely strange film...THE BEAST is a film that I find kind of hard to rate. The cinematography itself is quite eye-catching and the sets, costumes and locations are elaborate. The plot is a little convoluted and seems to take it self awfully seriously for what ends up being such an unintentionally hilarious film about a chick boning a rat-bear. A good bit of tits, ass, and hairy 70's French bushes to help make up for the dull first half of the film. I have to honestly say, that if it weren't for the graphic scenes of the BEAST spackling all over the willing maiden, this film would have been a real bore - that is unless you like dull dialog and some graphic horse sex (the beginning has a VERY up-close and personal scene of two horses boning, including a pulsating and spunk covered female horse vagina...YUM!!!). But the BEAST sex scene is so strange and such a refreshing change from the rest of the film, that I have to say that those scenes alone make up for what otherwise would have been a real snoozer. I have to recommend this one to anyone who thinks they've seen it all - the BEAST rape really is out-there and something to be witnessed. Also recommended to any fans of 70's/80's sleaze films - this one ranks pretty high with them. Worth a look for you sick rat-bear beastiality lovers out there (like me)...8/10

A: positive
****
Q: Bad plot (though good for a B-movie), good fast-paced fight scenes, at most a 5 out of 10. But something has always bothered me about this film: how come Mariska Hargitay never speaks? In the TV version, she shares several intimate moments with Jeff Speakman, even a kiss in a garden. Yet in the regular (video) version, most of her scenes are cut and she never speaks at all. This bothers me because it not only takes out a female (though cliched) point-of-view to the film, it also makes the final shot seem creepy. This film would have been better had they kept her scenes in, because in those scenes at least she has a personality, one that undercuts whatever Speakman says.

A: negative
****
Q: Kudos to the patience of Paul Muni, who spent hours and hours in the makeup room each day to look the part of Zola. Muni was the one of the biggest stars in the 1930s and I wonder how many people today -other than classic movie buffs - know anything about it. He was a giant in the business for at least a decade. He could have won the Academy Award for this performance, which would have given him two in a row, as he won it for playing Louis Pasteur the year before. My own opinion is that while he tended to overact a bit, I still think he was one of the great actors of the "Golden Age." Whatever part he played; you were riveted to the screen watching him.Unlike the Pasteur role, I thought this story smacked of a little too much of what we've seen in the last 60 years: going overboard to make a Liberal hero. Even in 1937, Hollywood couldn't suppress its disdain for police or for the military, here making it a point to tell us how "corrupt" those organizations are. Filmmakers just love it when authority is challenged and defeated. In that regard, this film is way ahead of its day since we've seen this big-time since the 1960s.However, it must be noted the facts support this story. It also does not in any way diminish Zola's accomplishments as a social reformer, getting rid of certain evils. Good for him! I wish they had spent more time showing that, than concentrating on one trial.

A:
negative
****