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: Here's a rare gem for those of you that haven't seen or most likely not even heard of this. During the 80s, Dennis Quaid was a hot commodity, but in the early 90s, Dennis Quaid disappeared from the scene. In 1993, he burst back onto the big screen with three movies, all of which unfortunately bombed. Two of those films I liked very much, and let me elaborate on one of them."Wilder Napalm" is a crazy flick about two brothers, Wallace (Quaid) and Wilder (Arliss Howard), whom are...fire starters: yes they have the power of pyrokinetics. Wilder has decided not to use his power anymore (for anything not useful anyway) after a fatal incident during his youth, where he and his brother blew up an abandoned house which killed a man who was inside unbeknownest to them. Nowadays, Wilder is a firefighter and is married to the wacky Vida (Debra Winger), who is under house arrest for, guess what, arson (see the movie to understand this better). Wilder also hasn't spoken to Wallace in 5 years, because Wallace set his hair on fire during his bachelor party.Wallace loves his pyro power and uses it for amusement. He also runs a Carnival and is the head clown. When the Carnival comes to Wilder's town, Wallace decides to reunite with his brother and also to see Vida, whom which Wallace has been in love with! Vida's house arrest sees its end, but Wilder is preoccupied. So, Wallace steps in and the fun begins. Brother vs. brother...fighting fire with fire! Some great fireball throwing in this flick...eat your heart out, Drew Barrymore!The film also has some really weird, yet funny elements, like Wilder's fire unit sings songs acapella during firefights and after wards. Jim Varney (globally known as 'Ernest') pops in as Wallace's redneck carnival buddy. "Wilder Napalm" is brilliantly shot...and cleverly put together...very off the wall and avant-guard.Give this one a look...

Answer: positive


Question: 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.

Answer: negative


Question: When I saw that this film was only 80 minutes long, I thought we were in trouble. Condensing the gigantic W. Somerset Maugham novel down to a movie that clocks in at under an hour and a half seemed like a disaster waiting to happen. But you know, the movie's not half bad, and it even manages to retain much of what makes the book resonate so much with its readers.I've heard many film buffs complain that Leslie Howard was a wet noodle of an actor, and he was, but I can't think of anyone more suited to play the role of Philip Carey than a wet noodle, for that's certainly what Carey is. Howard plays him well, which means you want to shake him and slap him upside the head repeatedly, then finally take him out and buy him a spine.Ah, and then there's Bette, as the girl with whom Carey is obsessed and who brings his world crashing down around him. I didn't know what on earth the appeal of Mildred was in the book, and the movie stays true to that detail. But as played by Davis, she does become the most fascinating character in the story, and if she's nasty and unlikable, she's at least the most dynamic person on screen at any given time. Davis's performance here is credited with changing the course of screen acting, much as Brando's would do nearly 20 years later when he screamed out "Stella!!" in that little-known Tennesee Williams play, and it's not hard to see why. Davis is intense to the point of scary. She makes no effort to wring any sympathy from the audience, and she allows herself to look ugly and most unglamorous. Her appearance when Carey walks in on her late in the film to find her dead or nearly dead of an unnamed disease (though not much care is taken to hide the fact that it's an STD) is shocking. Of course, it helps that this movie squeaked out just before the Production Code went into effect; if it had been made a year later, you can bet things would have been a bit different.Yes, much of the novel, and many of its most interesting parts, are left on the cutting room floor, and the story really does become about Carey and Mildred and not much else. I found that to be the least interesting and most tedious part of Maugham's novel, but it is the part that gives the novel its title and seems to be the part that readers are still drawn to now, so it strikes me as a wise decision on the part of the film makers that they chose to adapt the novel the way they did.Grade: B+

Answer:
positive