instruction:
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 heard about "Hammerhead" being released on DVD and finally found it at my local DVD store, I thought "well, just another cheap monster movie from Nu Image". Those guys around Boaz Davidson and Avi Lerner produced cheap but very entertaining B - Pictures in the past few months but also some very disappointing movies. So I didn't expect much, especially after having watched the rather disappointing "Shark Zone" just a few days before. But "Hammerhead" turned out to be an excellent revival of the 1950s monster movies. We have a mad scientist, a group of people in a dangerous situation, screaming women and damsels in distress, man-eating plants and of course we have the creature, a huge mutant mix between a man and a hammerhead shark. Everything you need for an entertaining monster movie. The only thing missing are graphic sex scenes and nudity which you expect in movies of this kind, but since the movie was made for TV it's understandable why these scenes are missing. And it doesn't matter anyway cause "Hammerhead" is action and horror entertainment at it's best. There are two reasons why I gave it seven out of ten points, though: First of all, the monster isn't seen very often and the showdown with the destruction of the creature is too fast and poorly done, and secondly, William Forsythe just isn't the right guy for the "hero" part and for falling in love with gorgeous Hunter Tylo. Other than that, I can highly recommend this movie for any monster movie fan out there. Grab yourselves a cool drink and some popcorn, watch this movie and have fun. Jasper P. Morgan
answer:
positive


question:
A scientist (John Carradine--sadly) finds out how to bring the dead back to life. However they come back with faces of marble. Eventually this all leads to disaster.Boring, totally predictable 1940s outing. This scared me silly when I was a kid but just bores me now. I had to struggle to stay awake! With one exception, the acting is horrible. Such expressionless boring actors! Hopeless.There are some good things about this: Carradine, despite the script, actually gives a very good performance. And there are a few mildly creepy moments involving a ghost of a Great Dane walking through walls. There's also one of the worst-looking knockouts in cinema history. Still, none of this is fun enough to sit through this. Avoid.
answer:
negative


question:
Just re-saw this movie after thirty seven years. I was eleven years old and caught this flick on South Beach at the long gone Cinema Theater on Washington Avenue. In 1969, I thought Where it's At! was a very good movie. Now, however, after almost forty years, it's not as good as it was. Times have changed, and this movie is now a tired old re-hash of the war between the generations. It did however, catch a place in time which is just a memory. It's really interesting to see the mod fashions, the old Vegas, a slim Don Rickles, chain smoking, and a hip opening song. The acting was decent, the script somewhat out-dated, but the memories were still fresh. Where it's At, may not be where it's at for you, but for me, it was still a nice and entertaining trip down memory lane.
answer:

positive