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.

If I could go back, even as an adult and relive the days of my Summer's spent at camp...I would be there so fast. The Camps I went to weren't even this great. They were in Texas where the mosquitoes actually carry people off but we had horses and fishing. The movie cinematography was astounding, the characters funny and believable especially Perkins, Pollack and Arkin. Sam Raimi's character and sub-antics were priceless. So who ever thought this movie was lame...I have deep pity for because they can't suspend their disbelief long enough to imagine camp life again as an adult or they never went as kids. The whole point was that these people had an opportunity to regress and become juvenile again and so they did at every opportunity. I wish I could. It was funny, intelligent, beautifully scripted, brilliantly cast and the artistry takes me back so I want to watch it over and over just for the scenery even. Sorta like Dances with Wolves and LadyHawk...good movies but the wilderness becomes a character as much as the actors. Rent it, see it, buy it and watch it over and over and over...never gets old. ;0)
positive

Well where do i start? i think it's very insulting to the original Annie with Aileen Quimnn. I love the film Annie, and i was expecting this to be a brilliant film, but i was so disappointed! the acting is awful, the original Annie came out a few years before i was born, I'm now 25 and Annie is still one of my favourite films, So i was really excited to see Annie 2. The acting was awful in the film, were any of the characters original? very badly written, directed and acted. This is not a film i wish to see again, and any Annie lover i recommend that you don't watch this film because it will only leave you very disappointed. The young girls singing isn't bad but still doesn't compare to the original
negative

I just got done watching "Kalifornia" on Showtime for the fourth time since I first saw it back in July of 2001. You would think that with the recent wave of serial killer films, that "Kalifornia" would be amongst some of the earlier films worthy of mention but hasn't. Perhaps if this film had been released sometime between like 1996-1999, maybe it might have been more successful. In my opinion, "Kalifornia" is much different from most serial killer films released during the late 1990s. It has an almost completely different atmosphere from most of today's serial killer films like "Seven" or "The Bone Collector". Many serial killer films have shown a killer but that person is always behind a mask or we never see enough of them to actually learn anything about them. "Kalifornia" is a film that actually tries to break through that barrier and actually understand the criminal mind. It tries to answer questions like "why do they do the things they do? Is it because of something that happened in their past? Does it make them feel superior or powerful? Or do they do it because they like the thrill of the kill?" These are some of the things that "Kalifornia" tries to answer but also leaves room for us to try and figure things out for ourselves. Brad Pitt makes an everlasting impression as Early Grayce. When we first meet Early in the beginning of the film, we see that he is obviously one disturbed individual. When we first see him, it's late at night. Early is possibly drunk. We then see him pick up a rock, throw it off a bridge, and it later lands on the windshield of a passing car. Pitt is fierce in this film. It is always good to see him when he plays psychos or really bad people. It's funny that this would later lead him play a true loon like in "12 Monkeys" and that he would be on the other end of the spectrum in David Fincher's "Seven".

positive