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]: ...that the Bette Davis version of this film was better than the Kim Novak version.Despite all of the other comments written here, I really prefer the Bette Davis version, even though the Novak version has a more coherent story line.However: Davis' Mildred's raw emotions seem to me to be more apt to a sluttish girl who seems easily to become a prostitute.And it is those raw emotions that constitute *part* of what the poor doctor falls in love with. He has emotions of despair, of failure, of "otherness" - strong emotions that he represses. Davis' Mildred, on the other hand, displays her emotions immediately and without censure. She has no feelings of despair, or of failure, or of "otherness"; rather, she is merely surviving as a poor Cockney woman in the Victorian era.Novak's portrayal was a more vulnerable Mildred than was Davis', almost through the the whole movie. Davis' Mildred was **never** vulnerable until she actually had to go to the doctor and beg for assistance. And when he reviles her - for her method of keeping body and soul together, and for continually taking advantage of his love for her - she unleashes arguably the most passionate repudiation of snobbish holier than thou attitude ever seen on screen: "I wiped my mouth! I WIPED MY MOUTH!!" Novak's vulnerability was excellent. Davis' realism was monumental.IMDb votes concur!
[A]: positive

[Q]: If you're a fan of Mystery Science Theater 3K, Attack of the Giant Leeches, or Pinata Survival Island, this movie might be for you.I live in Nashville and I didn't even know of this movie's existence until the day prior to its release, when the advertising company panicked and blanketed Music Row with dozens of fliers and billboards. It barely lasted two weeks in theaters anyway.Bad acting, bad writing, and poor production only begin to describe this embarrassment of a film. For starters, the names are a bit much: Bo Price, Angel, and Dixie? Eesh.Toby's awkwardly slow delivery of lines makes one wonder what production assistant got stuck holding the cue cards off camera. Angel's character rapidly transitions from her city-slicker ways to a cowgirl, slipping into southern slang after two days on the ranch. Her wardrobe goes from chic to a female version of Toby's--in fact, in the final scene, their outfits are identical, making one wonder if the wardrobe assistant called in sick.The audio is inconsistent - perhaps the most noticeable example is when Toby decides to go for a swim and his voice suddenly sounds like he's shouting in a gymnasium.There's never quite enough explanation or character development to suffice what happens on-screen. Overacting, exasperation, grimaces, and moodiness best describes the actors' interpretation and direction of the terrible script.This movie is best enjoyed after consuming a couple of alcoholic beverages and in the company of your wittiest friends. But that's not saying much.
[A]: negative

[Q]: Everything about this film is hog wash. Pitiful acting, awful dialog, ugly native girls. this movie sinks into oblivion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The director must have been a weekend bender. Robert C. is totally lost and has not got a clue on what is going on . The college kids are worst. No acting talent at all, very stupid reasoning, and just down right dumbbells. Special effects are for the birds. The so called security force around this park belongs in toy land: with stupid looking guns, walkie talkies that are useless; and a computer system that ranks with a roll of toilet paper. if the park is under construction and nothing works; why bother inviting potential clients until everything is complete. the writers should be the first victims of the mess along with the producers and the crew. The whole film belongs in a septic tank shot to another planet for viewing. What a gem. Convicts should have to watch this, so they can commit suicide.
[A]:
negative