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: One of those classics, held up next to "Deep Throat" and "Behind the Green Door."Sure, it was clever, but the female lead isn't that attractive and sex isn't that hot. But if not for this film, porn would not have blossomed into what it is today.Harry Reems was the Ron Jeremy of his day. Worth a look if you're a Fan.

A: negative
****
Q: I sometimes enjoy really lousy movies....those that occasionally result when people (even talented people) get together with good intentions to produce a movie and for whatever reason it turns out to be a disaster. Movies like "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes", "Plan 9 from Outer Space", "Manos-Hands of Fate", and "Heavens Gate", etc.So, when I heard that this movie, "Rachel's Attic", was considered by many people to be the single worst film of the decade, naturally I just HAD to see it.Boy, do I regret that decision. This movie is beyond bad....it is SO bad that it is not even as enjoyable as the usual bad movie. The acting, filming, script, etc. are even worse than a low budget porno film: the sound is utterly horrible, the "plot" is completely incomprehensible, the "acting" is laughable....it is a complete waste of everyone's time and money. At least the porno film has porno to break up the monotony, while this ridiculous nightmare has a guy squeezing a rotten apple, and a "mad hatter's" tea party.The lighting is non-existent...many "scenes" take place in semi or complete darkness, which is probably just as well. The "writer-director" (I use the terms loosely), David Tybor, tries to get kinky with bondage scenes...but the results would be laughable, if they weren't so pathetic. There is some nudity, but it is of such abysmal quality that it actually acts as a sexual suppressant. I could go on forever and not do justice to all the flaws and shortcomings of this truly awful waste of film.For the love of god, avoid this train wreck. I know that despite (or perhaps because of) my negative comments, you may still be tempted to see if this piece of trash is really as bad as I claim it to be....but trust me on this....it's even worse than I have said, and you will absolutely, positively regret the experience (and expense, if you waste your money on a purchase or rental).

A: negative
****
Q: I disagree strongly with anyone who might dismiss this film as "just" entertainment. Set right after the carefree, roaring 20s, during the early days of the Great Depression, Dance, Fools, Dance is at its heart an earnest cautionary tale, with a clear message about how best to endure these hard times. Yet this fast-paced and tightly-plotted film is far from being a dreary morality tale.In the 30s, Hollywood had a knack for churning out one entertaining *and* enlightening audience-pleaser after another, all without wasting a frame of film. Dance, Fools, Dance -- one of *four* films that Harry Beaumont directed in 1931 -- is barely 80 minutes long, yet its characters are well developed, its story never seems rushed, and despite its many twists in plot, the audience is never left behind.With the lone exception of Lester Vail as flaccid love interest Bob Townsend, the supporting cast is uniformly strong. Worthy of note are William Bakewell as Crawford's brother, Cliff Edwards (best known as the voice of Jiminy Cricket) as reporter Bert Scranton, and Clark Gable in an early supporting role as gangster Jake Luva.But this is Joan Crawford's film, and she absolutely shines in it. Made when she was just 27, this lesser-known version of Crawford will probably be unrecognizable to those more familiar with her later work. However, here is proof that long before she took home an Oscar for Mildred Pierce, Crawford was a star in the true sense of the word, a terrific actress with the charisma to carry a picture all by herself.Score: EIGHT out of TEN

A:
positive
****