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.

[EX Q]: This is the 2nd time I've seen this movie in about 12 years. These remarks come from someone who finds Kane and Ambersons to be amazing, worthy films. But the remainder of Welles career is, unfortunately, squandered on material unworthy of his talent and too flimsy to withstand his filmic embroidering. And when he makes a potboiler like Shanghai, the lack of anything substantial to hang his filmic tricks on, is just kind of sad. I couldn't tell you what he was exploring here. It's all as mannered as Welle's godawful Irish brogue; which takes a lot of effort, but adds absolutely zero to the film. Several Welles projects became this overdeveloped and baroque. Mr Arkadin (pick a version, any version) is a similarly belabored project. The material is inconsequential. It just can't bear the weight of all this noodling. For a director trafficking in reality-based drama (as here), he never feels any pull to tie his bundle of conceits back to reality; or to a coherent story. The murder-for-hire scheme is ridiculous. Kudos to Welles though, for having Hayworth cut her hair, and getting that performance out of her. The camera loves her. She's the classiest, most upscale, sultry and ravishing femme fatale ever put on film. But her treachery comes so late in the film it feels like some desperate decision, made so the movie will have some genre it fits into. The movie can't be saved by a noir convention deployed in the last 60 seconds.When all is said and done in L.F.S., the convolutions are all for what?; to convince you you've seen something thoughtful? to give Welles more to do? to make you roll your eyes? Welles has no sensitivity to the scale of a story, or to telling a story directly. One wonders what Shanghai has to say to anyone who isn't a crippled billionaire, arranging a quadruple-cross murder-for-hire scheme, or a fanboy in love with filmic conceits devoid of meaning or substance. Overwrought, preposterous, unengaging.
[EX A]: negative

[EX Q]: It started out slow after an excellent animated intro, as the director had a bunch of characters and school setting to develop. Once the bet is on, though, the movie picks up the pace as it's a race against time to see if a certain number of worms can be eaten by 7 pm. We had a good opportunity on the way home to discuss some things with our son: bullies, helping others, mind over matter when you don't want to do something.Of special note is the girl who played Erica (Erk): Hallie Kate Eisenberg. The director kinda sneaks her in unexpectedly, and when she is on-screen she is captivating. She's one of those "Hey, she looks familiar" faces, and then I remembered that she was the little girl that Pepsi featured about 8 years ago. She was also in "Paulie", that movie about the parrot who tries to find his way home.Ms. Eisenberg made many TV and movie appearances in '99-00, but then was not seen much for the next few years. She's now 14 and is growing up to be a beautiful woman. Her smile really warms up the screen. If she can get some more good roles she could have as good a career (or better?) than Haley Joel Osment, another three named kid actor, but hopefully without some of the problems that Osment has been in lately.Anywhozitz, according to my 8 y.o. son, who just finished reading the story, the film did not seem to follow the book all that well, but was entertaining none the less. The ending of the film seemed like a big setup for some sequels (How to Eat Boiled Slugs? Escargot Kid's Style?), which might not be such a bad thing. It was nice to take the family to a movie and not have to worry about language, violence or sex scenes.One other good aspect of the movie was the respect/fear engendered by the principal Mr. Burdock (Boilerplate). Movies nowadays tend to show adult authority figures as buffoons. While he has one particular goofy scene, he ruled the school with a firm hand. It was also nice to see Andrea Martin getting some work.
[EX A]: positive

[EX Q]: Poor Robert Englund makes another flop and to the expense of Tobe Hooper who usually makes pretty good horror movies but he failed pretty bad at this one. Englund plays the well known Marque De Sade who in the 17th century was enprisoned for his obsession of pain and the pleasure of bringing pain upon himself as well as watching others also be in pain. The story is so confusing with the flip flop from one century to another and I became confused as to what was going on and what was the purpose of this movie. All I saw was a young lady that became entrapped by a strange lesbian who desides to keep her to herself and the young lady became fascinated by this Arabian with alot of money and finds out that he's out to have her killed and then Englund steps in from one century to another claiming to be a descendent of the de Sade and tries to kill her because she reminded him of the Madam Momoselle(spelled that wrong) or whoever it was in the picture above De Sades wall. The movie was terrible, I am surprised at Hooper for hireing Englund in this film and the special effects were so fake and laughable, especially the part about the eyes. Englund tries to make a comeback from his once hit move "Nightmare on Elm St." by using these pull in and out needles to put out peoples eyes. Terrible, absolutely terrible.
[EX A]:
negative