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]: Just finished watching, can't say I was impressed.It starts of quite good, the visual and the atmosphere gives a creepy feeling as this type of movie should. But it all ends when the first lordi monster appears. Not only do you recognize them from the band lordi, but they are seriously malplaced in the movie. Doomsday monsters with leather jackets and piercings are so 80's.As for the storyline, it starts of as similar horror movies, people trapped inside a hell hole. But there is no clear story on why and what is happening. The viewer is thrown some lines on possible reasons, but the lines never meet and end up to anything but a mess.With all the money spent on this film, with an intriguing start and some good effects, I had thought someone would have taken better care of the product. I wonder if lordi made this movie just to prove that their show costumes could be scary (except they aren't).So the movie gets cred for the visuals, i guess the money had to go somewhere. But the rest is an embarrassing attempt from a rock band to make their on-stage monster aliases scarier.
[EX A]: negative

[EX Q]: I was really looking forward too seeing this movie as it has been advertised as a must-see movie for people that love movies about nature. The movie shows different climates and the animals associated with them by starting at the North Pole and going down south as the movie progresses. The footage from this movie is often breathtakingly beautiful and I many times wondered how on Earth they could have taken some of the shots under water or in the sky. However beautiful, a large part of the footage I had already seen in the TV series 'Planet Earth', narrated by David Attenborough. I found Attenborough's narration of Planet Earth to be much better than the narration of Earth. 'Earth' is an easier movie. It skips much of the scientific detail that Attenborough covers in his 'Planet Earth' series. For instance, Earth will tell you that a tropical sea is an ideal nursery for a young humpback whale, because there are few predators. Planet Earth will tell you that a tropical sea is a good nursery, because the water is low in oxygen and doesn't contain enough nutrients to support very large animals, like large sharks, etc. To me, that's an important difference. That, together with Attanborough's far superior voice make Planet Earth a far better documentary than Earth. Still, however, I think Earth is worth watching for the beautiful footage and the fact that it's easier to understand makes it interesting for children too.
[EX A]: positive

[EX Q]: I love Monte Carlo and thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I thought everyone was very good. I was not familiar with Richard Lewis, I thought he made his character (Julian Peters) very personable, funny and attractive. Sean Young was very good as the befuddled rejected girl with a heart of gold. George Hamilton was charming and the perfect Italian gigolo. John Candy has a field day as the bon vivant. James Belushi is hysterical as a total jerk. Cybill Shepard gave a very sweet performance as a nice vulnerable ignored housewife. Delightful ensemble cast. Lots of talent, clever script, lots going on and beautiful locations. Just a nice pick me up for a dreary day. Especially in the winter when a trip to Europe is not anywhere on your horizon.
[EX A]:
positive