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]: Firstly, I would like to point out that people who have criticised this film have made some glaring errors. Anything that has a rating below 6/10 is clearly utter nonsense.Creep is an absolutely fantastic film with amazing film effects. The actors are highly believable, the narrative thought provoking and the horror and graphical content extremely disturbing. There is much mystique in this film. Many questions arise as the audience are revealed to the strange and freakish creature that makes habitat in the dark rat ridden tunnels. How was 'Craig' created and what happened to him?A fantastic film with a large chill factor. A film with so many unanswered questions and a film that needs to be appreciated along with others like 28 Days Later, The Bunker, Dog Soldiers and Deathwatch.Look forward to more of these fantastic films!!
[EX A]: positive

[EX Q]: How they got Al Pacino to play in this movie is beyond me. This movie is absolutely terrible. I discovered, after reading some of the other reviews, that a couple of people actually enjoyed this film, which deeply puzzles me, because I do not see how anyone in their right mind could possibly enjoy a movie as awful as Revolution. It's not just that it's a bad movie, with a lame plot and overall strangeness that is extremely unpleasant, but it seems as if the filmmakers were either mentally retarded (which is a very possible explanation as to why this movie sucks like it does, though it probably still sucks even compared to other films made by retards) or deliberately made every illogical decision to make this movie suck as much as possible. For example, we see Donald Sutherland running around with a huge, fat ugly mole on his face. He does not normally have a mole. The mole does not add to his character. It is extremely ugly and distracting. It's not like Robert De Niro's mole; it's much worse. Why the hell has he got that mole? It's as if the filmmakers just said, "Let's see, how could we make this movie even worse than it already is? I know, let's give Mr. Sutherland a giant, ugly-ass mole right on his face."Another example of the filmmakers' stupidity is the character Ned. We see, for the first three-quarters of the movie, young Ned. At one point, "six months later" appears on the screen. We see Ned again, and it is, of course, the same actor playing the boy. Five minutes later, "three weeks later" appears on the screen, and all of a sudden we've got a different actor playing as the now older Ned. What, do they think we're idiots? Good God! Again, it's like the filmmakers are saying, "How can we possibly make it any worse? I don't think we can...Oh wait! I just had a terrible idea!" I know a kid doesn't grow much in half a year, which is fine, but he at least grows more than he does in three weeks. Just don't get another actor to play Ned, or at least get him to play the five minutes when he's three weeks younger. Furthermore, the kid who plays the "older" Ned does not look any older than "young" Ned. As a matter of fact, he just looks completely different, much skinnier, and no taller or older than the original actor, which is very confusing, as I, like any rational human being, thought at first that it was a new and different character.What, did the first kid die while they were filming the movie? Because he was in it for the first hour and a half, and then all of a sudden, three weeks later, the guy from Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is playing Ned for the last five minutes of the movie. And even if the original actor did die, the filmmakers should have at least gotten an actor who looks like him to play the remainder of his role, and re-shoot the measly five minutes of "six months later" scenes. Better yet, just scrap the movie completely, never finish it and never release, never even tell anybody about it, because by that point they should have realized that their movie sucks and in finishing it they would only waste more money and time and succeed in making one of the worst movies of all time.I'm not saying that this movie is so bad you shouldn't watch it; it's so bad that you SHOULD watch it, just to see how badly it sucks. It's terrible, terrible.
[EX A]: negative

[EX Q]: One word: suPURRRRb! I don't think I have see anything like this in a long time on network or cable television. Watching this show was like taking a breath of fresh air amid TV schedule filled with reality shows and boring re-runs. I have to say I had my reservations. After all, critics were almost unanimous in crying foul and downgrading the show. But when half an hour was over (by the way, thank you, NBC, for running a commercial-free show), I was left with the feeling of instant love, love at first glance, the true love that one feels in his guts. Everything about this show screamed EXCELLENCE.Graphics in this show were at least as good as Finding Nemo and Shrek. No small feat considering those movies took years to be developed.Cast was marvelous. I am partial to John Goodman's voice, but the rest of the team certainly were on par with John. Special mention: Lisa Kudrow's guest appearance. She was on top of the game creating neurotic, pudgy, and lovable panda with a Jewish streak in her. (Panda from Brooklyn? Only in this show.) Script was funny, with a lot of inside and adult jokes which were sharp, yet not tacky. A note for all parents: this is NOT for children. This show was never advertised as such, and there's a reason why it's set for 9PM, not 8PM. So if you'd like to complain about "objectionable context", save your breath. Adults deserve a comedy made just for them, and Father of the Pride is it. Not everything was perfect. I was a bit puzzled by Siegfried and Roy's characters. Do I sense "stereotype" when it comes to them? Yes, they are gay. Yes, they are flamboyant. Yes, they speak with German accents. But that's yesterday's news. Give us something new, something fresh, something funny. Putting the old jokes in a new show is definitely the wrong approach. I understand that the creators of this show wanted to use the "star power" that these guys have. That's fine by me. But please don't dwell on something everybody already knows by heart. Hopefully, the rest of the show is not going to play the same old record over and over. In general, the show is definitely a Must-See-TV. Funny, witty, with a few unexpected twists here and there -- there haven't been a comedy this good since Seinfeld. I am certainly looking forward to the next episode.
[EX A]:
positive