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]: Gung Ho is one of those movies that I never get tired of watching. Michael Keaton has always been a favorite of mine, & he is absolutely hilarious in this movie. Matching him step for step is Gedde Watanabe. The two of them work wonderfully together. Although this movie is a comedy, I also like how it shows Hunt (Keaton) & Kazihiro (Watanabe) struggling in their roles as the leaders of their respective groups. They both try so hard to keep the peace, & then they finally get into a fight (which is hysterical to watch). First, they're both on the floor. Then Hunt jumps on a chair. Kazihiro jumps on the desk. Hunt jumps on the desk with him. The fight then spills out from the office into the factory. I love that after they are separated by the workers, you can tell that they both feel bad for letting things get so out of hand. Also, there is a scene where you can see the influence that Hunt has had on Kazihiro. He is at his house & his boss from Japan arrives & says he would like to visit the factory tomorrow: Kazihiro: Tomorrow not good day. Sakamoto: Why not? Kazihiro: Factory is locked & we can't find key.Tell me you can't picture Michael Keaton saying something like that!I guess I really like this movie because it is genuinely funny, & also shows how people that are radically different can not only learn from each other, but become good friends as well.
[A]: positive


[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.
[A]: negative


[Q]: This movie is a joke. I mean a "ha ha" funny joke. Why? Because the only redeeming thing about it was the good laugh I got at the sheer ridiculousness of nonsensical, inane plot and horrible acting. Wow!Within this movie there are so many unanswered questions... for example; why do these women become zombies and how? Why are there four black women who are zombie's "caretakers" and what is their purpose? Since when does 6 people make up a "nation" of Zombies? And is smeared black eye mascara "scary" to anyone, anywhere? Even a 2 year old?And lastly; Why was this movie made at all? Why? why? why? No answer? That's what I thought.On the demand channel they actually issued this comment after the synopsis of the movie: We apologize for this movie in advance" LOL. At least they had the decency to do this much!
[A]:
negative