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: Tom Wolfe's sprawling, brilliantly observed satiric novel of life among New York snobbery gets a glossy look here but is nevertheless not well served. The film suffers not merely from the miscasting of everyman Tom Hanks as an uncaring Yuppie, Kewpie-doll Melanie Griffith as a manipulative southern belle and Bruce Willis (?!) as the darling of New York's literati. The most serious miscasting was in the director's chair. Robert Altman might have breathed life into these unlikeable characters and made them interesting, but Brian De Palma, for all of his visual sophistication, has never had an eye for the nuances of the human experience. The resulting film looks good but seems blah toward its subject of dehumanization in favor of status. Honestly, if a satire does not make the viewer angry, what is the point?

A: negative
****
Q: I really thought that this movie was superb. Not only is the history correct, but the style is sumptuous and yet intimate. I was a fan of Emily Blunt's portrayal of Victoria and how she kept her spirit even though she was forced into a virtual exile while in her youth. Blunt depicts the charismatic and sometimes dogmatic manner that Vicotria became famous (perhaps infamous) for. The romantic elements of the movie are so genuine and tender that by the end of the movie you genuinely understand why Vicotria chose to live the rest of her days in mourning of Albert.The technical aspects of the film are worthy of note as well. I appreciated the beautiful score, which moves quite wonderfully along with the dramatic movement of the story. I also considered the cinematography to be outstanding, some scenes leaving me quite breathless because of the lushness and splendor they depict.There have been so few movies this year as beautiful and tender as this film and it rates as one of 2009's best!

A: positive
****
Q: The proverb "Never judge a book by it's cover", was coined as a warning to those who fail to look beneath the surface. As I viewed the artwork to,"King of the Ants" I instantly thought HORROR! The arcane imagery proudly displayed on the cover & back spoke of a dark vision, the synopsis promised a story of murder, betrayal, & retribution. Instead what I discovered beneath that surface, was less interesting than what you can find under your average rock."King of the Ants" features Chris L. McKenna as Sean Crawley, an average guy ready to make a name for himself in this world, even if it means murder. Except Sean Crawley is someone you don't care about, never once did I feel any compassion or sympathy for this character. In fact he's downright unlikable, but not as much as Daniel Baldwin (Ray Mathews)who turns in an uninspired performance as a made all the worst by the utterly laughable dialogue he is forced to recite. Throw in Kari Wuhrer as a grieving widow who apparently has unconditional trust (esp. in the homeless), and little to no common sense, and George Wendt as Duke, which is basically a sober Norm from Cheers but MEAN!Now there are a couple of interesting "hallucination" sequences in this film (the source of the cover images) but this film never delves further into that world. It prefers to bombard you with unmotivated characters, bad dialogue, and unlikely event after unlikely event. Oh the Horror!

A:
negative
****