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]: So far after week two of "The lone of Beauty" I am a little disappointed.Some of the acting is good, as long as we except that it is only drama.I am unsure how people can feel that this FICTIONAL DRAMA is "factual" coverage of the "Thatcher" years - it is okay as drama, but I feel the award winning book is still much better.I Wonder if the BBC will ever give us the follow up and the next part of the drama and the years that follow with "Things Can Only Get Better" finishing with 2006 and the Fact that we are still waiting! with that promise from a Government that is full of sleaze.
[EX A]: negative

[EX Q]: "A Guy Thing" tries to capture the feeling of "There's Something About Mary" or "Meet the Parents" but comes off more like it was edited up out of cutting-room rejects of those two films. Thankfully I rented it on a 5-day rental because I couldn't sit and watch more than 20 minutes at a time.The premise is decent and I liked the scenes where other guys automatically cover up for Paul's missteps (the checker at the Save-mart was great) but the script-writing is absolutely horrible. The dialog falls flat most of the time and just when you think that things are finally going to get on track some needless sight-gag is stuck in for no good reason. Plus how many toilet jokes does one movie really need?Don't get me wrong, slapstick humor is great when it's smartly done as in the other films I mentioned, but this movie simply misses the mark. Too bad as I love Julia Stiles (Ten Things I Hate About You was great) but even that couldn't help me sit through this terrible movie. Save your dollars and go rent "There's Something About Mary" one more time.
[EX A]:
negative