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 one of the very few movies out there which are very erotic without being pornographic, despite there being only a very rudimentary plot. There's not much live sound or dialogue; instead, the actors do voice-overs describing their experience, why they participated, etc.It's a document.It's mind-blowing.I can totally understand why nobody else ever tried to do something like this. There already is something like this. This. :-)NB: The producer doesn't have the rights to distribute a DVD version. I've also never seen it being sold anywhere; one may email Mr. Boerner and order a copy on VHS.
[EX A]: positive

[EX Q]: Semana Santa is jaw-droppingly bad. It's so wrong in so many ways I don't where to begin. So, let's see...Mira Sorvino, whose judge husband has been shot while protecting her, goes from Madrid to Seville for her cop job. During the holy week (Semana santa, see?...everybody begins to fall sleep..told u it was bad in so many points, even from the beginning), a killer executes his victims like bulls in a bullfighting arena. She teams up with male chauvinist pig Olivier Martinez and nice Feodor Atkine. Soon she discovers she'll be the next target of the killer (who wears a red robe). Why, oh but why?Why..;that's the questionthat has been in my head the whole movie.Q :Why did go to see that A : Because i love Mira Sorvino (i even excuse her for that AT FIRST SIGHT crap)Q : Why were we only 8 people in the theater this saturday on the first week end of release? A : ah-ah-ah. Spider-man got relaesed the same day. But also the fact that the movie has been blast with execrable reviews.Q : Why this movie has been made? A : Money I guess. But boy did Mira need the money.then...why???????????? first of all, there's always something wrong with european co-productions. here you got a french-english-german-italian-spanish-danish production. yi-ha.Then it wants to play on the same playgroung as US thrillers/slashers/whodunit/mysteries/whatever. Even VALENTINE, though unnecessary and badly scripted and shot, was much better in the suspense and the fun.Then , to give some credit to the story, the screenwriter wanted to add some political sight to the story. Wrong : done in flash-backs in a Traffic-like photography, it's certainly the most interesting thing i n the movie. Could have stick to it, it wouldn't have to sit through the whole movie. Better go straight to Guillermo del Tros's THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE (El espinazo del diablo)for some clever fun.Then the homophobia. Bullseye! The first victims are S&M drug addicted gay twins who got stabbed to death. The annoying olivier Martinez goes to a dating agency held by a badly shaved overweight transvestive with a blond platinum wig. Calls mira Sorvino's character a big dyke all the time. Do we need this kind of stuff? Nah. Just needless offensive remarks, just like ol'times.Then the suspense. Yipee. No apparent motive. The first murders are plain illusion as they're a representation of a famous painting. But no. And the revelation of the killer (a horrible fascist, of course) could have been done from the beginning as he appears at the end of the movie as, I guess, it was time for the director to say "weel, time to finish that damn movie. let's reveal right now who the killer is and why he kills".Then the director thinks he's a director. Wrong : no sense of suspense, no sense of directing the actors, no knowledge of change of pace. A Giant, mega-bore. The scenes of the holy week are needless (maybe a co-production rule saying : ok, shoot in Sevilla but show some creditsof this beautiful and historical town with the celebrations of Easter. There we are : a mystery movie for tourists!)Then the actors. All wrongs. Mira Sorvino bores herself to death : she does practicly nothing except getting stabbed in the right hand. Everything she did best (the Replacement Killers, Mighty Aphrodite...) were like they never existed. Olivier Martinez...hello, anybody here? When the producers will learn that he's not an actor but a mannequin with no ability of speech nor feelings? Feodor Atkine, bland and transparent. Only do we pay great respect to Alida Valli, one of the greatest actress this last century (and I hope for some more roles in this current one). She's tha main attraction here as she's the only one to give life to her poor lines. I won't mention the other actors as they're only one-sided characters, uninteresting and shallow.Incoherent direction, inconsistent actors, implausible plot. Idiocy incarnated.Superwonderscope says : 1
[EX A]: negative

[EX Q]: The message of a world on the brink of war is disregarded by the masses; the mythical city of Everytown in 1940 represents England in general, but it could just as well stand for any nation of the world. When war finally does arrive, it's ravages continue not for another five years, but until 1966 at which time Everytown is completely destroyed. Adding to the desolation and toll on humanity is the "wandering sickness", a pestilence that continues for another four years."Things to Come" balances both a fatalistic and futuristic world view, where science holds out a hope for a revived civilization. The "Wings Over the World" concept plays out a bit corny, though it's spokesman Cabal (Raymond Massey) is unwavering in his mission and dedicated to his cause. If he fails, others will follow. This message is continually reinforced throughout the film, brought home convincingly in Massey's end of movie speech. Man's insatiable need to test the limits of knowledge and achievement requires an "all the universe or nothing" mindset.The film's imagery of automation and machinery in the second half is reminiscent of the great silent film "Metropolis". As Everytown is rebuilt and transformed by the year 2036, the spectacle of the city's rebirth strikes a resonant chord, as architecture of modern cities of today suggest the movie's eerily prophetic vision is coming to fruition. Where the movie gets it wrong by sixty seven years though is man's first mission to the moon, but in 1936, a hundred year timetable probably seemed more legitimate than 1969."Things to Come" is one of those rarities in film, a picture that makes you think. Which side will you come down on, the forces for advancement in the face of uncertainty or maintain the status quo? It's not a comfortable question, as both choices offer inherent dangers and unknowable outcomes. Those who choose to be bystanders risk being swept away by forces beyond their control.
[EX A]:
positive