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]: A brilliant chess player attends a tournament and falls in love with a woman he meets there. On itself this would be a pretty bad angle on a story. So, there is more. There is the fact that the chess player is also completely alienated from the world because of his brilliance at the game and the fact there is some history haunting the player.This film steps back and forth from romantic frivolity to tournament tension to historic events that shaped the chess player and works quite nicely. It's easy to grow attached to the two main characters and easy to believe they might hit it off together like the way they do in this film. The added effect of the tournament is very good too and creates a nice tension setting.I have no idea of the strength of the chess players as I don't play the game myself but it looks nice and believable. All in all, most of the film goes down very easily. It is also forgotten again very easily though. So it's nice to watch but nothing more than that.7 out of 10 chess players caught between a rook and a hard place
[EX A]: positive

[EX Q]: When I rented this movie, I had very low expectations......but when I saw it, I realized that the movie was less (a lot less) than what I expected. The actors were bad (the doctor's wife was one of the worst), the story was so stupid...it could work for a Disney movie (except for the murders), but this one is not a comedy, it is a laughable masterpiece of stupidity. The title is well chosen except for one thing: they could add stupid movie after Dead Husbands! I give it 0 and a half out of 5.
[EX A]: negative

[EX Q]: Casting bone to pick: David Jannsen was 38 playing the father of Robert Drivas, who was then, 31 (yeah, I realize he's supposed to be just out of college, but clues in the script have him being a loafer and so he's probably 24-25 in the script--- that still puts Jannsen in parenting classes in Junior High). I assume the AMA wrote medical miracle up in their 1938 Year in Medicine. This movie hasn't aged very well at all and now it's main appeal is just to see a snap shot of Sin City, circa 1969 and all the incessant smoking, the weird hair (Drivas has an atomic comb over that makes him resemble a well-groomed hip Cousin It) and trendy fashions that went along with it. If anyone remembers, LV wasn't exactly London... the city coddled the mob and codger gamblers in those days. Drivas comes off as sexually ambiguous; his dad thinks he might be gay (in a sad irony, Drivas himself died of AIDS at 47) and the soapy conflict is from the generation gap issue (ahem, as if one may call 7 years a gap). Sonny boy wants to be his own man and dad wants to pull him into the casino (Caesar's Palace!), and plies him with girls (including the horny-for-money Edy Williams). Interestingly enough, the son doesn't seem to mind being thought of as gay--- unusual for the time and a cute Brenda Vaccarro is nearby to swoon platonically over him. What nudity there is is awfully lame--- just what was needed to pull the audience in for an 'R' rating in the early days of the MPAA rating system (which then was G-M-R[16]- and X). The editing is HORRIBLE and there's stupid-silly overdubs by The Committee (a late 60's neo-avante-garde comedy troupe that mercifully faded off the map within a couple of years). Don Rickles is on board as a blackjack dealer... seemingly preparing him for a role as a floor manager in the much better CASINO two decades later. Not to give anything away, but they would've dealt with Mr. Rickles' character with power tools and a hole in the desert back then. A curiosity at best, far from Joshua Logan's usual caliber of work. Dos/Dias. Now go watch CASINO again...
[EX A]:
negative