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]: I think this is almost all I need to say. I feel obliged to explain my actions though. I've basically never seen such an armateur production, and I mean that in all senses of the word. Although the physical camera work, boom MIC operation and other technical aspects of this film are laughable, unfortunately its not the only areas.Unlike some classic independent films that have been saved by their scripts great characterization and plot, this unfortunately has an awful script, awful acting and worst of all, awful annoying characters.It's a crime that for the every independent film that gets, distribution like Haiku Tunnel, there's a 101 other indie films that died silent deaths. I don't know who the Kornbluth brothers know at Sony, but that can be my only explanation as to how this amateur family production ever got distribution. I'm quite bemused as to why they picked this up.The ONLY part of this film that holds out any intrigue is its title. However, the reason for that is even a let down. I hope this review will save a few people that may be intrigued by this films title from going to watch it. I've seen a lot of films in my time, and I'm very forgiving when in the cinema, but this was too much. I'll never forget 'tunnel', for marking an important point in my life experience of cinema. Shame it's such a low point.
[EX A]: negative

[EX Q]: Whoever wrote the script for this movie does not deserve to work in Hollywood at all (not even live there), and those actors need to find another job. The most dreadful hour and some minutes of my life... and I only kept watching to see if it would get better which, unfortunately for me it did not.Even at the end, the credits gave me anxiety. I guess there weren't a lot of people behind the movie so they had to roll the credits slowly... very slowly.This movie is definitely a great "How Not To Make a Movie" guide. Too bad I can't give a 0.
[EX A]: negative

[EX Q]: I saw this film at the Chicago Reeling film festival. To pick up on the previous reviewer's remarks, the claustrophobic feel and off colors of the film is I sense quite intentional and conveys the sense of limited space, drab architecture, overall drabness that constitutes the urban environment of most people in Eastern and Central Europe. A bit shabby housing project style is how I'd describe it, and this is how many people live on the outskirts of larger cities. I can't say that I'm familiar with Bucharest, Romania where the action unfolded, but I have visited and lived in Eastern Europe for six months. When I visited Russia as a student for a semester, my entire group had to drag their luggage seven stories up the staircase of a shabby student dorm building, just as the heroine does when moving in with a woman, because the elevators weren't working. But, I do concur with the reviewer, that the claustrophobia and muted colors, it's overdone, for there are, to be sure, beautiful historic buildings, parks, squares you can find in Bucharest or in any historic city center of Eastern Europe, and Bucharest's didn't get much of any footage in this film. For me watching this film conveys well the claustrophobia that I would feel during my half-year stay there, feeling trapped and limited. (It makes you see why someone would want to immigrate and find a better life, just as people if hope to escape from a United States urban ghetto.) Also, given the climate of homophobia, say, circa, US in the 1980s, the two young women who fall in love with one another are forced to keep their love a very private matter; hence, the focus on their interaction in the apartment.It's remarkable and commendable in my view that this queer themed film was even made in Romania, and I find the complaint of the previous reviewer about the poor film quality quite uninformed and patronizing. It's unlikely that the director and producer drummed up much government support and funding for their film, and they did the best they could with their likely limited resources. The actors were fairly good and believable; the dialog was overall well done, and I could identity with these women.The film offers an added twist to that of forbidden love between two young women, Kiki, an energetic, fun-loving free spirit with a dark, troubling secret (her admiration and love for an abusive, incestuous brother, Sandu) falls in love with Alexandra, a bright, bookish, idealistic young woman who moves to Bucharest to begin her college studies. Opposites attract, and their personalities seem to complement one another, though there is some tension between the ambitious, studious, intellectual Alexandra and Kiki, who seems to be attending college to please her parents. Keeping their love hidden from their parents seems manageable, though we don't get any sense of the tension it requires, nor do we ever see or meet any other students--hard to believe--and the tension keeping their love secret would have entailed. The chief threat to their love is Kiki's brother and her difficulty in trying to severe her relation to him. But Kiki's love for Alexandra seems to give her the strength she needs to finally severe this bond, or does it? That's what the suspense of the film focuses on as the narrative develops, and I won't say how it concludes.Ironically, Kiki's love "sickness" isn't love for another woman, but her illicit, incestuous love for her brother. Thus, loving a woman offers the potential cure to the sickness of loving a sibling. Though this feel of this film is stifling and claustrophobic, overly confined to interactions between Kiki and Alexandra, it was still engaging and moving to watch, so I'll give it a 7.
[EX A]:
positive