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 was a typical grade B movie in 1940s Hollywood and yet it succeeded way beyond its expectations. Why? It has a wonderful plot and backed up by Nina Foch, George MacReady and Dame May Witty, as a female villain, of all people.When a young lady answers an advertisement for a secretary, she certainly gets more than she bargained for. The only talents her employers are seeking are those which will lead to her demise. Seems that Witty and MacReady want to pass her off as their daughter-in-law and wife, respectively. MacReady killed his real wife and wants to do Foch in as well so that a body can be claimed.The film deals with how Foch tries to get town people to believe her and how she is thwarted in practically everything she does. Why don't people believe her?
[EX A]: positive

[EX Q]: A few weeks ago, I read the classic George Orwell novel, 1984. I was fascinated with it and thought it was one of the best books I've read recently. So when I rented the DVD, I was intrigued to see how this adaptation measured up. Unfortunately, the movie didn't even come close to creating the ambiance or developing the characters that Orwell so masterfully did in his book. The director seems to think that everyone watching the movie has read the book, because he makes no attempt to demonstrate WHY the characters act and feel the way they do. John Hurt, the main actor, is droll the entire way through, and hardly does any acting until the end. We never really find out what he does for a living, or why his love affair is forbidden, or what the political climate is and why the main character desires rebellion. This book cannot be done justice in movie form without proper narration and explanation of the political system oppressing the characters, and the fact that those are missing is the greatest shortcoming of this film. Besides that, John Hurt was a terrible casting choice, looking about 15 years older than the 39 year old Winston he was supposed to be portraying. On a more positive note, however, the rest of the cast was well chosen. It's just too bad they were put in such a horribly adapted film with the wrong lead actor. -Brian O.
[EX A]: negative

[EX Q]: It took me time to really appreciate John Carpenter's Halloween. As a kid, I remember I really enjoyed the sequels, especially The Return of Michael Myers, which I still think is the best Halloween sequel. But I thought the first one was slow and took way too much time to get to the point. I watched it a couple of times recently and I know now I was wrong. Today I truly understand this film, the meaning it has, the whole feeling of this horror masterpiece. It's not about blood and gore. It's not about naked chicks and lame jokes. It's about the worst night in Laurie Strode's short life. It's about the night his demented brother comes back home to finish what he started 15 years ago. This movie is meant to be scary and I think it succeeds very well. It's also one of the first slasher movies, a horror sub-genre that I always loved. Halloween has a very dark atmosphere, creepy music and talented young actors, such as Jamie Lee Curtis in her first role. Need I say more? Anyone who's never seen it, horror fan or not, should do his cinematic homework right now. Very highly recommended!
[EX A]:
positive