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.

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.

A: negative
****
Q: The movie "Slugs" is unique because the titular vermin are actually the good guys in this horrific tale of nature gone awry. You see, these poor slugs have been mutated through the pollution of evil humans and don't mean to do anything malicious, they're just slugs- slugs with sharp teeth who eat flesh and excrete poison, but slugs none the less. The real bad guys are the humans, who either actively try to destroy our beloved slugs, or overreact when they encounter them.For example, take the scene where the guy puts on the glove full of slugs. They were just hanging out in a comfortable work glove when out of nowhere this giant hand came at them, and they reacted instinctively, defending themselves and biting the guy. Now, instead of seeking medical attention for his slug bite, this guy runs around his greenhouse screaming like an idiot, spills some highly volatile chemicals, starts a fire, knocks a bookcase over on himself, and cuts off his own hand- then the fire and volatile chemicals mix and his house explodes. How can you blame that on the slugs?This movie paints a portrait of humans that is less than favorable. The characters in this movie include the dumb sheriff who hates everybody, the drunk hick who's mean to his dog, and the lumpy sidekick whose wife is at least forty-five years older than him. There's also a set of drunken teensthat get attacked while copulating, and we have to see the skinny long-haired freaks' genitals. Meanwhile, there's a guy who looks like a demonic Leslie Neilson who yells "You don't have the authority to declare happy birthday!" for some reason. Finally, this parade of loathsomeness is rounded out by the guy from the MST3K classic "Pod People" whose face explodes after eating a slug-laces salad (another easily avoided fate blamed on the helpful, harmless slugs).Humans are portrayed as greedy, stupid, racist, alcoholic, and, in one pointless scene, as would-be rapists. In the movie's climactic scene, the villainous humans try to burn the slugs who are cowering helplessly in the sewers, Well, since they're idiots, the humans succeed in BLOWING UP THE ENTIRE TOWN. They alone do more damage than the slugs ever did!If you hate humans, and I know I do, you'll appreciate "Slugs". If you're a fan of bad cinema, you'll also appreciate this crapfest from the director of "Pieces" and "Pod People". There's enough bad acting, silly dialog, illogical plot twists, lame special effects, pointless scenes, and poor dubbing to hold your attention.

A: negative
****
Q: "Protocol" is a hit-and-miss picture starring Goldie Hawn as a bubbly cocktail waitress who one night saves the life of a visiting Arab from an assassination attempt. The woman immediately becomes a celebrity, and gets a new job working for the U.S. Government. Will the corridors of power in our nation's capital ever be the same? Hawn is excellent as usual even though "Protocol" isn't as funny as her best film "Private Benjamin". But it's still a good movie, and I did laugh alot.*** (out of four)

A:
positive
****