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 stumbled onto this movie when I was eBay'ing Caesars Palace stuff, as I'm enamoured with its rich Vegas history as the last of the original luxury resorts still standing in good condition (unless you count Bally's, the original MGM Grand). In that respect, this movie delivers full-force. You're given a grand tour of the Caesars property,which in spite of all the renovations and additions they've done over the 40 years it's been open, looks alarmingly similar. As a film overall, the plot is somewhat difficult to follow, thanks in large part to the horrendous editing. And when I say horrendous, I'm not using that word lightly. There's a lot of spliced-in, second-long snippets of Vegas traffic, casino crowds, and even a scene where the Robert Drivas character is having a conversation with his father about how much he's grown up, and without any explanation, he (Drivas) goes (in those infamous snippets) from being himself, to a baby, to a little boy, and then back to himself while talking back and forth with his father. (That doesn't give away any plot details; if anything, one can be prepared for it and maybe they won't be as flabbergasted as I was by the editing.) The film has aged well otherwise, and has a good message about the inherent differences between a father and his son that most guys could relate to in some form or fashion.
[EX A]: positive

[EX Q]: I completely agree with the other comment someone should do a What's up tiger Lily with this film.It has to be one of the worst french films I've seen in a long time (actually along with Brotherwood of the Wolves, 2 horrendous films in a much too short period of time).It's really sad because the cast is really interesting and the original idea kind of fun. Antoine DeCaunes in particular and Jean Rochefort being among my darlings, I was bitterly disappointed to see them compromised in such a poor film.Lou Doyon is quite bad, as usual which goes to prove that a pretty face and famous parents can get you into the movies but they don't necessarily give you talent.avoid this film, if you want to laugh watch an Alain Chabat instead or some nice period piece full of fun like LA FILLE DE D'ARTAGNAN.
[EX A]: negative

[EX Q]: This might be the poorest example of amateur propaganda ever made. The writers and producers should study the German films of the thirties and forties. They knew how to sell. Even soviet-style clunky leader as god-like father-figure were better done. Disappointing. The loss of faith, regained in church at last second just in time for daddy to be "saved" by the Hoover/God was not too bad. Unfortunately, it seemed rushed and not nearly melodramatic enough. A few misty heavenlier shots of the angelical Hoover up in the corner of the screen-beaming and nodding- would have added a lot. The best aspect is Hoover only saving the deserving family and children WHO had "proven" their worth. Unfortunately, other poor homeless were portrayed as likable and even good- yet the Hoover-God doesn't help them. A better approach would have been shots of them drinking spirits to show the justice of their condition. Finally, bright and cheerful scenes of recovery (after Hoover saved the country from the depression) should have rolled at the end. We could see then how Hoover-God had saved not just THIS deserving family, but all the truly deserving. Amateurist at best.
[EX A]:
negative