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: One of those classics, held up next to "Deep Throat" and "Behind the Green Door."Sure, it was clever, but the female lead isn't that attractive and sex isn't that hot. But if not for this film, porn would not have blossomed into what it is today.Harry Reems was the Ron Jeremy of his day. Worth a look if you're a Fan.

A: negative
****
Q: It's hard to put your finger on this one. Basically I suppose it's a comedy about an idle rich drunk who falls in love with a (comparatively) poor girl, whom he wants to marry at the risk of being disowned by his family.It has funny moments, romantic moments, and touching moments. Dudley Moore is funny and somehow makes his self-centred character endearing, Liza Minelli is a convincing foil as the the feisty opposite he attracts, but John Gielgud steals the show as Arthur's wonderfully sarcastic butler.It's corny but great fun with a memorable soundtrack, and ran for nearly 3 months at our local fleapit.

A: positive
****
Q: Remembering the dirty particulars of this insidiously vapid "movie" is akin to digging into your chest cavity with a rusty, salted spoon. Perhaps "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York" (1992) was a bit on the predictable side, but this pathetic excuse for a film is just one of the most shameless bids at commercialization I have ever heard of. A boy fighting off spies/terrorists when he's home alone in a Chicago suburb with the chickenpox? Ridiculous! Why did this film have to be made? I am the kind of person who believes even terrible movies are not wastes of time, but rather learning experiences. However, this is actually a waste of time. It should be avoided at all costs.

A:
negative
****