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]: Skullduggery is a strange, strange film based on the novel "Ye Shall Know Them" by Vercors. To unleash criticism at the film feels really unkind, since it is a movie that deals with earnest themes like humanity, and pleas for upright moral standards and tolerance. But in spite of its honourable intentions and its well-meaning tone, Skullduggery simply isn't a very good film. For me, the main problem is the terribly disjointed narrative which can't make its mind up how best to convey its message. The first half of the movie is like watching a standard jungle expedition flick of the Tarzan ilk; later it teeters into sci-fi fable; by the end it slips into courtroom melodramatics. The differences in tone between each section of the movie are too great, too jarring, to overlook. They stick out like a sore thumb and remind you constantly that you're watching a muddled, disorganised movie.An archaeological expedition into the jungles of New Guinea is led by adventurer Douglas Temple (Burt Reynolds). One of the main archaeologists involved in the excursion is attractive lady scientist Dr Sybil Greame (Susan Clark). After an arduous trek they stumble upon a tribe of strange ape-like creatures. These primitive, long-lost people are covered in hair and have survived for centuries without being in any way touched or influenced by the developments of modern man. There is some evidence that they may the ancestors of early man the "missing link" in the evolution of apes into humans. Or perhaps a race of humans who simply look and behave differently from usual? Or even a race of animals that have begun to develop human characteristics? The archaeologists call the tribe "the Tropi" and are initially thrilled by the implications of their discovery. But things take a devastating turn when nasty opportunist Vancruysen (Paul Hubschmid) declares his intention to exploit the tribe and their idyll on behalf of developers. He questions whether the Tropi are truly "human" and takes his argument to the courts, where he hopes to be granted legal backing so that his own greedy ambitions can be continued.This was a very early film in Reynolds' career, and he actually unbalances this movie by acting like he's in a comedy while the rest of the cast take it all very seriously. Not that Reynolds can be blamed he has an impossible role, asked to play a charming adventurer who really belongs in a Tarzan flick. His character and the film are not relevant to each other. Clark fares much better as the earnest lady archaeologist, and there are nice supporting roles for British actors Edward Fox, Alexander Knox and Wilfrid Hyde-White. A major shortcoming in Skullduggery is the lame and ineffective make-up used to give the Tropi their strange hairy appearance. Rather than making the actors look like believable hominoids, the stuck-on hair merely makes them look unintentionally comical. and that's just not the right idea. We're meant to feel great sympathy for these creatures, but that's awfully hard when they look so unconvincing. Skullduggery is a failed attempt to tell a story that could have been poignant, philosophical and stimulating. The honourable intentions are there for all to see, but the end result doesn't do them justice. A worthy failure it might be but a failure nonetheless.
[EX A]: negative

[EX Q]: I've heard about this movie for many years, and finally got a chance to see it. A massive murdering of cheerleaders back in 1963 and 1969 eventually cause a cheerleading camp to close up. Fast forward to 1982, and Bambi, a former student, opens it back up with new recruits, among them Candy (Carol Kane), Glenn (Judge Reinhold), and Sandy (Debralee Scott). One by one, they are murdered by the killer, until only one remains. It is then when we find out who did it and why.Also in the movie are Tom Smothers doing a terrible accent as a Canadian Mountie, and Paul Reubens doing his Pee-Wee Herman schtick. The plot overall isn't very well developed, and quite lame, but some funny scenes do occur, namely the House of Bad Pies and the strip poker scene. The ending seems like it's thrown together, which is a shame.Overall, good for about ten or fifteen minutes total, the rest you can just fast forward through. Maybe catch it on TV, but it's not worth buying.
[EX A]: negative

[EX Q]: For me every piece of art is to be judged by these criteria: Form, Function and Meaning. Guernsey seems to be dedicated to forms: nice shots and sometimes interesting acting. The long close ups suggest a function that the viewer may fill in by himself. Because of lacking texts the story becomes a quiz. An introvert person suggests to have depth, but sometimes it turns out he has nothing to say. This film acts like an introvert person. If you have not read the synopsis you cannot see that it was the suicide (and the unanswered question Why?) that changes Anna's view on life and makes her suspicious. 'Why don't you speak to me?' asks Sebastiaan. Anna doesn't answer, she only starts looking a long time at him without saying a word. What is the function of that shot? What does it mean? My question is like Sebastiaans: What has this film to say? What is meant by this movie? The answer for me: It shows us a handful of persons with the passion of a glass of water. The story of their lives is simple and boring. Motives behind their actions are not shown. The rest is: skins, residences, landscapes. Nice and artistic done, but meaningless without having disposal of 'instructions for use'. In my opinion this film is made for fellow artists, not for the common viewer.
[EX A]:
negative