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 was really looking forward too seeing this movie as it has been advertised as a must-see movie for people that love movies about nature. The movie shows different climates and the animals associated with them by starting at the North Pole and going down south as the movie progresses. The footage from this movie is often breathtakingly beautiful and I many times wondered how on Earth they could have taken some of the shots under water or in the sky. However beautiful, a large part of the footage I had already seen in the TV series 'Planet Earth', narrated by David Attenborough. I found Attenborough's narration of Planet Earth to be much better than the narration of Earth. 'Earth' is an easier movie. It skips much of the scientific detail that Attenborough covers in his 'Planet Earth' series. For instance, Earth will tell you that a tropical sea is an ideal nursery for a young humpback whale, because there are few predators. Planet Earth will tell you that a tropical sea is a good nursery, because the water is low in oxygen and doesn't contain enough nutrients to support very large animals, like large sharks, etc. To me, that's an important difference. That, together with Attanborough's far superior voice make Planet Earth a far better documentary than Earth. Still, however, I think Earth is worth watching for the beautiful footage and the fact that it's easier to understand makes it interesting for children too.
[EX A]: positive

[EX Q]: Based on one of the books by Gabriel Marquez and it might be brilliant literature, this cinema-adaption really sucks as it's more like fighting against sleep rather than enjoying some cinematographic delices. The story is about an old couple whose son died and living a life that is heavily dominated by poverty, and wherein the main character is a cock that hopefully one day brings some money for a forthcoming cockfight. I am in no mood to spill more words on this useless pretentious piece, just perhaps that you can see Salma Hayek in here, but sitting 90 minutes in front of your screen for just that? No gracias.....
[EX A]: negative

[EX Q]: I so wanted to believe in this movie after the only form of mainstream comedy this country recognises is slapstick and stereotypes.Of course, it went completely the other way - let's be cool and edgy - and came out the other side with little to show for it. I bet One Small Seed went nuts for this. I know SL did.None of the main characters have the comedic chops to pull it off. Even Danny K had better timing. I'm actually being serious. Every time they introduced a bit character I kept thinking, "Darn, this person should have been the lead!".Independent doesn't mean that the camera work needs to be horrible. Black and white did nothing for this movie - actually with such flat dialogue it hurt this even more by bringing the boredom into sharp relief. The black and white also wasn't crisp. The composition was horrible. The use of music was horrible. Strangely enough I watched Little Miss Sunshine after this movie and the composition on that was superb - maybe that's why the deficiencies in this movie stick out in my mind.I think Corne (who was funnier than the leads before he even said anything) was speaking to this movie and not David - see it and you'll understand. I bet the guys who organise Oppikoppi were dismayed. One would think nothing happens there at all. I got the feeling it could have been filmed in someone's back garden. I know regular guys who have much funnier, raunchier and wittier conversations than any of these "comics". The dude who they hooked up with end was OK though.Guess SA comedy's gonna stay in the stone age a little longer. Nice work guys.
[EX A]:
negative