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]: This movie strikes me as one of the most successful attempts ever at coming up with plausible answers for some of the nagging questions that have cropped up in recent scholarship concerning the "Passion" (suffering and death of Christ) accounts in the New Testament. (What motivated Judas if money was not the issue? What could bring the Sanhedrin to meet on a high holy day? Why did Pilate waffle?) It is a movie for the serious, thinking Christian: fans of "The Passion of the Christ" will no doubt be disappointed by the lack of gory spectacle and arch characterization. As for myself, I find the portrait painted here--of the willingness of ordinary people to so blithely sacrifice common decency when their own self-interest is at stake--far more realistic and deeply unsettling. (The disinterested, "just doing my job" look on the face of the man who drives the first nail in Christ's wrist is as chilling as any moment in film.) The film makes no claim to "authenticity", but the settings and costuming invariably feel more "right" than many more highly acclaimed efforts. It is a slow film but, if you accept its self-imposed limits (it is, after all, "The Death"--not the Life--"of Christ"), ultimately a very rewarding one.
[EX A]: positive

[EX Q]: The film starts in the Long Island Kennel Club where is murdered a dog,later is appeared dead as a case of committing suicide a collector millionaire called Arched,but sleuth debonair Philo Vance(William Powell)to be aware of actually killing.There are many suspects : the secretary(Ralph Morgan),the butler,the Chinese cooker,the contender(Paul Cavanagh) in kennel championship for revenge killing dog ,the nephew(Mary Astor) facing off her tyrant uncle,the Italian man(Jack La Rue),the brother,the attractive neighbour..Stylish Vance tries to find out who murdered tycoon,appearing many clues ,as a book titled:Unsolved murders. The police Inspector(Eugene Palette)and a coroner are helped by Vance to investigate the mysterious death.The sympathetic forensic medic examines boring the continuous body-count .Who's the killer?.The public enjoys immensely about guess the murder. The picture is an interesting and deliberate whodunit,it's a laborious and intriguing suspense tale.The personages are similar to Agatha Christie stories, all they are various suspects.They are developed on a whole gallery of familiar actors well characterized from the period represented by a glittering casting to choose from their acting range from great to worst. Powell is in his habitual elegant and smart form as Philo.He's protagonist of two famed detectives cinema,this one, and elegant Nick Charles along with Nora(Mirna Loy)make the greatest marriage detectives. Special mention to Mary Astor as the niece enamored of suspect Sir Thomas,she was a noted actress of noir cinema(Maltese falcon). The movie is magnificently directed by Hollywood classic director Michael Curtiz.He directs utilizing modern techniques as the image of dead through a lock-door,a split image while are speaking for phone and curtain-image.The tale is remade as Calling Philo Vance(1940).The film is a good production Warner Bros, by Vitagraph Corp.
[EX A]: positive

[EX Q]: An anthology is always risky business and I think this endeavor should be praised. There's a lot of talent involved here. A great many talented actors, directors and writers. Unfortunately, I couldn't really enjoy this movie based on three issues I had.First of all, the segments vary incredibly in tone and quality. And unfortunately some of them clash with the others. Secondly, several segments feel underdeveloped to me. Like seeds of good stories that never come to fruition. I'm not talking about happy endings here (or even an ending period) but rather, they lack even basic development or even solid setups that draw you in. Last but not least, I did not feel New-York and its inhabitants were properly portrayed.What you're left with is high-brow short films that may still be of interest to some but will leave the average viewer unsatisfied.
[EX A]:
negative