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 Input:
This movie is really bad. The acting is plain awful except Michael Ironside. I don't get the story. Richard Grieco is the only survivor after a fight between two Mc-gangs. He comes to a town and suddenly he is choosened to fight against the bad people who wants indian-land. At the cover it said he was a indian himself that returned too his home-town, I didn't hear that in the movie, if so it wasn't clear.Richard Grieco was one hell of a bad actor. Stiff and ugly. He said his lines like it too. And we wouldn't talk about Sean Young, she hasn' been any of my favourite actors but in this movie she plays a indian women who falls in love with Bolt (Grieco). She is awful.When I rented it I choosed between this and Subterfuge with Amanda Pays. I choosed this one because of Michael Ironside was in the cast. Maybe I should have taken Subterfuge.Don't see this unless you think Richard Grieco looks tough on a motorbike with sunglasses.I will soon uptade the cast-list because I have it at home. I wrote it down after I seen the movie.

Ex Output:
negative


Ex Input:
After reading the other tepid reviews and comments, I felt I had to come to bat for this movie.Roeg's films tend to have little to do with one another, and expecting this one to be like one of his you liked is probably off the mark.What this film is is a thoughtful and unabashed look at religious faith. The only other film like it-in terms of its religious message-would have to be Tolkin's `The Rapture.'I am astonished that anyone could say the story is muddled or supernatural. It is a simple movie about Catholic faith, miracles, and redemption--though you would never guess it till the end. It is also the only movie I can think of whose resolution turns, literally, on a pun.As a (happily) fallen Catholic myself, I know what the movie is about, and I find a sort of fondness in its ultimate innocence about the relation between God and man. But if you are not familiar with the kind of theology on which the film is based, then it will go right over you head.As a film-as opposed to a story-`Cold Heaven' it is not ground-breaking. While `The Rapture' is heavy with pictorial significance and cinematic imagery, `Cold Heaven' downplays its own cinematic qualities. There are no striking shots, no edgy effects, no attempts to fit the content to the form. It is workmanlike shooting, but subdued. Nor does it have dialogue or acting to put it in a class of high drama. It is a simple story that unfolds simply. It may seem odd; but at the end the mystery is revealed. It looks ambiguous; but with a single line the ambiguity vanishes in a puff of Catholic dogma.In this regard, `Cold Heaven' has at its heart exactly the same sort of thing that drives a movie like `The Sting,' or `The Sixth Sense,' or `Final Descent,' or Polanski's `A Pure Formality.' All of these are films with a trick up their sleeves. They may frustrate you along the way, but they have a point-an obvious one, indeed--but the fun is, at least in part, in having been taken in.Still, even if it seems like little more than a shaggy dog story with a punch line, it is worth watching for way it directs-and misdirects-you. Try it-especially if you are, or have ever been, a Catholic.

Ex Output:
positive


Ex Input:
Never see this movie.It tries to be a spoof on scifi/thriller films of the 1950s and 1960s but all it succedes at is making you wish really badly that you were watching one of them and not it.It is very lame. A spoof has to have some aspect which has some above par quality to it. This movie does not have any such aspect.Save yourself. It's too late for me but... just don't watch it.

Ex Output:

negative