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:
I've seen this movie, when I was traveling in Brazil. I found it difficult to really understand Brazilian culture and society, because it has so many regional and class differences. To see this movie in Sao Paulo itself was a revelation. It shows something of the everyday life of many Brazilians. On the other side, it is sometimes a little bit over-dramatized. And that's the only negative comment I have on this film. It's sometimes too much, too much sex, too many murders and too much cynicism for one film. The director could film some things a bit more subtle, it would make the film more effective.Despite this I liked the movie and the way the story unravels itself. The characters are complex, and very much like real-life people. Not pretty American actors and actresses with a lot of cosmetics, but people who could be ugly and beautiful at the same time. That makes the film realistic, even when the story is not that convincing.

Ex Output:
positive


Ex Input:
The larger-than-life figures of Wyatt Earp and Bat Masterson, and the specters of George Armstrong Custer and Sitting Bull, loom over director Anthony Mann's hugely entertaining first western with James Stewart. Although Stewart's quest to avenge his father's murder is the primary story, Winchester '73 is really an ensemble piece, with the eponymous, one-in-a-thousand firearm passing through the hands of many colorful owners, including a wry trader (John McIntire, especially great) and outlaw Dan Duryea, who's even more despicable than usual. The film's conflation of fiction and history produces a breezy pace and an ambivalent tone brilliantly in step with Mann's pared-down, compositionally rigorous film-making. His themes of psychological unrest and past dictating present faintly underlie this tall tale of good and bad men chasing after a fabled gun, but they starkly emerge in a vignette about a husband's cowardice and failed attempt at atonement, and are defined in Stewart's conversations with sidekick Millard Mitchell. Mann's use of environment is what sets him apart from other filmmakers of westerns. Instead of gazing at vistas from afar, he incorporates them into the drama as characters that redirect, complicate, or evoke the human characters' goals. Just as mountains, caves, and rapids had to be accounted for in The Naked Spur, here a gunfight occurs amidst the loose rocks and boulders of a small mountain, a physical obstruction that fatalistically determines the roles of victor and victim between two equally skilled sharpshooters. (I would be remiss in not recognizing cinematographer William H. Daniels's contribution, particularly his superlative day-for-night, open-range photography.) Not merely an adept outdoorsman, Mann presents an equally vivid picture of Wyatt Earp-patrolled Dodge City, primarily through scaled, multiple-plane staging. The shooting contest does not depend on brisk camera shifts or twitchy cuts for effect because Mann instinctively knows where to place the camera and how to move it to display the greatest density of information in a given shot. Nor does he care to spell out the plot in dialogue, relying on the actors' eyes or a well-chosen image to convey the stakes. One scene in particular serves to explain his attitude: Mitchell's telling of Stewart's motivation to Shelley Winters, which is interrupted by the climactic gunfight that soon enough reveals all. Light without feeling insubstantial, intense without being overbearing, Winchester '73 seems more modern than its contemporaries and is a joy to behold.

Ex Output:
positive


Ex Input:
I cannot say that Aag is the worst Bollywood film ever made, because I haven't seen every Bollywood film, but my imagination tells me that it could well be.This film seems like an attempt at artistic suicide on behalf of the director, and I for one be believe he has been successful in his mission. No A-list actor outside of this film would risk sharing the same billing as him for all the humiliation this film is bound to carry with it.But lets not just blame the director here, there is the cinematographer, who looks like he's rehearsing for the amateur home movie maker of the year award. There is the over dramatic score, that hopes to carry you to the next scene. The lighting man, who must have been holding a cigarette in one hand and light bulb on pole in the other, and hoping that the flame burning off the cigarette would add to that much needed light in every scene. And, of course the actors! Some of them are by no means newcomers, else all could be forgiven here. The ensemble of actors in Aag were put together to promote a new beginning and dimension to the re-make of India's most loved movie of all time, 'Sholay'. One must not forget that these actors were not forced in to this film, they are A-list and willing participants to something that, let's face it would surely have had high and eager public expectation??? So it begs the question, Amitabh aside (for now), did the other actors really believe their performances even attempted to better the original? Did Amitabh Bachchan read the script and believe that people would remember his dialogue in this farcical abomination of a film? Don't be stupid, of course he didn't, this was a demonstration to the public of how much money talks hence can make actors walk.I truly hope everyone involved is satisfied with what is truly a vulgar attempt to remake a classic film, which only succeeds in polluting everyone's mind when they watch the original.

Ex Output:

negative