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.

Example Input: This is not a boring movie, the audience might stay on its chair fascinated by this selfish character, Miles Berkowitz, both film-maker and actor here. The storyline is simple : after a divorce and ten years of a hollywoodian non-career, the author plays is quest for love in front of the camera. The first question is about how true is all that : what is written, what came by chance ? Both answers, "yes" or "no" portrays M.Berkowitz as a low average human beeing. If you look for a self-fiction about love like this one, I recommand you to read some independant comic books : Chester Brown, Joe Matt...Beside of this, I felt quite disappointed to hear so much against my country, France. I know american people usually say that the french are arrogant (that might be true then), etc., and for sure the french (and the whole world) have lots of griefs against america, but why so much hate ? Don't think I couldn't like this movie only because of that anyhow.
Example Output: negative

Example Input: The greatest games of Kasparov or Fischer can be a mess for a total rookie. This is a great movie. There is no special agency involved in the plot. This is the clue! This is a PRIVATE plot, built as a PRIVATE enterprise. This is a self-destructive and a self organized plot. As a conclusion, the scenario described the perfect professional plot: private, self organized, self-destructive, with no trace at the end. Anyone can be behind the plot: a smart "director" with some money. All can be done just by delegation. The "director" must be just trigger. If the normal viewer cannot see the essence of the plot in the explicit sequences of the movie, a real plot has fewer chances to be discovered. All the actors' performances are well done , with some special mention for Gene Hackman and Mickey Rooney.
Example Output: positive

Example Input: The Haunted World of Edward D. Wood, Jr. isn't a particularly good documentary. Aesthetically, it's lackluster and cheap looking, the people in it go off on tangents which make it very unfocused and in-cohesive, but this adds to it's charm. I say this because it's a documentary about an oddball that made oddball pictures and surrounded himself with fellow oddballs and, as such, there's really no other way to document the life and career of the man and his crew of misfits. There are some glimpses of insight into both the genius and the ineptness of Wood, and the portrayal of both qualities is a credit to the genuineness of the documentary. Overall, it's worth a watch for the Wood fan and those of cinema in general, but don't expect brilliance here. Expect a documentary made after Wood's own heart.
Example Output:
positive