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.

Input: Consider Input: This movie is Damian Szifrón's second immersion in movies after his excellent character study in "El Fondo del Mar". With "Tiempo De Valientes" he creates extremely well done characters, far away from prototypes and with an unprecedented chemistry between them. I've seen Szifron's talent to present every character in a lighthearted way but just enough to involve us emotionally with them. His control over them is magnificent, so he restores on the movie a great direction and an overall brilliantly polished script, the characters laugh and cry with real sentiment and invite the viewer to join them in their emotions and their evolution on screen.The Spanish takes over the English, the Buenos Aires urban landscape at night replaces Hollywood sets and the premise is just as interesting as any other, so we have a film daring to compete over Hollywood's Machinery.But I want you to see the movie mainly because I've never dealt with such endearing characters, all of them. It seems the script suits perfectly to the actors and vice versa. I really believe with a film making like this Argentina is really up to the Competition.

Output: positive


Input: Consider Input: After watching KHAKEE i felt i'll get to watch another good film but sadly The film is a joke and actually trying hard to introduce Aryeman Afterall his father Keshu is the producerRKS spoke so highly about the film during promotions, saying the film has meat unlike films released that time, I wonder which films was he talking aboutThe film is actually a typical Masala film with loads of comedy, romance, action everything jumbledThe ease at which the kids kidnap the family, is one of the funniest parts ever, Imagine kids kidnapping Dawood's familyThe end is a complete jumble mumble with sudden change of characterizationRKS gives his weakest film till date, except some Bachchan scenes the film is a boreMusic is boringAmitabh tries to give the role his all, he does his part well, though not his best though he contorts his face too much when pulling a trigger and does a weird look while smoking the cigar His dubbing too isn't matched properly at timesAkshay is there for some minutes and just repeats his act and hamsAryeman seems expressionless, tries too hard but overdoes it in some scenesBhumika emerges the best of the lotThe rest are okay

Output: negative


Input: Consider Input: Samuel Fuller brings his customary playful and stylish direction to this seedy, pulpy story and manages to create one of the undiscovered gems of 1950s cinema.Richard Widmark plays a petty thief tough guy (a role he perfected over the course of many movies), who snatches a young lady's (Jean Peters) wallet on a New York subway and with it a piece of much-wanted microfilm. This is 1953, so of course the microfilm is property of Commie spies who will stop at nothing to get it back. When the girl shows up at Widmark's waterfront shack, sent by an abusive boyfriend to reclaim the film, Widmark senses the opportunity to shake her and her "comrades" down for big money. The plot thickens, people start dying, and Widmark and Peters fall in love.Fuller handles the love story clumsily, but more from a sense of indifference than bad writing or direction. It's as if he included a love story under duress, and so made it intentionally unbelievable, as love stories so frequently were and still are in Hollywood films. Peters gives a remarkable performance as a tough New Yawk cookie, part gangster moll and part damsel in distress. When violence occurs against her, we genuinely care about her well being, and it's typical of Fuller's renegade, ahead-of-his-time style that a happy ending is not necessarily a foregone conclusion.But the ultimate success of "Pickup on South Street" rests squarely on the world-weary shoulders of Thelma Ritter, who plays Moe, a feisty lady who makes money any way she can, whether that be selling neckties or acting as a police informant. Ritter gives the performance of her career; in a breathtaking monologue, she conveys without ever directly addressing it the entire sad trajectory of her character's life, and the hopelessness she feels waking up every morning to a world of struggle, crime and hardship. It's as if every character Ritter ever played converges for one brief instant to give vent to all of the emotions they weren't given a chance to vent in those other movies. The scene is the highlight of Fuller's film, and a highlight of 50s cinema, period.Grade: A+


Output: positive