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 is one of the greatest love story movies I have ever seen. Yes, I can agree that some parts may seem dated, but this does not distract from the film. One should try to observe, criticize and enjoy any art form from the perspective of the time. Clearly by the "Sex in the City" standards, Charlie Chaplin was horribly boring. However, when judged from the prospective of 1925 America, he was fantastic. Likewise Sayonara is a breakthrough film in its look into a mixed-race love affair, American "manifest destiny" arrogance and prejudice, and the complexity of different cultures. It is a natural next step to such films as Gentleman's Agreement. Its purpose, however, was not just social commentary, rather, it is entertaining and enjoyable, with innumerable lines that one just doesn't forget.However, even when taken only as a love story, it is terrific. Although, some attack Brando's accent, he is at his near best in nuance and characterization. Buttons and Umeki (who both won Oscars) and the rest of the supporting cast add much to the film.Taka, the real star, does a fabulous job making you feel the passion she has for Brando, while being torn by her sense of obligation and loyalty. Her speech when she first meets and speaks with Brando is a classic and something rarely if ever matched in cinema. The dialog between Taka and Brando in her dressing room in Tokyo at the film's end is equally good. Of course, it doesn't have the mouth-sucking, spit-swapping and worse, that exemplifies love in today's movies, but that makes it all the better. It portrays true love and passion, and not just "heat." If this movie doesn't touch you, then you are just too young, too cynical or dead.

Ex Output:
positive


Ex Input:
Tom Wolfe's sprawling, brilliantly observed satiric novel of life among New York snobbery gets a glossy look here but is nevertheless not well served. The film suffers not merely from the miscasting of everyman Tom Hanks as an uncaring Yuppie, Kewpie-doll Melanie Griffith as a manipulative southern belle and Bruce Willis (?!) as the darling of New York's literati. The most serious miscasting was in the director's chair. Robert Altman might have breathed life into these unlikeable characters and made them interesting, but Brian De Palma, for all of his visual sophistication, has never had an eye for the nuances of the human experience. The resulting film looks good but seems blah toward its subject of dehumanization in favor of status. Honestly, if a satire does not make the viewer angry, what is the point?

Ex Output:
negative


Ex Input:
I wasted my time and gave this show a chance. This has to be one of the worst new shows. If they gave an award to shows that suck THIS one should sweep the category. The acting is poor and the story line is contrived. Now Dinosaurs was a bit strange but at least it was entertaining. That show lasted three seasons and was finally scraped. This new show, based on an insurance companies commercials, is not funny and really has nothing going for it. Possibly the original commercials and the amount of times they were, and still are, repeated is what is wrong with this show. It just came to TV and already we are tired of seeing the "caveman" characters.

Ex Output:

negative