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: Johnathan Frakes is a good actor and, when he's not directing a family film, a fine director. But, he really shouldn't have directed this movie, and the screenplay should've been rejected. The director and writers must understand what the original TV show was really about, as well as who the characters were and how they worked. The original series had many episodes with razor-sharp writing using good dialogue and with situations that American producers would never consider using in children's programming, much less a movie, which made the original series so well received by adults. I mean, the Tracys were college graduates and some of them did even drank alcohol and smoked tobacco! And, there were characters who did get killed, although most were bad guys. If they had written it the way that it was originally done, which isn't dumbing things down with poor dialogue, kindergarten humor, and a weak plot, this Universal/Studio Canal joint venture wouldn't have such bad reviews. This motion picture is almost pure blasphemy. If you've seen the original Supermarionation series, then you'll know what I'm talking about! The first thing that was out of place and annoying were the constant references to Ford Motor Company, even going so far that Lady Penelope was riding around in a disfigured Ford Thunderbird made up to look like FAB-1 instead of using what would've been more appropriate considering Ms. Penelope's station (not to mention being more faithful to the original), a ROLLS-ROYCE FAB-1. She's supposed to be a distinguished member of British society, hence the preference for England's finest make of motorcars in the original series. One other reviewer here indicated that Penelope wouldn't be caught dead in a Ford. He's pretty much right in the context that the idea of her riding in a Ford doesn't work. At least they could have had Penelope ride in a Jaguar made up like FAB 1 since Jaguar is a British car make that is owned by Ford, but NO! They had to use a straight FORD! But the Ford product placement doesn't end there. EVERY single car you may see is a Ford! Even the news flash that is shown on the TV sets in the movie were sponsored by Ford! Ford, Ford, FORD! The predominance of Ford vehicles makes this movie an obvious marketing vehicle for Ford. The original series had a design that was futuristic for the 1960s and still remains ahead of its time even today. But, the futuristic design in the original series worked because there was an effort to make the design look practical and functional. This kind of treatment didn't exist in the movie, where everything is stylized to excess, defeating the sense of functionality and practicality. A lot of things that were done in the design of the movie were done strictly for style, many times with no sense of function to give that style a sense of reason.The original series relied on good acting performances of the voice talent to overcome the limited expressions in the puppets, bringing them to life in the episodes. The brilliant and lively music score by Barry Gray helped even further to connect the audience with the story, the characters, and how everything came together to help achieve the super objective (a little bit of Stanislavski talk). The movie, on the other hand, had some overly grating performances. Anthony Edwards overplayed Brains to a fault, Bill Paxton as Jeff Tracy just didn't work despite decent acting (one of few), there were better choices for the Hood than Ben Kingsley, and many others that I don't care to mention (it would take too long). Quite simply, the puppets were more believable! Second was the overly generic and underwhelming music score by Hans Zimmer, sounding more like a mix between "Days of Thunder" and "Apollo 13." And, of course, the Hood. The Hood in the original series had an ability to communicate with Kyrano through a statue of Kyrano as an outlet for ESP contact. But, that was where his extraordinary capability ended. He's a master of disguise and deception, which allows him to sneak around undetected (for the most part, anyways) to gather information of the Thunderbirds vehicles for his own means. He also uses weapons for his own defense, including pistols, and generally collects information using a film camera, although he tried to steal Thudnerbirds 1 and 2 in the 1960s United Artists release of "Thunderbird 6" (which was the last Thunderbirds show filmed in Supermarionation and was the second Thunderbirds theatrical release). But, while he is a nemesis of International Rescue, the Hood isn't the villain in every Thunderbirds episode and he tends to avoid direct confrontation with International Rescue. In the movie, he's obviously the main villain, but he and his cohorts seem to act more like morons, along with the Hood having extended mind control ability, including the ability to move objects and move himself into flight for brief periods of time. This totally deviates from the Hood as a character in the original series with one that may leave kids laughing and people familiar with the series scratching their heads in confusion or leaving the theater in disgust.There are more criticisms, but the 1000 word limit for IMDb reviews will not allow me to list all of them. So, I will close with the point being made that I didn't enjoy this movie. As a matter of fact, I think it sucks! Having seen the original series and Supermarionation movies (Thunderbirds Are Go, Thunderbird 6), I was hoping for something a lot better than this.The original Supermarionation was a lot more sophisticated and elegant than this live action farce. (And that's saying it nicely.) - Kip Wells
Example Output: negative

Example Input: How viewers react to this new "adaption" of Shirley Jackson's book, which was promoted as NOT being a remake of the original 1963 movie (true enough), will be based, I suspect, on the following: those who were big fans of either the book or original movie are not going to think much of this one...and those who have never been exposed to either, and who are big fans of Hollywood's current trend towards "special effects" being the first and last word in how "good" a film is, are going to love it.Things I did not like about this adaption:1. It was NOT a true adaption of the book. From the articles I had read, this movie was supposed to cover other aspects in the book that the first one never got around to. And, that seemed reasonable, no film can cover a book word for word unless it is the length of THE STAND! (And not even then) But, there were things in this movie that were never by any means ever mentioned or even hinted at, in the movie. Reminded me of the way they decided to kill off the black man in the original movie version of THE SHINING. I didn't like that, either. What the movie's press release SHOULD have said is..."We got the basic, very basic, idea from Shirley Jackson's book, we kept the same names of the house and several (though not all) of the leading character's names, but then we decided to write our own story, and, what the heck, we watched THE CHANGELING and THE SHINING and GHOST first, and decided to throw in a bit of them, too."2. They completely lost the theme of a parapyschologist inviting carefully picked guest who had all had brushes with the paranormal in their pasts, to investigate a house that truly seemed to have been "born bad". No, instead, this "doctor" got everyone to the house under the false pretense of studying their "insomnia" (he really invited them there to scare them to death and then see how they reacted to their fear...like lab rats, who he mentioned never got told they are part of an experiment...nice guy). This doctor, who did not have the same name, by the way, was as different from the dedicated professional of the original movie as night from day.3. In direct contrast to the statement that was used to promote both movies "some houses are just born bad", this house was not born bad but rather became bad because of what happened there...and, this time around, Nel gets to unravel the mystery (shades of THE CHANGELING). The only problem was, the so-called mystery was so incoherently told that I'm sure it remained a mystery to most of the audience...but, then there was no mystery in the first place (not in the book), because the house was bad TO BEGIN WITH. It's first "victim" died before ever setting eyes on it.4. The way the character of Luke was portrayed was absolutely ridiculous. He was supposed to be a debonair playboy who was someday to inherit the house (and was a true skeptic of it's "history")...and in this one he was just a winey-voiced, bumbling nerd who couldn't sleep(insomnia remember) and was a compulsive liar.5. I was also annoyed with the way the movie jumped from almost trying to recreate original scenes word for word (the scene with Nel's sister's family, and Mrs. Dudley's little opening speech...) to going off into flights of fancy that made me think more of these other movies than THE HAUNTING. It's like it couldn't make up its mind what it wanted to do.6. I missed Nel's narrative through the whole movie. The original was so like a gothic novel in the way that the story was mostly told in the first person, through Nel's eyes, and we always were privy to her thoughts. That totally unique touch was completely lost in the new version. They also tried to make Nel much more of a heroine. The original Nel was not a bad person, but she was a bitter person (could she be otherwise after sacrificing 11 years of her life to a selfish old woman and a spiteful sister?) and she liked to moan, and she lost her temper... This one was almost too good to be true. This was never more apparent than in the climax of the movie where the writer's had obviously been watching GHOST one too many times.7. They changed the history of the house and it's occupents too much. There was no Abigail Crain (the daughter of Hugh whose legend loomed large in the original versions), there was no "companion", and there was no nursery. There was also no "Grace" (wife of the original doctor) and Hugh Crain's wives died in totally different ways. These changes, changed the story WAY too much. I don't know whether the producers of this movie should be glad Shirley Jackson no longer walks this earth or whether they should...BE SORRY (if ya get my drift!!! The hauntings she could envision are not something to be trifled with!!!).In conclusion, let me just leave you with some words from the original Luke (appropriate substitution of the word "house" for "movie"!): "This 'movie' should be burnt to the ground, and the ground sprinkled with salt!" My favorite movie of all time remains so. No competition from this one.
Example Output: negative

Example Input: Even if you're a huge Sandler fan, please don't bother with this extremely disappointing comedy! I bought this movie for $7.99, assuming it has to be at least halfway decent since my man Sandler is in it and because I assumed some women would get naked (judging by the R-rating and scantily-clad women on the cover). Well, there are quite a few scantily-clad women, but none get naked. I'm not sure what point this was in Sandler's career, but I'm guessing it was even before his SNL days. I can be wrong. This is like watching one of his home movies. He might look back at a cheesy movie like this and reminisce about the good ol' times...but we (the audience) are left to dry. This is hardly a "movie"! Sandler does a lot of talking to the camera, and even admits at one point that this is "no-budget" movie (that's right, not a low-budget movie, a NO-budget movie). So our job is pretty much to laugh AT the quirky characters. There is no steady plot, it's like an extended sketch comedy show--but a crude and badly written one. That guy who played the nasty comedian was completely annoying and it was implausible in the first place that he would receive such a mass audience. And Sandler finds his comic inspiration by saying the one classic Henny Youngman line "Take my wife, please" and the audience is on the floor? I'm not even going to TRY to make any logic here. Sure, Sandler's current and recent movies are not known for making a lot of sense (the penguin in "Billy Madison," the midget in "Happy Gilmore's" Happy Place) but the comedy works. This is a strictly amateurish work, and even if you're curious about Adam's early days in film--you still won't be interested. You're better off checking out his start on SNL or maybe his underrated role in "Mixed Nuts." Of course, the Sandman is not the only actor wasted in this thankless vehicle. Billy Bob Thornton also makes a short appearance, Billy Zane ("Titanic") has a supporting role and the great Burt Young (from the "Rocky" movies) has a significant role. This awful comedy will most probably be collecting dust on the 99-cent rental section of your local video store--and rightfully so. My score: 3 (out of 10)
Example Output:
negative