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: Seriously the only good thing about this year ceremony were the winners.Although the ceremony itself was pretty short it still was somewhat boring. I think it's seriously time to look for a new director and producers for the show, who can come up with something REALLY new. It's pretty obvious that they tried to make the show more 'hip' and appealing for a younger audience this year by letting Beyonce perform and letting P. Diddy and Prince present a category. Also letting Chris Rock be the presenter was an attempt to re-new the ceremony and make it more appealing. None of it really worked out.Sure, Chris Rock is a funny guy but he wasn't really a good presenter. I really merely saw him as a guy who just talked every now and then in between of the different categories. His presence wasn't really as 'big' as for instance Billy Crystal's.Also the handing out of the awards was pretty dumb at times. Not letting everybody come to the stage but also handing out some of the awards in the middle of the theater was plain weird.Still, I can't remember being any more satisfied with the award winners. None of the movies really swept away the awards as the last couple of years always had been the case. So does that mean it had been a good year for movies with lots of competitive contestants? I don't think so. I think most of the movies will be largely forgotten in 20 years from now, with the exception of "Million Dollar Baby" and "The Passion of the Christ" maybe. Sure I don't agree with every single award that was handed out this year, for instance Caleb Deschanel should had won for best cinematography, not that I don't like Robert Richardson's work, he really did some amazing work for most of Oliver Stone's work but I really feel that Deschanel deserved the award way more. Also I would had liked seeing Jim Miller and Paul Rubell win for best editing and John Debney for best music. But oh well, there is no way the Academy Awards can please everybody of course, I understand that. There will always be people complaining about the winners.It also was funny to see that most of the award presenters were way more nervous than the nominees and winners. Did Prince said any of the nominees names right at once? And were is Sean Penn's sense of humor? Al Pacino and Jeremy "I hope they missed" Irons were the best presenters of the night.Overall a very forgettable show but with nice winners.4/10
Example Output: negative

Example Input: honestly, if anyone has a brain, there's not 1 positive thingto say about this movie what so ever. I lost my $1 renting this. I'd rather laugh at Will Smith saying "If you got a dream, you got to protect it". all the actors must've been bored or had no fame at the time. even Matthew Mc Conahay *however you spell it* was better then all the actors in this movie, when he played a psycho in Texas Chainsaw 4. If you see this movie, and have anything good to say, you IQ, must be extremely low, with such bad taste in movies, it hurts. Thank YOU...and the TRUTH, has been spoken!Save yourself from the misery. Get Devil's Rejects, now that's a classic.
Example Output: negative

Example Input: I've heard nothing but great things about the 2006 television mini-series, "Planet Earth," narrated by my childhood idol David Attenborough. Nevertheless, whether it was screened down here in Australia or not, I never caught up with it, and when I happened upon the opportunity to see 'Earth (2007)'  a feature-length compilation of the same nature footage  on the big screen, I jumped at the chance. The theatre was basically empty; just one other patron sat in the row ahead of me, and it was as though I had, not only the big screen to myself, but, indeed, the entire planet Earth. For 90 minutes, I was lowered into the beauty and perils of the isolated wilderness, amongst some of the most beautiful living creatures ever captured on film. Awesome in its scope, and yet painfully intimate at times, 'Earth' is a heartfelt plea from the filmmakers to recognise the delicate balance of life on our planet, and how the intrusion of humans has placed countless glorious animal and plant species on the brink of extinction.Though the film, directed by Alastair Fothergill and Mark Linfield, obviously argues for the conservation of the wilderness, it refrains from beating us over the head with propaganda, and the puzzle that is politics is ignored altogether; indeed, there is not a human in sight. Instead, we are simply taken on a breathtaking journey into the majesty of the natural world, to experience the resilience, and also the fragility, of life on Earth. I hear that the original mini-series, which ran for eleven episodes, delves a lot deeper into the scientific background of world ecosystems, but I think that, here, the filmmakers made a wise decision to replace information with emotional impact: I can't remember the last time that I felt so inspired, and yet utterly heartbroken at the same time. By establishing an emotional link between the audience and a select few individual animals, anthropomorphising them to an extent, we are suddenly able to appreciate the "human side" of each species, and their hopeless plight for survival becomes less a statistic and more an unacceptable tragedy.'Earth' is basically comprised of a selection of dramatic episodes, whether it be the struggles of a female polar bear to lead her young cubs to the Arctic ice, or the tramp of an elephant herd towards the life-saving seasonal floodwaters of the Okavango Delta. The documentary demonstrates the delicate balance between life and death, most heartbreakingly exhibited in the desperate ballet of predator-prey interactions. Though occasionally, perhaps to cater towards a younger audience, the footage cuts itself short at the crucial moment, I regularly shed at tear at the inevitability of death in nature, and the raw instinct that fuels these animals' final, hopeless efforts at survival. There's even a haunting beauty to be found in the hunt, both in the slow-motion footage of a cheetah bringing down its prey {the result of a single fateful misstep}, or the majestic mid-air leap of a Great White Shark as it engulfs a hapless sea lion. It is this frail balance that has been fatally disrupted by the selfishness of our own species.Aside from these main stories, we are also treated to brief snippets of wildlife from around the world, including the birds of paradise of Papua New Guinea, and the autumn migration of the demoiselle cranes. Of course, entire films might have been dedicated to these species alone, and an inevitable consequence of having to sift through so much footage is that some interesting ecosystems are glossed over far took quickly. By choosing to focus most closely on the polar bear, elephant and humpback whale  tracing their lifestyles, via some astonishing high-definition time-lapse photography, throughout a calender year  the filmmakers were able to avoid any structural problems that might arise from having so much to show, and only 90 minutes to show it. Consequently, 'Earth' left me thirsting for more, and, fortunately, I now have approximately eleven hours more, as soon as I can track down a copy of the DVD box-set for "Planet Earth." Uplifting and tear-jerking, awe-inspiring and heartrending, 'Earth' is a truly magnificent documentary experience, and it might just be my favourite film of 2007.
Example Output:
positive