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:
In the immortal "Shaun of the Dead", we are introduced to a London where the slackers and the high-and-mighty alike are forced to battle flesh-eating, reanimated corpse versions of their friends and family. At the end of the film, it is suggested that the zombies are rendered harmless and used as cheap labour. "Fido" presents us with an epilogue to "Shaun" set in 1950's America, in a hilariously witty and original "what-if...?" movie.The film is set post-zombie-apocalypse, for a change; after the terrors of the Zombie Wars, ended by the creation of the ZomCon company and their patented zombie collars which make the corpses as docile as lambs. Every town in the world is fenced off from the Wild Zone, the once-fertile landscape torn asunder by the surviving zombies and left-overs from the apocalyptic wars. The idyllic town of Willard is your typical, pristine 50's suburbia, with one small difference; social status is measured by a family's amount of domesticated zombies. Unfortunately, the Robinson family has no zombies whatsoever, due to their patriarch, Bill's, fear of the reanimated dead. Timmy Robinson and his mother Helen both suffer from the pressures of suburban life, until the day that Helen purchases a zombie servant in a desperate attempt to impress the neighbours.The zombie earns Timmy's love when he rescues him from a pair of violent bullies, and the two form a bond to rival the classic "boy-and-his-dog" cliché... a boy and his zombie. Timmy names his "pet" Fido, and he soon becomes an aid for both Timmy and Helen to escape the prison-like routine Bill has put them in. But when Fido's domestication collar goes on the fritz and he devours the elderly Mrs Henderson, the Robinsons have to contain their connection the sudden wild zombie epidemic and still manage to keep their beloved Fido.A film whose sharp wit and satirical gore carry it just as much as its all-star cast (including "The Matrix"'s Carrie-Anne Moss as Helen Robinson and Billy Connelly as Fido), "Fido" is a zom-com for the ages. With some rather twisted subplots - for example, the sweet and unsettling feelings that Helen and Fido begin to have for each other - and a poignant commentary on 50's suburbia and the zombie genre, the film manages to bring out the worst (and the best) in its characters while still enabling you to care for them."Fido" is, by far, one of the best dark comedies I've ever seen, one of the best films that I've seen in a long time, and THE best zom-com since the incredible "Shaun of the Dead".

Ex Output:
positive


Ex Input:
Because 'cruel' would be the only word in existence to describe the intentions of these film makers. Where do you even begin? In a spout of b*tchiness, I'm going to start with the awful acting of nearly everybody in this movie. Scratch that. Nearly does not belong in that sentence. I can't think of even one character who was portrayed well. Although, in all fairness, it would be nearly impossible to portray these zero dimensional characters in a successful way. Still, the girl who played Katherine (whose name I purposefully don't include - I'm pretending she doesn't exist) remains one of the worst actors I've ever seen, only eclipsed by the guy who played Sebastian. The story was God awful. It attempted to mirror the brilliance that was the first one but failed in so many ways. Pretty much every part of it was pointless - though I will admit (grudgingly) that the plot twist was quite good it its surprise. And the ending was at least slightly humorous. But this film is up there with the worst I've seen. Don't watch it. Just don't. There is absolutely no value in watching it. None. It only takes away the enjoyment of the first.

Ex Output:
negative


Ex Input:
This film is an attempt to present Jared Diamonds theory of "Guns, Germs and Steel", explaining how Europeans have dominated much of the globe.The version I saw of this documentary came on 2 discs covering 3 hours. I think the information could have been presented in 20 minutes. There are completely useless scenes of: Professor Jared Diamond watching birds through binoculars, Professor Jared Diamond failing to use a bow and arrow properly, Professor Jared Diamond firing a muzzle-loader badly. Was this documentary supposed to make a hero out of "Professor Jared diamond?". This part of the documentary was so bad, it could have been a spoof. The worst was when Diamond is shown breaking down and weeping when touring the malaria ward in an African hospital. None of this helps me understand his theory of "Guns, Germs and Steel." BTW, "Guns, Germs and Steel" is said about 100 times. "Can the Europeans guns, germs and steel get them out of this dire situation? Stay tuned and find out!" When he finally gets down to business, his theory is equal parts interesting and utterly boring. Europeans conquered the natives peoples of other lands, because they had guns and fine blades against stone and wooden weapons. Do I really need a professor to convince me of this? The parts of his theory that explain how the Europeans came to have the advantages that allow the conquest are interesting, but the coverage is paper-thin.In the end, I think the documentary was only trying to convince me that non-Europeans are as capable as Europeans. If I'm not a racist, I already know this. If I'm a racist, Jared Diamond is not going to convince me with his bumbling use of native implements.I don't think adults are the intended audience for this documentary. Kids may enjoy this more than I, though. I have read that the book from which this documentary is much better than the documentary.

Ex Output:

negative