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:
First of all, this movie isn't a complete disaster. If you had never heard of the real story of Gram Parsons then it might seem a reasonably entertaining diversion. Johnny Knoxville can't really be criticised for his performance as Phil Kaufman - he's pretty good at looking laid-back and down to earth and you can sort of root for his long-suffering everyman. Michael Shannon is due credit for pretty much the same reasons, except he's a hippy stoner. There are some good individual comedic scenes - the hippy-hearse crashing into the airport hanger door stands out. But that's where the good things end, and we begin to see the aspects that make this movie so truly disappointing. The character of Robert Forster as Gram's actual father is an invention so disgraceful as to cast a taint over the entire film. We all know his real father committed suicide when he was young - something that could surely be compared to Gram's life on the edge by a better film-maker. Having Forster as his supposed real father, and not his step-father would be bad enough, if not for the well known difficulties Gram had with the man who actually flew to collect his body. It has been suggested that his step father had admitted to providing Gram's mother with alcohol as she lay dying and that this enraged Gram when he later found out about it. Also the controversy over where Gram's body was buried would surely be reason enough not to invent a benevolent made-up father who actually catches up to the duo and their hearse, but then allows them to go ahead with the burning. Whatever the truth about the man who Gram got the name Parsons from, he certainly bore no resemblance to Forster's character here, and it is hard to see why this role was written. Then there's the addition of Christina Applegate as a greedy chick (yet very pretty of course) who wants Gram's body back so that she can begin to cash in on his estate. Her character, and her acting are non-existent and one wonders why the director didn't just go the whole hog and include a lesbo scene between her and the chick who plays Kaufman's girlfriend(it wouldn't have lowered the tone a whole lot more). When you think of the ingredients that could have been used in a good movie about Parsons, the shortcomings of this film are easily apparent. Country music being changed by a young, polite, southern gentleman - who was also long haired, drug loving, popular with the ladies and ultimately self destructive. Real events like the hanger door crash and the painted hearse and friends like Keith Richards. Instead of these things we have to concentrate wholly on Kaufman's input into Gram's life. Kaufman is obviously still lapping up the cult status he received for what he did (he certainly is a little cult). From interviews it is obvious that he's delighted with the attention. Remember this is the man who made a remark about the genitalia of the naked corpse of Gram Parsons as he was preparing to set it alight. What he did was not an act of great loyalty, but a doped up alcoholic escapade. Looking at Knoxville and the director in interviews, a few things become clear also. It's obvious that they have no real grasp of the story of Gram's life, nor do they wish to have. They want a hit movie about an event that is infamous and crazy. It was an amazing life with a strange end. That the end is the only thing covered by this movie shows how limited an understanding of Gram Parsons the makers had.

Ex Output:
negative


Ex Input:
I don't know why people except a lot from low budget indie films but I enjoyed this one as I'm a fan of urban horror. There's not too many urban horror movies out there so when I saw this one on the shelf, just the title alone peaked my curiosity. So I decided to check it out and I was surprised...it's not too often you run into a low budget indie horror film with GREAT acting and a good story. Is it low budget? yes. Can you tell that it's low budget? Yes...but once you start watching the movie you become so wrapped up in the story that it doesn't matter. I like hip hop music too and the soundtrack is nice! I don't know what's up with all these bad reviews for this film. All I hear is "worst movie ever". Have these idiots seen EVERY movie out there? There's thousands of movies out there, how can you categorize one as the "worst" ever? A video not "movie" like "zombiez" may be the worst film I ever SEEN but I can't say that it's the worst movie EVER since I haven't seen every movie out there. Bottom line these people who gave this movie bad reviews are probably from the suburbs. Listen, if you don't like minority based, urban films, the ghetto films, hip hop,etc then WHY WATCH THESE TYPES OF MOVIES???!!! knowing that you don't like this type of stuff? Sure, this is a horror film but it's not just a horror film but it's an URBAN horror film with a multi-cultural based cast. I don't like TV shows like Dawson's Creek or the O.C., THEY SUCK to me. Films like "Garden State", "Wedding Crashers" and "I heart huckabees" SUCK to me. I'm a guy from New Jersey and these shows and movies suck to me. Why? Because I can't relate to them. They don't peak my interest. Just common sense. Believe me, I will never watch GARDEN STATE 2: GARDEN SALAD, WEDDING CRASHERS 2: Here's a sequel to torture you again since the first sucked so bad and I HEART HUCKABORING. Now back to this movie, in regards to saint405's comment above, I don't know if this guy was smoking crack or got knocked "stupid" by his drunken dad before he watched the movie but to me, everyone did a great job. The actor who played Ricky (I forgot his name) did a VERY good job. I'm an aspiring actor myself taking theater at my school and I had to do a play where I had to cry and it's not easy to be emotional in a scene so I give props to actors who have to do an emotional scene and can pull it off. Anywho, I liked this movie and never heard of these actors and directors before but you bet I'll be looking out for their stuff for now on and if they are reading this, BRING ON THE SEQUEL!!! I'm out. Jerzee Representin'!

Ex Output:
positive


Ex Input:
This story is about the romantic triangle between a nth. African male prostitute, a French transsexual prostitute (Stephanie) and a Russian waiter who speaks no French and never seems to shave.As a film it is dull, dreary and depressing, shot either on foggy, overcast winter days or in badly lit interiors, where everyone is bathed in a weird blue luminescence. And yes, I know, it's because the white balance was out. Everyone is pale and downcast and looks haggard, shabby and dirty. Bodies are bony and shot in such closeup that they look quite ugly and unappealing. Moles, greasy hair. Yuk. Bad news in a film where people spend a lot of time either naked or having sex.And the story? Well, Stephanie's mother is dying. All three characters go back to Stephanie's home village where, through a bunch of flashbacks to desolate countryside and predictably dingy interiors, we see a bit of Stephanie's childhood as a boy called Pierre. The mother dies. Well... and that's about it, really. Character development is kept to a minimum, as is the denouement of the story. I suppose the storyline is not linear (it would explain a lot of non sequiteurs) but really, after paying my seven euros I don't feel like having to construct the film myself: that's what the director takes my money for. To expect me to join the story telling process and get my hands dirty, so to speak, is asking way too much.This film is a heap of pretentious rubbish made, above all, from a desire to epater les bourgeois (ie shock the straights). I can see how it was a shoo-in for the Berlin Film Festival, and I can see why it got nowhere.

Ex Output:

negative