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.

Input: Consider Input: A meteorite falls in the country of a small town, bringing a jelly creature. An old farmer is attacked by the alien in his hand, and the youths Steve Andrews (Steve McQueen) and his girlfriend Jane Martin (Aneta Corsaut) take him to Dr. T. Hallen (Steven Chase). The local doctor treats carefully the blister, and asks Steve to investigate the location where they found the old man. When Steve returns, he sees the blob killing the doctor. Steve and Jane try to warn the police and the dwellers, but nobody believe on them, while the blob engulfs many people, getting bigger and bigger."The Blob" is a cult and classic sci-fi. It is a low budget movie, with many ham actors and actresses (with the exception of Steve McQueen), awful effects, but also delightful and very, but very funny. This is the first time that I see this classic (I had seen the 1988 remake with Kevin Dillon), and I really recommend it to fans of Steve McQueen and sci-fi B-movies from the 50s. The film subject of my review number 1,400 could not be better. My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): "A Bolha" ("The Blob")

Output: positive


Input: Consider Input: This is a film that takes some digesting. On the one hand, we are offered a tough outward shell, a story that does not only derive the Catholic Church, but does so foolishly, and uninformed. On an inner layer, we are offered a story of orthodoxy over orthopraxis, and what happens when people follow blindly a faith that they must not understand.At first glance, it appeared this was supposed to be a comedy. If so, then Mr. Durang needs to open a dictionary, because he clearly does not know the meaning of the word. The jokes are pale; the humor is awkward and poorly delivered. In particular, Ms. Keaton's performance is flighty and over the top, well below the quality of her Annie Hall and Sleeper days. Jennifer Tilly is again the model of stridence, with her hi-pitched voice and whining style. All of this could be forgiven if it weren't for the last 20 minutes of this movie, that evidently was a controversial play made in 1981.***Careful, spoilers ahead***It all starts with the appearance of four former students of Sister Mary Ignatius (Ignatius, by the way, is a male name, and a nun would not adopt it after her vows under any circumstance simply due to that fact, just to show you how much tireless research went into the project to begin with.) When they all admit that they don't live up to the church's teachings, the sister proceeds to become irrational and abuse them in a manner the audience is to believe she did way back when in the corny, all-too-cliché sepia-tone flashbacks. When one of them admits to having two abortions, the nun becomes even more abusive, until the pupil pulls out a gun. After wrestling it away from her, the nun kills the pupil, presumably in self-defense. She then goes on a screaming rampage, killing a gay former student because of his sins. The last shot is of the dead female pupil lying in a Christ-like pose as a shadow of a cross hangs over her. Can you say `heavy handed?' I knew you could!I know there have been abusive nuns in the past, and I know many people have been emotionally harmed as a result, but this imagery is fed down our throats in almost every other shot in this train wreck of a movie. I have heard from the writer and the director that this is a film about hysteria and why one should not follow the orthodoxy so religiously, no pun intended. This explanation is hard to swallow, though, simply because we are never given an authoritative viewpoint that is not biased against the catholic faith in one way or another. This film is simply anti-Catholic tripe, which in the name of fairness and equality, is mean spirited and hateful.This is a film I would recommend for a catholic, namely to awaken him or her to the realities of what cynicism and ignorance they face today. If it were `Rabbi Ray explains it all' or `Imam Muhammad explains it all', there would be rioting in the streets and Showtime would lose all of its subscription. But, sadly, because this is a film that strikes out against what is perceived to be the majority, it is accepted and even applauded by those who share the same spiteful point of view.I certainly hope every member of that cast was a practicing catholic, so it wasn't just ignorance that brought them to make this film.I give it 1.5 stars out of 5, not because of its offensive nature, but because it was poorly written, poorly directed and just a bad movie in general. Don't even waste your time.

Output: negative


Input: Consider Input: Not only is this film entertaining, with excellent comedic acting, but also interesting politically. It was made at the end of the Soviet Union, but makes fun of the soviet mentality through and through. The story is set during the early days of the soviet union, and it questions the rationale behind the revolution both in cultural and practical terms. Of course, by the late 80s and early 90s, the bizarre strictures of soviet society are already relaxed, but the ideology and mentality is still alive and well and ready for some well-deserved deconstruction. Happily, all this deep philosophical commentary is wrapped in a funny and entertaining package!Jur


Output: positive