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: I'm feeling a little protective of this film because it was my introduction to the U.N.C.L.E.-verse. The year was 1972, and I.T.V. ran all eight features in one bumper run ( followed by re-runs of 'The Persuaders' starring Tony Curtis and Roger Moore ) on Saturday evenings. 'The Karate Killers' was chosen to open the season. It commenced with a cool action sequence as Solo and Kuryakin's sports car got attacked by a squadron of THRUSH mini-copters. I was a fan for life from that moment on.After the main credits ( nice to see a special title sequence here instead of the usual practice of slowing down action footage ) we go to the laboratory of Dr.Simon True ( Jim Boles ), inventor of a new formula to extract gold from seawater. True's wife Amanda ( Joan Crawford ) has been having an affair with THRUSH agent Randolph ( Herbert Lom ). A ruthless fellow indeed, he kills both the doctor and his wife, before hunting for the formula. True has prepared for the event - he has divided it into five segments, each written on a photograph of himself, and sent it to his five daughters, all of whom are scattered throughout the world.Solo and Kuryakin set out to get the formula first, leading to a string of episodes in different locations, and cameos from the likes of Telly Savalas ( as a tight-fisted Italian Count ), Terry-Thomas, and Curt Jurgens. One of Dr.True's daughters - Sandy ( Kim Darby ) - accompanies the U.N.C.L.E. boys on their global quest.Having assembled the formula, THRUSH turns up and makes them hand it over, before whisking them off to their secret base at the North Pole...Of all the U.N.C.L.E. feature films, this is the one I feel should have been produced specially for the cinema. It hurts by being a television product, albeit even one more slightly expensive than usual. No location filming was done, and the various segments come across as repetitive, usually culminating in a scrap between U.N.C.L.E. and THRUSH. Of the cast, Joan Crawford is memorably hammy in her small role, and Curt Jurgens badly miscast as a sugar daddy. As a London bobby, Terry-Thomas is as delightful as ever, and Herbert Lom good as the chief villain. Kim Darby grates though as 'Sandy'. She should have been told to stay at home.What is surprising about this is that it manages to be more amusing and entertaining than many official cinema releases of the time, including 'In Like Flint', 'Casino Royale' and 'The Ambushers'. I'd love to know how Solo and company escaped from THRUSH H.Q. after Randolph's death though.

Output: positive


Input: Consider Input: Man, if anyone was expecting a great zombie movie after reading that title, then you are a retard and you deserve to be disappointed. As for myself, I was expecting a low-budgeted cheeseball zombie flick- and that's exactly what I got. I wasn't disappointed at all. I thought it was a cool little movie. The zombies were exactly as they should be, because all of the zombies had JUST been turned, so they are freshly-undead zombies. Obviously they did that because it would've been pretty costly if they had done full-on rotted zombie FX. I understood the whole thing, I have no idea how anyone could seriously nitpick this movie. It's called "HOOD OF THE LIVING DEAD" for the love of God! Would you watch "Redneck Zombies" and ANY Uwe Boll movie and actually EXPECT it to be great? Of course not! So why there are some morons on IMDb whining like school girls about this movie, I'll never understand. Oh and YES, there ARE worse movies out there, so stop saying that this was the worst you've ever seen, 'cause you know you're full of it! You ever watch "ZOMBIEZ"???? Or "Feardotcom"????? Or "House Of The Dead"???? THOSE are some of the worst I've ever seen. If you can't see that it's just a low- budgeted zombie movie obviously made by zombie movie fans, then something's wrong with you. I just had fun with it. Thumbs up from me and I'd also like to see a sequel.

Output: positive


Input: Consider Input: There is a story (possibly apocryphal) about an exchange between Bruce Willis and Terry Gilliam at the start of Twelve Monkeys. Gilliam (allegedly) produced a long list (think about the aircraft one from the Fifth Element) and handed it to Butch Bruce. It was entitled "Things Bruce Willis Does When He Acts". It ended with a simple message saying: "please don't do any of the above in my movie".There is a fact about this movie (definitely true). Gilliam didn't have a hand in the writing.I would contend that these two factors played a huge role in creating the extraordinary (if not commercial) success that is The Twelve Monkeys.Visually, the Twelve Monkeys is all that we have rightly come to expect from a Gilliam film. It is also full of Gilliamesque surrealism and general (but magnificent) strangeness. Gilliam delights in wrong-footing his audience. Although the ending of the Twelve Monkeys will surprise no one who has sat through the first real, Gilliam borrows heavily from Kafka in the clockwork, bureaucratic relentless movement of the characters towards their fate. It is this journey, and the character developments they undergo, which unsettles.I love Gilliam films (Brazil, in particular). But they do all tend to suffer from the same weakness. He seems to have so many ideas, and so much enthusiasm, that his films almost invariably end up as a tangled mess (Brazil, in particular). I still maintain that Brazil is Gilliam's tour de force, but there's no denying that The Twelve Monkey's is a breath of fresh air in the tight-plotting department. Style, substance and form seem to merge in a way not usually seen from the ex-Python.Whatever the truth of the rumour above, Gilliam also manages to get a first rate (and very atypical) performance out of the bald one. Bruce is excellent in this film, as are all the cast, particularly a suitably bonkers - and very scary - Brad Pitt.It's been over a decade since this film was released. When I watched it again, I realised that it hadn't really aged. I had changed, of course. And this made me look at the film with fresh eyes. This seems to me to be a fitting tribute to a film that, partly at least, is about reflections in mirrors, altered perspectives and the absurd one-way journey through time that we all make. A first rate film. 8/10.


Output: positive