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: Hmmm, a sports team is in a plane crash, gets stranded on a snowy mountain, and is faced with the difficult decision to eat the flesh of their dead companions in order to survive. Sound familiar anyone? I refer to "Alive" from 1993. The only major difference here, of course, is that a big, white, drunken scare crow of a Yeti shows up a few times to drag off the dead. I guess humans taste better than yaks.Stupid: The man in the first scene does not have a reliable firearm when hunting the Yeti, nor does he have a backup.The plane crash is completely bogus. It would have either exploded in the air, exploded when it hit the ground, or become obliterated. The people would not have survived, but hey, it's sci-fi.Stupid: They survived, and they are cold. It might be a good idea to harness some of the burning debris nearby so as not to freeze to death. Fire being warm as it is...WTF: The pilot has frost formed all over his face while he's alive and talking, but oddly enough, no one else does.Stupid: One of the guys tells the others to look for matches and lighters, but there are scattered parts of the plane ON FIRE all around them.Stupid: They find coats and hoodies, and yet there in the cold of the Himalayas, they fail to use the hoods!Stupid: They're staring at a pile of sticks when, I reiterate, there are pieces of the plane ALREADY BURNING.Stupid: The Himalayas are notorious for its storms. It would be common sense for them to collect the debris in order to reinforce their structure rather than sitting outside bickering. There are a lot of pine trees around, the branches of which make excellent insulation.WTF: When in doubt, use a dead man's arm as a splint.WTF: If the one guy knows so much about the hibernation habits of squirrels, bears, and leopards in the Himalayas, then why doesn't he know enough to make shelter and set traps right from the start? Stupid: When attempting to trap wild animals, mindless conversation in the vicinity of said trap always helps.WTF: Do you know how hard it would be to cut a frozen corpse with a shard of glass?! WTF: The group was ready and armed to fight the Yeti while the other two were standing there defenseless. The Yeti ripped out the guy's heart and stomped the girl's head, and the gang did nothing. There's love.So two Yetis and a convenient avalanche to bury the evidence forever.... or so we think. Mwuhahahaa! The story continues into more idiocy but the most action occurs in the last 15 minutes, as usual. Nice thinking with the javelin and the chain, although this is some ingenuity (with the magically-appearing chain) that they lacked in the beginning of the movie when they couldn't even make fire despite the fact that it was all around them.As is typical for the Sci-Fi Originals, the loving couple kisses at the end like nothing horrible has just happened to them (not to mention they ate human flesh and haven't brushed their teeth in several days).The very end, however, is quote lame.

Output: negative


Input: Consider Input: Guinea Pig: The Devil's Experiment is without a doubt ***** stars on first view, its a raw realistic creepy and disturbing look into the dark side of human nature. This movie gets right to the point, you may be thinking what point? The point is to satisfy fan's of just extreme violence and gore. This movie has some gore, more or less just torturing a women violently. There are really only 3 scene's that could be considered gore. I'll tell you one thing though Guinea Pig: The Devil's Experiment makes Hostile look like Sesame Street. If you thought Hostile was a crazy brutal disturbing torture flick then you ain't seen the half of it until you've seen Guinea Pig: The Devil's Experiment.Movie Rating 0-5, Gore 0-10Guinea Pig: The Devil's Experiment (Uncut) ***** (7)

Output: positive


Input: Consider Input: I cannot believe the same guy directed this crap and Dracula 2000. Dracula 2000 was innovative, fresh, and well written, if poorly acted.This pile can't even claim that. It starts with the defeat of Dracula at the end of Dracula 2000. Then ignores the narrative afterwards describing what happened after that. Following the narrative properly could have made this a good sequel somehow, but Craven chose to go in the style of his older films, having no good tie but the main villain's name.Even the actor playing Dracula was different (going from dark hair in Dracula 2000 to a blonde here).Avoid this movie if you have any respect for your taste in movies.


Output: negative