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:
"Flavia, la monaca muslmana" aka. "Flavia the Heretic" of 1974 is a truly disturbing and uncompromising piece of Italian Exploitation cinema that, to a certain extent, follows a somewhat feminist premise (though the level of sleaze and brutality would probably disgust the majority of feminists). Set mostly in a convent, and with a nun as the eponymous central protagonist (great performance by the wonderful Florinda Bolkan), "Flavia the Heretic" may be referred to as a 'Nunsploitation' film. However, this film differs quite drastically from the typical Nunsploitation flicks from the time, as it doesn't so much focus on the nunsploitation elements such as lesbianism, sadistic lesbian punishments, etc. Personally, I saw more similarities to the Hexploitation flicks of the time, such as "Mark of The Devil", (even though this one doesn't treat the topic of witch-hunts), which focus on the brutal execution of Christian fundamentalism in the middle ages and early modern period.Italy around 1600: After witnessing her despotic father behead a wounded Muslim soldier, young Flavia is forced to become a nun in a convent. When her father condemns a fellow nun to a torturous death for a small misdemeanor years later, Falvia's disgust with male violence against women turns into hatred against the despotic church, and she joins a band of Arabic scavengers...One thing is for sure, "Flavia the Heretic" is not for the faint-hearted, and neither is it for those who want happy endings. Director Gianfranco Mingozzi obviously tried to make his film as realistic and disturbing as possible, especially in its nasty scenes. The many torture- and execution-scenes are extremely disturbing, with skinnings, spikings and other gruesome scenes in explicit detail, the most shocking scene probably being the torture of the young nun quite in the beginning of the film. The violence here is never superfluous, however. After all, this gruesome methods actually were reality in the time the film is set in. The film is very well-made, with realistic costumes, fantastic settings an elegant cinematography and a great score by Nicola Piovani. The stunningly beautiful and great Florinda Bolkan has proved her talent in many great Italian cult-productions (including Lucio Fulci's Giallo-masterpiece "Non Si Sevizia Un Paperino" of 1972). She delivers another great, charismatic performance here, and I couldn't imagine another actress fitting as well in the role as she does. The film has some minor inconsistencies (E.g. why does the rigid church let bizarre cult-followers into convents in the first place). However, it is overall amazing how realistic this film is. "Flavia the Heretic" should definitely not be missed by my fellow fans of Italian Exploitation Cinema. This is a great Exploitation flick overall, though it definitely is a deeply depressing one and therefore should be watched in the right mood. Highly recommended to fans of disturbing exploitation cinema. 7.5/10

Ex Output:
positive


Ex Input:
WOW! What - a - movie !!!!!!!!!!! I'm not at all a fan of contemporary Italian directors. Usually I don't like dramas. I am not a Will Smith super fan even thinking that he is a very good actor......but this movie ! It is such a great movie with a such original script and so good direction and so well acting...wow...it is stunning. This movie captured my attention minute by minute and I even did not like "The pursuit of happiness" (maybe also because i did not like the acting of Will's son who is a very bad actor while children usually seems all natural born actors, I saw him also last night in "The day the earth stood still" and I confirmed my sensation that Jaden can't act). I don't want to write spoilers and so i don't talk about the story but what I can say is that this movie talks about Love, Death and other feelings which i don't like to watch in movies....but THIS MOVIE is such a super great movie. If you have a minimum of heart you'll don't regret watching it

Ex Output:
positive


Ex Input:
Before I begin, I want to briefly say that this movie in and of itself is very well made and well acted by all involved, including Whittaker, who indeed deserves his nomination. It is highly entertaining, and . . . taken in the right context as a work of FICTION, it is a very good movie. For that, I give it the two stars.However, rather than wasting your time with what you can read a hundred times elsewhere, I want instead to point out the absolute fictional nature of this film and how dangerous it is to sell people a work of fiction as if it is truth. I stress that this film nowhere in the credits lets us know that the main character, Dr. Nicholas Garrigan, is a complete invention of fiction. Rather, it presents this character into a real historical setting, and allows the uninformed viewer to assume he was in fact real, and what they are seeing is the truth. I have no problem with the blending of fact and fiction - but to do so in such a dishonest matter is, in a word, reprehensible.There can be no doubt that Africa, along with most Third World Countries is rife with human misery and suffering. Hollywood has long attempted to capture the suffering of people in these countries on film. But Hollywood also has its eye toward making money. The only true way to capture the suffering that seems to happen everywhere but the West is to either experience it for yourself, or to at least have it captured in an honest documentary.But these depictions of fictional characters in real historical settings can only do so much. At the end of the day, they become less about presenting the facts for the viewer to decide for himself, and more about leading you from image to image and hitting you over the head screaming, "SEE, WE TOLD YOU IT WAS BAD!" The seminal example of this can be found by anyone willing to watch the documentary on the DVD after sitting through the movie. Arguably the most shocking image of the film is the viewing of the body of Kay Amin, Idi's second wife, whom he killed when he discovered her infidelity. In the film, we see that her limbs have been severed and reattached in reverse (arms for legs and vice-versa). This is the director making sure you understand that Amin is, as the Gungans say, Bom-bad! But watching the documentary, we learn that this is in fact nothing more than a myth, which the sitting Minister of Health at the time himself tells us is not true.So . . . what . . . they just MAKE UP these things? Why? Because Hollywood has a low opinion of our intelligence, that's why! They don't trust us to come to the right conclusion ourselves. Look, that she was murdered and dismembered is in itself enough for us to conclude that Amin was not the likable guy he portrayed to the media - we don't need this Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE inspired imagery to reinforce that! And this is just the tip of the iceberg. What is also not explained to the casual viewer is that lead character Garrigan is himself fictional. There was no young Scottish doctor taken under Amin's wing. As such, Garrigan is clearly present only for the sake of helping us dumb Westerners understand the African world. The producers seem to thing we won't be interested in a film about Africa unless there is a white face in it. (Ironically, even the titular character is portrayed by an American black actor!) The problem with this is that the movie is no longer an expose of Amin and his regime, but instead an exploitative thriller about a white Westerner coming to Africa for all the wrong reasons, making several horrible mistakes, and then "redeeming" himself, even at the cost of three other innocent lives. Honestly, I have to say it is nearly reprehensible to suggest that the real tragic death of Mrs. Amin was the result of a tryst with a fictional Scottish doctor - it almost seems to become a morbid joke for the sake of entertainment! I really wish Hollywood would stop jerking us around for our money. I first realized its propensity to do this with the woefully manipulative A BEAUTIFUL MIND, Ron Howard and Akiva Goldsman's sugary-sweet adaptation of the life of John Nash, which deleted the darker side of the man to present only the tortured hero that America just can't get enough of. The sad truth is that Hollywood has been selling us these fakes for years, and viewers, who are predictably and understandably too lazy or uncaring to investigate for themselves, buy these fake portraits hook, line, and sinker.Look, I'm certainly not suggesting Amin is being turned into a villain he wasn't. My point is, with the truth being so shocking enough to convince us of the brutality of the man, why must Hollywood then go to such fictional lengths? Why must Hollywood continue to insult us by holding our hands through these films? Why can they not trust us to think for ourselves!? Can we not just put the honest portrayals on screen and let the audience decide for themselves? I urge all who continue to watch Hollywood's purportedly "true" movies to do yourself the favor of ALWAYS investigating for yourself, and to NEVER assume that what is on screen is even close to the truth!

Ex Output:

negative