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.

Example Input: clara bow's beauty and wonderful appeal are the chief reason to watch this film. "hula" is not quite up to par with clara's best films but it is still enjoyable. she dances, she rides her horse, and pursues the man that she loves. this film is just over an hour in length and was directed by future oscar winner victor fleming (gone with the wind).the film moves quickly and clara bow has lots of screen time. if you like clara, i would reccomend "hula."
Example Output: positive

Example Input: While it contains facts that are not widely reported, it is not exactly the truth. They took a lot of liberties in rearranging events, excluding people, and using sets that do not meet the facts of their lives in the 30's. There were more than just Bonnie, Clyde, and W.D. in the gang at various times, and those people had as much to do with the facts as those included. Buck and Blanche went to convince Clyde to go straight much earlier than the one shootout, and in fact got drawn back into crime. Some of the events that were portrayed in daylight actually took place at night. Bonnie's wound was much more severe and never healed right. It was so bad she had to be carried around by someone until it healed up, and even then it stiffened up so she walked stiffly. Clyde also walked with a limp because while in prison he cut off a big toe. I know, I'm being nit picky, and it was a TV movie, but even without these factual errors in this "TRUE" story, the movie moves too fast from event to event and comes across more as several separate snapshots of their lives, rather than being a cohesive flowing story.I'd recommend reading a book or seeing a documentary if you want to get closer to the truth.
Example Output: negative

Example Input: The image of movie studios being financially-driven instead of creatively is not without truth (in fact, it's more true than false). This begs the question why Castle Rock Entertainment allowed Kenneth Branagh to create a full-length, uncut version of "Hamlet" with his complete creative control among other things. Of course, Branagh had to agree to some concessions (a star-studded cast, and a 2.5 hour version for wider release), but why would the film studio allow Branagh to spend money on a 4 hour version that they knew few would see? Could they have, at least in this case, had enough respect for the material and Branagh's vision to create something for only a few people? That is not a question that I can answer. Whatever the reason, this is a glorious vision for those who are willing to spend four hours watching "Hamlet." Everyone knows the story, so I will not spend much time on that. However, unlike other productions of the play, stage included, this is a completely uncut production, which has never been done before. According to some, Shakespeare never intended for the play to be produced uncut, leaving the decision of what to include to the director's discretion. That being said, I have no doubt that had he been able to see it, the Bard would have been overjoyed with Branagh's production.The film is top-heavy with film stars, although most have mere bit parts. All play their parts equally well. I would have thought Branagh too old to play the part of Hamlet, and while he still may be, his performance more than makes up for it. Hamlet is a complex part, displaying every emotion from grief to anger, happiness to madness, and everything in between. Branagh nailed it. Derek Jacobi is terrific as the wily Claudius, whose deception and treachery sets all these things in motion; his unique voice is perfect for the role. Julie Christie is also very good as Gertrude, Hamlet's caring mother who doesn't realize what is going on until late in the game.The classical actors are cast in bit parts (Judi Dench is on for all of 60 seconds and has no lines), but at least they're in it. Surprisingly, no one takes this to heart; everyone gives it their all, and it shows. Special mention has to go to Jack Lemmon and Billy Crystal, who are excellent. Robin Williams is a little too silly, but he's not bad (his part is pretty small anyway).Yet, this is undeniably Branagh's show. He adapted one of the most famous plays in history, and in so doing, he took on a whale of a project; it's impressive that he got it done, but the fact that the film is this good is a monumental achievement. What I really liked about this film is that you don't have to be a Shakespeare scholar to enjoy it. As most people know, Shakespeare is difficult to digest, but Branagh and his cast understand this. "Hamlet" is still immensely enjoyable to just sit and listen to the actors deliver the brilliant dialogue and excellent acting.This is a must see for anyone and everyone. It may be four hours long, but it's definitely worth it.
Example Output:
positive