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 read some comments on the internet about this film like "...harder then Hostel...", "the camera never screens of when it's getting really brutal...". But none of them is true. The camera never screens of, because there is nothing to screen of. The same scene is repeated hundred and hundred times again. Women lies on a table, killer rapes women a few times, killer cuts women into pieces (you never see this during the whole film!). Police come and arrested him. Killer fools the jury. Film over. In Germany we would say :"Viel Lärm um Nichts". All in all, one of the most boring films I ever see. Absolutely non-recommendable.

Output: negative


Input: Consider Input: Leslie Charteris' series of novels of the adventures of the slightly shady Simon Templar ("The Saint") was brought to the screen in the late 1930s with the up and coming George Sanders as Templar. It was a careful choice - Sanders usually would play villains with occasional "nice roles" (ffoliott in FOREIGN CORRESPONDENCE, the title hero in THE STRANGE CASE OF UNCLE HARRY, the framed "best friend" of Robert Montgomery in RAGE IN HEAVEN). Here his willingness to bend the rules and break a law briefly fit his "heavy persona", while his good looks and suave behavior made Templar a fit shady hero like Chester Morris' "Boston Blackie", and (to an extent) Peter Lorre's "Mr. Moto". The films are not the best series of movie mystery serials - but they are serviceable. Like Rathbone's Holmes series or Oland's Chan's series the show frequently had actors repeating roles or playing new ones (the anti-heroine in the film here was played by Wendy Barrie, who would show up in a second film in the series). This, and slightly familiar movie sets make the series a comfortable experience for the viewers, who hear the buzz of the dialog (always showing Sanders' braininess in keeping one step ahead of the bad guys), without noting the obvious defects of the plot. All these mysteries have defects due to the fact that even the best writers of the genre can't avoid repeating old ideas again and again and again.Here the moment when that happened was when one of the cast admitted his affection for Barrie, which she was long aware of. Shortly after he tries to protect her from the police. But as the film dealt with the identity of a criminal mastermind, it became obvious that this person was made so slightly noble as to merit being the mysterious mastermind (i.e., the script disguised him as the least likely suspect).Barrie is after the proof that her father (who died in prison) was framed by the real criminals in a robbery gang. She has several people assisting her - mugs like William Gargan - and she gets advice from the mastermind on planning embarrassing burglaries that can't be pinned on her. The D.A. who got her father convicted (Jerome Cowan) is determined to get Barrie and her gang. The only detective who seems to have a chance to solve the case is Jonathan Hale, who is shadowing Sanders but reluctantly working with him. The cast has some nice moments in the script - Hale (currently on a special diet) is tempted to eat a rich lobster dinner made for Sanders by Willie Best. He gets a serious upset stomach as a result, enabling Sanders and Barrie to flee Sanders' apartment. Best has to remind him (when he feels better) to head for a location that Sanders told him to go to at a certain time.There is also an interesting role for Gilbert Emery. Usually playing decent people (like the brow-beaten husband in BETWEEN TWO WORLDS) he plays a socially prominent weakling here - whose demise is reminiscent of that of a character in a Bogart movie.On the whole a well made film for the second half of a movie house billing in 1939. It will entertain you even if it does not remain in your memory.

Output: positive


Input: Consider Input: Clair Denis again revisits her theme of estranged fathers, men who follow their own bliss in determined fashion, heedless of the emotion toll on their family but while Nénette and Boni from the earlier film live in a narrow world of Marseilles, our examination of Louis Trebor in The Intruder takes us from a remote location along the French-Swiss border to half way around the world, to Korea and Tahiti. Again the film begins in mid stream, with Louis, in his sixties, coping with an ailing heart while attempting to maintain a high level of fitness. We learn that Louis is no stranger to violence as his cabin is the location for smuggling and gunfire a regular occurrence. Louis sleeps with a large knife under his pillow with rifles nearby. Denis is in no hurry to move the action along, and we must patiently build our understanding of Louis from his daily activities and the few people he deals with along the frontier including a son, Sidney (Grégoire Colin, almost unrecognizable with long hair and a wisp of a mustache) who rejects him as a "lunatic":, shown as a dedicated father of two. There are many brief scenes which, while seemingly unrelated, build up an impression of Louis and his milieu. Ms Godard's camera work is exhilarating here. The controlling metaphor is Louis's heart transplant for which he goes to Korea and then to Tahiti to search for another son, not found, and where Louis's new heart rejects him just as Sidney rejected the old. We are accustomed to brief scenes in Denis's film which are inexplicable: Nénette astride Boni feeding with a spoon; a drive by shooting of Boni's father and then the briefest of images of Boni with a gunshot wound in the head; a scene of Louis in a morgue with a cadaver with the scar of a transplant but the body of Sidney. The implication, of the last two, is a rejection, real or imagined, by a father, kills something indefinable in a son.


Output: positive