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:
WAQT is a perfect example of a chicken soup not exactly for your soul. The broth unfortunately has lost its actual taste thanks to all the excess dilution and garnishing that went into its making.What's surprising and disappointing about WAQT is that it comes from a director who stayed away from the usual clichés of Hindi cinema in his first venture but who in his second outing gives in for all the stereotype film formulas. While Vipul Shah had the conviction to show something as implausible as blind men robbing a bank in AANKHEN, he just fails to induce life in the entire packaging of WAQT that is based on something as conceivable as a father-son relationship. Adopted from a Gujarati play Aavjo Vhala Fari Malishu, WAQT does have a sensible storyline with a social message to back up. A mature look on the father-son relationship, a father's unconditional love towards his son and a son's responsibility towards his family. Ishwar Chand Sharawat (Amitabh Bachchan) who has established his entire empire on his own from the scratch leads an affluent life with his wife Sumitra (Shefali Shah). Their only son Aditya (Akshay Kumar) never had the need to strive for anything since he got everything tailor-made and spoon-fed in life. Ishwar's pampering has only spoil him all the more.Aditya dreams to turning into a superstar but does nothing to make his dreams come true. In the meanwhile he marries his ladylove Mitali (Priyanka Chopra). Ishwar hopes that marriage will make Aditya a more responsible man but he is disappointed. Aditya is still at his blithe best leading a carefree life.The endurance limit finally collapses when Ishwar expels Aditya from his house. The sudden change in the attitude of his affectionate father towards him and his now expecting wife baffles Aditya. He has no option left but to strive for the livelihood of his wife and his unborn kid. He starts turning into an independent man but the rift in the relationship between him and his father grows.The story is simplistic while the uncomplicated screenplay has a very elementary approach. One can easily identify and relate with the credible characters of both the father and the son. If you are not one of the two, you at least might have come across individuals like them somewhere in real life.Add to it director Vipul Shah's easy handling of the screenplay. With a family affair like this, any other director in his place would have added in tons of melodrama in the proceedings as per the cinematic laws of Bollywood family dramas, turning the film into a compulsive tearjerker. However Shah excels in the effortless handling of emotions for most part of the film.Clear-cut example of his unpretentious direction is palpable in the pre-interval scene where the father expels the son from his house in a rather frivolous manner. The purpose of the scene is achieved without blotting a brunt on the audiences' brains. Ditto for the scene in the second half wherein the now separated father son have a flippant conversation. That's what differentiates WAQT from a KABHI KUSHI GHUM or an EK RISHTAA and in fact places it one level high in terms of treatment.But after gaining all the distinction points, one may wonder where does WAQT still fail in? The problem lies in the fact that while WAQT distinguishes itself from the others in it's league in terms of treatment, it gives in to the glitches in the terms of packaging. What with the director forcing in song-n-dance every now and then in the first half. There's a Johar kinda shaadi song, a Chopra kinda Holi song, a father son disco dandia song, a dream song and a dream come true song inducing sufficient yawns in the viewer. Picture this... the father has just ousted the son from his house and the son is dreaming of a song in Moroccan mountains with his wife. Out of place! Out of reason! and the audience Out of seat.The film just drags in the first half and the actual story starts only in the second half. The director has wasted too much WAQT on unnecessary elements. The much talked about dog chase sequence isn't bad but is not redeeming either. However Akshay Kumar's taandav dance is simply ridiculous. Imagine he qualifies for the star hunt in the movie with this (unintentionally) hilarious histrionic. Add to it the climax set at the finals of the star-hunt where the son bursts out with emotions. That's so archetypal! Also the editing pattern could have been reversed to conceal the father's reason for the change in attitude towards his son.Anu Malik's music is fine though unnecessary in the proceedings. Santosh Thundiiayil's camera-work is competent enough though not much demanding. Aatish Kapadia has come up with some good dialogs for dramatic moments.Boman Irani and Rajpal Yadav make up or the light moments in the film very efficiently. While Rajpal Yadav has been going overboard with his comic histrionics in many films off lately, this time he underplays his character and is completely restrained. His deadpan expressions are perfectly complimented with Boman's over-the-top histrionics.Shefali Shah is convincing in the mother's role. Not to be taken as a censure but she is flawless in both playing and 'looking' her character. Priyanka is gorgeous and performs her part well.Of course the major applause deserves are Akshay Kumar and Amitabh Bachchan. Akshay is especially expressive in the scene where his doting father intentionally berates him to make him aware of his responsibilities. Though Bachchan goes a bit dramatic in a couple of scenes, his brilliance strikes throughout the film.To sum up, WAQT is like a soup whose ingredients are both tasty and nutritional but the final recipe somehow isn't as much appetizing.

Ex Output:
positive


Ex Input:
Skullduggery is a strange, strange film based on the novel "Ye Shall Know Them" by Vercors. To unleash criticism at the film feels really unkind, since it is a movie that deals with earnest themes like humanity, and pleas for upright moral standards and tolerance. But in spite of its honourable intentions and its well-meaning tone, Skullduggery simply isn't a very good film. For me, the main problem is the terribly disjointed narrative which can't make its mind up how best to convey its message. The first half of the movie is like watching a standard jungle expedition flick of the Tarzan ilk; later it teeters into sci-fi fable; by the end it slips into courtroom melodramatics. The differences in tone between each section of the movie are too great, too jarring, to overlook. They stick out like a sore thumb and remind you constantly that you're watching a muddled, disorganised movie.An archaeological expedition into the jungles of New Guinea is led by adventurer Douglas Temple (Burt Reynolds). One of the main archaeologists involved in the excursion is attractive lady scientist Dr Sybil Greame (Susan Clark). After an arduous trek they stumble upon a tribe of strange ape-like creatures. These primitive, long-lost people are covered in hair and have survived for centuries without being in any way touched or influenced by the developments of modern man. There is some evidence that they may the ancestors of early man  the "missing link" in the evolution of apes into humans. Or perhaps a race of humans who simply look and behave differently from usual? Or even a race of animals that have begun to develop human characteristics? The archaeologists call the tribe "the Tropi" and are initially thrilled by the implications of their discovery. But things take a devastating turn when nasty opportunist Vancruysen (Paul Hubschmid) declares his intention to exploit the tribe and their idyll on behalf of developers. He questions whether the Tropi are truly "human" and takes his argument to the courts, where he hopes to be granted legal backing so that his own greedy ambitions can be continued.This was a very early film in Reynolds' career, and he actually unbalances this movie by acting like he's in a comedy while the rest of the cast take it all very seriously. Not that Reynolds can be blamed  he has an impossible role, asked to play a charming adventurer who really belongs in a Tarzan flick. His character and the film are not relevant to each other. Clark fares much better as the earnest lady archaeologist, and there are nice supporting roles for British actors Edward Fox, Alexander Knox and Wilfrid Hyde-White. A major shortcoming in Skullduggery is the lame and ineffective make-up used to give the Tropi their strange hairy appearance. Rather than making the actors look like believable hominoids, the stuck-on hair merely makes them look unintentionally comical. and that's just not the right idea. We're meant to feel great sympathy for these creatures, but that's awfully hard when they look so unconvincing. Skullduggery is a failed attempt to tell a story that could have been poignant, philosophical and stimulating. The honourable intentions are there for all to see, but the end result doesn't do them justice. A worthy failure it might be but a failure nonetheless.

Ex Output:
negative


Ex Input:
I've just lost 2 hours of my life watching this mindless plot. I could make a better movie with my cellphone camera. How do they manage to get actors to play in those movies?? Porn movies have better scenarios and effects... I wish I had those 2 hours back...The only good thing about this movie is the cast. Even though, their acting skills in this one could not lift this movie to passable, the rest was just WAY too bad! It's the type of movie that I'd recommend using to torture prisoners into scaring them straight.Even worse, I saw a translated version of this flick...Imagine, a bad movie...with an even worst translation...Yikes!

Ex Output:

negative