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: How they got Al Pacino to play in this movie is beyond me. This movie is absolutely terrible. I discovered, after reading some of the other reviews, that a couple of people actually enjoyed this film, which deeply puzzles me, because I do not see how anyone in their right mind could possibly enjoy a movie as awful as Revolution. It's not just that it's a bad movie, with a lame plot and overall strangeness that is extremely unpleasant, but it seems as if the filmmakers were either mentally retarded (which is a very possible explanation as to why this movie sucks like it does, though it probably still sucks even compared to other films made by retards) or deliberately made every illogical decision to make this movie suck as much as possible. For example, we see Donald Sutherland running around with a huge, fat ugly mole on his face. He does not normally have a mole. The mole does not add to his character. It is extremely ugly and distracting. It's not like Robert De Niro's mole; it's much worse. Why the hell has he got that mole? It's as if the filmmakers just said, "Let's see, how could we make this movie even worse than it already is? I know, let's give Mr. Sutherland a giant, ugly-ass mole right on his face."Another example of the filmmakers' stupidity is the character Ned. We see, for the first three-quarters of the movie, young Ned. At one point, "six months later" appears on the screen. We see Ned again, and it is, of course, the same actor playing the boy. Five minutes later, "three weeks later" appears on the screen, and all of a sudden we've got a different actor playing as the now older Ned. What, do they think we're idiots? Good God! Again, it's like the filmmakers are saying, "How can we possibly make it any worse? I don't think we can...Oh wait! I just had a terrible idea!" I know a kid doesn't grow much in half a year, which is fine, but he at least grows more than he does in three weeks. Just don't get another actor to play Ned, or at least get him to play the five minutes when he's three weeks younger. Furthermore, the kid who plays the "older" Ned does not look any older than "young" Ned. As a matter of fact, he just looks completely different, much skinnier, and no taller or older than the original actor, which is very confusing, as I, like any rational human being, thought at first that it was a new and different character.What, did the first kid die while they were filming the movie? Because he was in it for the first hour and a half, and then all of a sudden, three weeks later, the guy from Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is playing Ned for the last five minutes of the movie. And even if the original actor did die, the filmmakers should have at least gotten an actor who looks like him to play the remainder of his role, and re-shoot the measly five minutes of "six months later" scenes. Better yet, just scrap the movie completely, never finish it and never release, never even tell anybody about it, because by that point they should have realized that their movie sucks and in finishing it they would only waste more money and time and succeed in making one of the worst movies of all time.I'm not saying that this movie is so bad you shouldn't watch it; it's so bad that you SHOULD watch it, just to see how badly it sucks. It's terrible, terrible.

Output: negative


Input: Consider Input: Ernest Borgnine was so wasted in this movie.There was no point in putting this great actor in this movie.One of the greatest actors in the world wasted,and for what reason, none what so ever,so america if you want to put classic actors in movies DON'T WASTE THEM

Output: positive


Input: Consider Input: I'm both amused and disgusted by the people who claim that this movie is so accurate about Vietnam, and WERE NEVER THERE. This movie is about as true about the whole Vietnam war as the Rodney King beating is true about ALL police officers. Yes, bad things do (and did) happen, but in general the people there are just like you and me. They have morals, they are not killing machines, they do not all do drugs. Atrocities were the exception in Vietnam, not the rule. They happened far more infrequently than the "hype" would lead you believe. Oliver Stone has a knack for making movies that show the Vietnam war as this brutal bloodbath, but are based as much in reality as Star Wars. If you honestly believe the stereotypes of Vietnam, do yourself a favour and learn the truth. Fact: the Viet Cong and NVA did far worse things to the South Vietnamese than ANY soldier in the US Armed Forces ever did. Fact: the soldiers in World War II treated the enemy far worse in general than the soldiers in Vietnam did, and they were WELCOMED when they came home. The fine Americans who served this country in Vietnam deserve our respect; though the war was badly fought from a political standpoint, no one could have asked for more from our soldiers, and it is a great disservice to assert that this kind of "mostly true" fiction is the way things really were there.


Output: negative