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: I was taken to this film by a friend and was sceptical about a Swedish film with subtitles. However, I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of this beautiful film. The unnecessary cruelty that man is capable of was portrayed confidently without overwhelming images - although animal lovers may have to shield their eyes for a brief couple of seconds somewhere during the first 10 minutes. A traditional story of humility versus brutality and hope versus tragedy was illustrated from a satisfyingly fresh angle using a spectrum of characters with very natural flaws and features. I particularly liked how the film managed to address multiple aspects of hypocritical human behaviour that concern bias, discrimination and sanctimonious pretence. An absolute gem of a film that I will promote to all who will listen.
Example Output: positive

Example Input: This is a genuinely horrible film. The plot (such as it is) is totally undecipherable. (I think it has something to do with blackmail, but I'm not entirely certain.)Half of the dialogue consists of useless cliches. The other half is spoken by the various actors in such unintelligible imitations of "southern" accents that (thankfully) the words cannot be recognized.But the one true tragedy of the movie is that such a historic talent as Mary Tyler Moore apparently was in such dire financial or personal circumstances that she appeared in it.
Example Output: negative

Example Input: Hollywood, the home of hype, glamor and the search for profits, is scarcely ruled by spiritual values, and so it comes as no surprise that its attempts at investigations of the spiritual life are thin and often silly (better to go farther afield--to the films of Bresson, Dreyer, Rossellini and Bergman, for probing depictions of the spirituality). "Strange Cargo" is no exception. This odd hybrid of adventure film, love story and religious parable trivializes the very insights it tries to communicate. That a figure of providence and salvation would work to match Verne (Clark Gable at his most cockily mannered and self-regarding) and Julie (Joan Crawford, snarling and spitting out every other word in an attempt to be the Queen of Tough Dames) seems ludicrous at best. Is this the Patron Saint of the Star System at work, matching warring egos before sending them off to further penal servitude on the M-G-M lot? BUT. . .there are good supporting performances here, and visually arresting moments: the shadowy prison barracks; the escaping boat by moonlight, or against a painterly cloudscape; Julie walking along the seafront as the wind whips up; Julie and Monsieur Pig (Peter Lorre) bargaining for Verne's freedom as the storm builds; an unusually ennobling gay prison romance between two convicts. . .Above all, there is Paul Lukas's dignified and detached performance as Hessler, a murderer who can appreciate Cambreau's virtues, yet turns his back on him. In the film's most arresting moment, Hessler, having left Cambreau, stands outside the cabin. We hear the wind through the jungle, see the shadows on his face, which conveys a moment of fear and self-doubt. Then he exits into the night. In this moment, Hessler achieves an ambiguity, depth and existential strength that none of the other characters manage to achieve. is the film's secret that its deepest sympathies are allied with Hessler?
Example Output:
negative