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:
i, too, loved this series when i was a kid. In 1952 i was 5 and my family always watched this show. My favorite character was the one played by Marion Lorne as a rather stuttering, bumbling and very lovable "aunt" type person. i can still recall her "ubba bubba um um" type comments as she would try and say something important. And then when she came back and played Aunt Clara in Bewitched it was great casting! It was the first time that i can remember seeing Walter Matthau whose career i followed as a fan for many many years.i have a question if anyone can verify: was the title or end credits music the "Swedish Rhapsody" by Hugo Alfven? Every time i hear it played on my classical radio station here in Southern California it brings back memories of the image of Mr. Peepers walking away with his back to the camera. i'm not even certain if this image in my mind's eye is correct.

Ex Output:
positive


Ex Input:
I had high hopes for this film. I thought the premise interesting. I stuck through it, even though I found the acting, save Helena Bonham Carter, unremarkable. I kept hoping my time spent would pay off, but in the end I was left me wondering why they even bothered to make this thing. Maybe in George Orwell's version there is a message worth conveying. If this film accomplished anything, it has inspired me to read Orwell's classic. I find it hard to believe his tale could be as disappointing as this adaption. If the film maker's message is "the mundane life is worth living", well then, they've succeeded. I would recommend this film to no one; 101 minutes of my life wasted.

Ex Output:
negative


Ex Input:
It was 1974 and it starred Martin Sheen.That alone says what to expect of this movie.And it was a movie. According to the movie, Slovik had reformed, got a good woman, and didn't want to fight.In real life, Slovik may have been a naive innocent, or he may have just wanted to manipulate the system.Whoever Slovik was or wasn't is for history to decide, but this was a movie that dealt with dessertion at a time when a country was questioning why it was fighting, and the movie took sides.With no regard to servicemen who were in Viet Nam either in 1974 (as Willie Nelson would say, let's tell the truth, it was about the Viet Nam war, not WWII), EoES was as propagandistic as Gung Ho was in the forties.According to this movie, Slovik stated his position, plain and simple. He had a nervous problem. Heck, I have a clinical nervous condition, and trust me, if I had done military duty, it would have been no problem for me to either just let my nerves go and fail at my tasks and get a demotion or put on KP duty or latrine duty with no problem.If we believe the teleflick, Slovik didn't have that option, no doubt because of his criminal history.Whatever the viewer wants to believe is up to the viewer. I've learned that movies from this decade or that decade, in dealing with service or military duty, will pretty much take the same stance over and over.1940s and 1950s, serve your country.1960s and 1970s, mock your country.This is the history.The whole movie seemed predictably Hollywood to me. He refused to serve and only when he was being strapped up to be executed does he show emotion.Such an emotional outburst could have easily worked to his advantage in his declaration of his nervous condition, but obviously the movie wanted to show him as a human being and only when he is about to die does he become sorrowful.I'm not a Catholic, but I thought the recital of the hail Mary by Ned Beatty and Sheen at the end, with the Lord's prayer, was funny as it sounded like they were trying to see who could say it faster.I don't see how this movie could be watched without realizing it was aimed at Tricky Dick Nixon and the Viet Nam war.I hope it was all worth it for Slovik and anyone who chose to follow his example.

Ex Output:

negative