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:
The Derek's have over the 1980s produced a few decent bids to acquire the title "worst movie of all time", and this is probably their prime achievement in these stakes. In fact, this film can be regarded as belonging to the "so bad, it's good" category, right up there with the products of the likes of Edward Wood Jr. or Doris Wishman. This explains the IMDb voting pattern for this film with some people handing out top marks.Anthony Quinn made the odd dodgy film in his time, but this performance as a randy ghost is so incredibly bad, it has to be seen to be believed.

Ex Output:
negative


Ex Input:
I don't know why people except a lot from low budget indie films but I enjoyed this one as I'm a fan of urban horror. There's not too many urban horror movies out there so when I saw this one on the shelf, just the title alone peaked my curiosity. So I decided to check it out and I was surprised...it's not too often you run into a low budget indie horror film with GREAT acting and a good story. Is it low budget? yes. Can you tell that it's low budget? Yes...but once you start watching the movie you become so wrapped up in the story that it doesn't matter. I like hip hop music too and the soundtrack is nice! I don't know what's up with all these bad reviews for this film. All I hear is "worst movie ever". Have these idiots seen EVERY movie out there? There's thousands of movies out there, how can you categorize one as the "worst" ever? A video not "movie" like "zombiez" may be the worst film I ever SEEN but I can't say that it's the worst movie EVER since I haven't seen every movie out there. Bottom line these people who gave this movie bad reviews are probably from the suburbs. Listen, if you don't like minority based, urban films, the ghetto films, hip hop,etc then WHY WATCH THESE TYPES OF MOVIES???!!! knowing that you don't like this type of stuff? Sure, this is a horror film but it's not just a horror film but it's an URBAN horror film with a multi-cultural based cast. I don't like TV shows like Dawson's Creek or the O.C., THEY SUCK to me. Films like "Garden State", "Wedding Crashers" and "I heart huckabees" SUCK to me. I'm a guy from New Jersey and these shows and movies suck to me. Why? Because I can't relate to them. They don't peak my interest. Just common sense. Believe me, I will never watch GARDEN STATE 2: GARDEN SALAD, WEDDING CRASHERS 2: Here's a sequel to torture you again since the first sucked so bad and I HEART HUCKABORING. Now back to this movie, in regards to saint405's comment above, I don't know if this guy was smoking crack or got knocked "stupid" by his drunken dad before he watched the movie but to me, everyone did a great job. The actor who played Ricky (I forgot his name) did a VERY good job. I'm an aspiring actor myself taking theater at my school and I had to do a play where I had to cry and it's not easy to be emotional in a scene so I give props to actors who have to do an emotional scene and can pull it off. Anywho, I liked this movie and never heard of these actors and directors before but you bet I'll be looking out for their stuff for now on and if they are reading this, BRING ON THE SEQUEL!!! I'm out. Jerzee Representin'!

Ex Output:
positive


Ex Input:
One of the most appealing elements of a Gilliam film is that the well-concocted visuals, the unsettling backdrops, and the manically frustrated characters are evidence of the creator's involvement. Instead of most movies (where the filmmaker is some director-for-hire that is paid to feature a star or two), you can feel Terry Gilliam's presence through the experience. "12 Monkeys" is evidence of Gilliam's own vision and style, as opposed to making offbeat movies for their own sake. "12 Monkeys" is a variation on similar themes of Gilliam's repertoire:oppressive/recessive societies, the solitude of the protagonist, the frustration associated with disbelief, and parallel realms. In this film Gilliam does a fine job of blurring lines between the two realms, using ambiguities to force the audience to believe rather than know. This tendency for Gilliam to neglect to fill in certain gaps leads to criticisms of art-house pretentiousness. The difference between Gilliam and artsy posers is that Gilliam's choices clearly have a purpose and all of his images have meaning. The two nearly identical bathing scenes of Cole in the beginning are meant to draw comparisons which leave the audience unsettled. His bald head is a mark of uniformity in the disease-ridden future world, yet makes him recognizable in the 1996 world. The title itself is a mark of Gilliam's creativity, as it requires the majority of the story to flesh out for its meaning to be fully understood. All in all, Gilliam's dedication to making creative films that are interesting to watch yet also require thought and interpretation from the audience. The film has immense re-watch value, since there are subtle details and hints that can be missed upon the first viewing. Definitely one of my favorites.

Ex Output:

positive