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: This film is overblown, predictable, pretentious, and hollow to its core. The settings are faithful to the era but self-conscious in their magnification by prolonged exposure. The lingering over artifacts stops the action and cloys almost as much as the empty dialogue. Tom Hanks seems to be sleepwalking much as Bruce Willis did in Hart's War. Tom, you can't give depth to a character simply by making your face blank! The content did not warrant the histrionic acting by Paul Newman. This is a dud wrapped in an atomic bomb casing.
Example Output: negative

Example Input: Waldemar Daninsky (Paul Naschy) travels to Tibet and is bitten by a yeti, which causes him to become a werewolf. He is accidentally killed after he attacks his cheating wife and her lover, and is later revived by a female scientist, Dr. Ilona Ermann, who uses him in mind control experiments. Daninsky later discovers an underground asylum populated by the bizarre subjects of the doctor's failed experiments.Upon hearing of Naschy's death from colleague Jon Kitley, I rummaged through my collection for a suitable film to watch. In my scramble, I found I own not one but three(!) copies of "Fury of the Wolfman". The film is of questionable video quality, the sound is dubbed in a mediocre fashion, the cinematography is sort of slapstick style at times. And the American versions have two love scenes removed. Quite frankly, without a remastered, uncut copy, I wasn't really getting the proper movie in all its glory.This film claims to be the fourth in a long series about the werewolf Count Waldemar Daninsky. I suspect this is true, but you wouldn't know this from the film itself. The plot is confusing at times, and there's really no indication that this is a sequel. If you read the plot summaries on Wikipedia and compare them to what is printed on the box, you'll see that I'm not alone in my confusion.Perhaps the film's shortcomings can be forgiven if we understand the production hell it went through. While floating around for years, it was only released in 1973, due to problems involved in finding a distributor. And Naschy said in his autobiography that the director, Zabalza, was an incompetent alcoholic, and that he hated working with him. Those really aren't light accusations, and I have no idea what Zabalza had to say on his own behalf.Chances are, sooner or later you'll come across a low-grade version of "Fury of the Wolfman". It appears in a variety of three-packs and box sets, so you might accidentally acquire it and not even know. What really needs to happen is an American uncut version, with a decent sound and video mix, and the love scenes thrown back in. As far as I know, this does not exist. Let us honor Paul Naschy's legacy and get his films to a wider audience in a level of quality he deserves.
Example Output: negative

Example Input: ] Haven't seen this film? Haven't even heard of this film? It wouldn't surprise me. One of the few truly "independent" films produced in the last ten years, no studio had faith in the picture and it was never picked up for major distribution. The independent company Kino Films, gave BOESMAN AND LENA a very limited run with virtually no promotion, and the majority of major film critics didn't even bother reviewing it. I guess a movie based on a one act, one set play about the apartheid and its affect on two individuals never really had a chance in today's market - and it's the intelligent film-lover's loss.For the record, both Angela Bassett and Danny Glover deserved Ocsar nominations (as did the cinematographer) but the film received such little fanfare that I can't even blame the academy on that one. This is a film that is challenging, thought-provoking, and heartbreaking, and it actually requires the audience to meet it on it's own terms. Taking that into consideration, it is definitely not a movie for mindless entertainment. Director John Berry wisely does not attempt to dress-up Athol Fugard's play. Sure, we're given a few fractured flashbacks and some breathtaking scenic shots, but the film version of BOESMAN AND LENA remains, on the whole, a story of two people living in inhumane conditions.Stripped of their basic human rights, Boesman (Glover) and Lena (Bassett) have no one left to attack but each other. A third character joins them for awhile (Willie Jonah, amazing in a largely silent role), but the film's focus never strays from the title characters and what they've become. Bassett and Glover give brave performances as the broken couple, performances that simply could not be improved upon. Vigorously and brutally stimulating, both intellectually and emotionally, BOESMAN AND LENA deserves to be rediscovered of home video. Hands down, the best film of the year 2000.
Example Output:
positive