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: The Ring was made from the only screenplay Hitchcock wrote himself and it deals, as many of his earliest pictures do, with a love triangle. At first glance, it looks like a more cynical update of the infidelity-themed morality comedies of Cecil B. De Mille, but more than that it is the first really competent Hitchcock picture. Even if he was not yet using the ideas and motifs of suspenseful thrillers, he was at least developing the tools with which to create suspense.As well as being a student of the German Expressionist style, the rhythmic editing style of Sergei Eisenstein had had its impact upon Hitchcock. But here he keeps tempo not just with the edits but with the content of the imagery. This is apparent from the opening shots, where spinning fairground rides brilliantly establish a smooth tempo. And like Eisenstein, the editing style seems to suggest sound  for example when a split-second shot of the bell being rung is flashed in, we almost subconsciously hear the sound because the image is so jarring.There is also a contrast, particularly with silent films from the US, in that The Ring is not cluttered up with too many title cards. As much as possible is conveyed by imagery, and Hitch has enough faith in the audience to either lip-read or at least infer the meaning of the bulk of the characters' speech. And it's not done by contrived symbolism or overacting, it's all done by getting the right angles and the right timing, particularly with point-of-view shots, as well as some strong yet subtle performances. There are unfortunately a few too many obvious expressionist devices (particularly double exposures), many of which were unnecessary, but there is far less of this than there is in The Lodger.Let's make a few honourable mentions for the aforementioned actors. First up, the stunningly handsome and very talented Carl Brisson in the lead role. In spite of his talent I was at first a bit confused as to why he got the role, as to be honest he looks more like a ballet dancer than a pugilist! But that just goes to show how much I know, as it turns out Brisson was in fact a former professional boxer and inexperienced in acting. Playing his rival is the competent Ian Hunter, who would go on to have a lengthy career in supporting roles right up to the 60s. The most demanding role in The Ring has to be that given to Lillian Hall-Davis, torn between two lovers. She pulls it off very well however with an emotive, understated performance, and it's a shame her career never lasted in the sound era. And last but not least the great Gordon Harker provides some comic relief in what is probably his best ever role.The Ring's climactic fight scene is among the most impressive moments of silent-era Hitchcock. Martin Scorcese may have had his eye on The Ring when he directed the fight scenes in Raging Bull, as his watchword for these scenes was "Stay inside the ring". The fight in The Ring starts off with some fairly regular long shots, but when the action intensifies Hitchcock drops us right in the middle of it, with close-ups and point-of-view shots. Hitchcock's aim always seems to have been to involve his audience, and this was crucial in his later career where the secret of his success was often in immersing the viewer in the character's fear or paranoia.The Ring really deserves more recognition than the inferior but better known The Lodger. It's a much more polished and professional work than the earlier picture, and probably the best of all his silent features.

Output: positive


Input: Consider Input: I recently started watching this show, and I have to say that it really made me laugh. You have to appreciate the unrealistic aspects of it, along with everything else. Some other people said this show should have more realistic reactions of the dead, among other things. If you are going accept that Ned can bring the dead back to life, you have to accept that the other completely crazy bits of the show. I couldn't help smiling after every episode I watched. I really think it's great there is a show out there that can take a very strange subject and really make it great to watch. I absolutely love the narration, I think it adds that extra bit of wonder to the whole show. You can't always compare old shows by a writer to his new ones, you have to take everything as it's own entity. Definitely give it a chance, and just enjoy the ridiculous parts as they are.

Output: positive


Input: Consider Input: This mini series, also based on a book by Alex Haley as was `Queen', tried to use similar formulas, that is, constructing a long history following the lives of a family over many years. Whereas in `Queen' the result was masterful, here in Mama Flora the inspiration was lacking. Firstly perhaps in the book itself, and most certainly in this TV production. Too much is put in with too much haste over the years, such that the unfolding saga is shallow, superficial, not nearly so authentic as in `Queen'. Full marks for the scenification in the earlier parts of the film, which was prepared with great care, but as the film progressed it seemed to degenerate into a kind of dallasian-forsythian unpalatable mix in the last third of its three hours or so duration. I had hoped for more; but evidently Haley was less inspired with this tale than his near-biographical `Queen', and Peter Werner III is no match for John Erman. Only recommendable for those who have an appetite for these lengthy tales of generations growing up.


Output: negative