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: Wow, I can't believe I waited so long to see this film. I just never got around to watching it. The plot has nothing that interests me. I know nothing about soccer (football.) I am one of those American fools that has no clue. I had never even seen David Beckham before this film. I chose to ignore the buzz surrounding this film at the time it was released in America. Enough about me. Truth be told, it was a mistake to ignore this little piece of movie-making heaven. What a fun film. It's full of color and exuberance. I had a goofy grin on my face through the whole movie. Parminder Nagra is so sweet and lovable, you can't help but root for her. No wonder why the American television show E.R. has snatched her up. I have a new appreciation for Indian culture. Those people know how to have a good time. The wedding scenes are dazzlingly beautiful. The only problem I had was deciphering some of the British slang and dialogue through the accents. I turned on the English subtitles to make sure I didn't miss anything. (This is not a criticism of the film!) I'm sure audiences worldwide have trouble understanding the constantly changing slang in American films as well. This is a perfect date film. It has a great sports plot like Rocky, and a strong sense of feminism that is empowering for women. I watched it with my wife, and sixteen year old niece, and we all loved it. I highly recommend it.
Example Output: positive

Example Input: There are many adaptations of Charlotte Bronte's classic novel "Jane Eyre", and taking into consideration the numerous reviews written about them there is also a lively discussion on which of them is the best. The short film adaptations all suffer from the fact that it is simply not possible to cram the whole plot of the novel into a movie of about a 100 min. length, consequently these movies only show few parts of the novel. The TV series have proved to be a more suitable format to render all the different episodes of the heroine's life.There are three TV mini series, released in '73, '83 and 2006. The 2006 version is not only the worst of these three, but the worst of all Jane Eyre adaptations and a striking example of a completely overrated film. The novel's beautiful lines are substituted by insipid and trivial ones, and crucial scenes are either deleted or replaced by scenes which have nothing whatever to do with the novel. What it all leads to then is that the characters portrayed have not only nothing in common with the Rochester and Jane of the novel and behave in exactly the opposite way as described in the book, but that also their behaviour and language is absolutely not consistent with the behaviour of the period in which the novel is set. It is a silly soap opera, in which the actors look and act as if they had been put in the costumes of the 1850ies by mistake. This "Jane Eyre" (as it dares to call itself) is indeed a slap in the face of Charlotte Bronte.The 1973 version is very faithful to the novel in that the long dialogues between Mr. Rochester and Jane are rendered in nearly their full length. But what works beautifully in the novel does not necessarily work beautifully on the screen. At times the language of the novel is too complex and convoluted as to appear natural when spoken on screen, and the constant interruptions of the dialogues by Jane's voice-overs add to the impression of artificiality and staginess. And despite the faithfulness to the novel the essence of the scenes is not captured. Another problem is the casting of the main characters. Sorcha Cusack's portrayal of Jane as a bold, self-confident, worldly-wise young woman is totally at odds with the literary model, and Michael Jayston, although a good actor, does simply not possess the commanding physical presence nor the charisma necessary to play Rochester. Although a decent adaptation it simply fails to convey the passion and intensity of the novel and never really captivates the audience.All the faults of the '73 version stand corrected in the TV mini series of '83 with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. Although from a purist's point of view Timothy Dalton is too handsome, tall and lean to be Rochester, he possesses the essential qualities for the role: He has an imposing physical presence, great magnetism and an air of self-assurance and authority. And despite his undeniable handsomeness he looks grim and stern enough to play the gloomy master of Thornfield convincingly. But the excellence of his performance lies in the way he renders all the facets of Rochester's character. Of all the actors who have played Rochester he is the only one to capture them all: Rochester's harshness, nearly insolence, his moodiness and abruptness, as well as his humorous side, his tenderness, his solicitude and deep, frantic love. Dalton's handling of Charlotte Bronte's language is equally superb. Even Rochester's most far-fetched and complicated thoughts ring absolutely true and natural when Dalton delivers them. He is the definitive Rochester, unsurpassed and unsurpassable, and after watching him in this role it is impossible to imagine Rochester to be played in any other way or by any other actor.Zelah Clarke delivers an equally excellent performance in a role that is possibly even more difficult to play well than the one of Rochester. She portrays exactly the Jane of the novel, an outwardly shy, reserved and guarded young woman, but who possesses a great depth of feeling and an equally great strength of will. She catches beautifully the duality in Jane's character: her modesty and respectfulness on the one hand, and her fire and passion on the other, her seeming frailty and her indomitable sense of right and wrong. She and Dalton have wonderful chemistry and their scenes together are pure delight.As regards faithfulness to the literary model this version also quotes verbatim from the novel as does the '73 version, but with one important difference: The dialogues are shortened in this version, but the core lines which are essential for the characterisation of the protagonists and the development of the plot are rendered unchanged. Thus the scriptwriter avoided any artificiality of speech, while still fully preserving the beauty and originality of Charlotte Bronte's language. And in contrast to the earlier BBC version the essence of each scene is perfectly captured.The plot of the novel is followed with even greater accuracy than in the '73 series. It is nearly a scene for scene enactment of the novel, where equal time and emphasis is given to each episode of Jane's life. It is the only Jane Eyre adaptation that has a gypsy scene worthy of the novel, and the only one which does full justice to the novel's pivotal and most heartrending scene when Jane and Rochester meet after the aborted wedding. Timothy Dalton in particular plays that scene with superb skill. He renders with almost painful intensity Rochester's anguish as he realizes Jane's resolution to leave him, his frantic attempts to make her stay and his final despair as she indeed leaves him. It is a heartbreaking, almost devastating, scene, which will stay with the viewer for a long time.With even the smaller roles perfectly cast, an excellent script and two ideal leading actors this is the definitive and only true "Jane Eyre".
Example Output: positive

Example Input: What do you call a horror story without horror and story? This is the most irritating thing about the film: I get the feeling the writers never really decided what's actually going on in the film! It's a different thing to know it, give hints for the audience and not completely reveal it, but here, you get the feeling the screenwriters don't know it, characters in the film do not know it and audience sees that no one knows! (Remember "Cube"? Even that film knew more about itself.) I've consumed a lot of 80's horror / gore films and this movie certainly has its roots deep in those films. But a lot of important things are missing. We really know nothing about the characters. They keep repeating empty lines over and over again. The story isn't really developing - it never goes anywhere. B-acting is OK in this type of horror films, but there's not much to act in the script. We don't care about the characters. There's nothing to remember about them. There's not even cheesy humor or unnecessary sex. And most importantly - no thrills, no chills.You only get some commonly used elements of the horror film genre. They show the Lordi monsters one by one but their characters don't really contribute anything for the story.I honestly believe that this amount of story, character development and atmosphere could be achieved with minimal amount of crew and equipment. Oh yeah, film makers used to do that - and more - some 20 years ago! I felt the shared embarrassment of the audience as the film ended. Too bad really.
Example Output:
negative