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:
Yet another "son who won't grow up" flick, and just the other recent like entries. Heder in another bad wig, channeling Napoleon for, what, the third time? Anna Faris is forgettable, as always; Jeff Daniels phoned this one in from another state, at least; and Diane Keaton...how does one become typecast this late in a career? Do not bother. Nothing is said here that hasn't been covered many times over. I will say this; it's about a hundred times better than "Failure To Launch". There are very few amusing bits in the movie, unless you think Eli Wallach cursing is funny. Ha, Ha! He's old and he dropped the f-bomb! Tee, hee, hee. Pitiful!

Ex Output:
negative

Ex Input:
Thank God this wasn't based on a true story, because what a story it is. Populated by despicable characters whose depravity knows no bounds, Before The Devil is a mesmerizing, jaw-dropping excursion into perversion which would be laughable (and sometimes is, even with - or perhaps because of - the sickeningly tragic undercurrent of human dysfunction throughout) if it weren't carried out with such magnificent, overwhelming conviction by its stars. The excellent script by Kelly Masterson and superb direction by none other than Sidney Lumet doesn't hurt either.The main dysfunction here is of a family nature, with the two majorly screwed up brothers (brilliant portrayals from Philip Seymour Hoffman and Ethan Hawke) deciding to rob their own parents' jewelry store, an attempt that goes pathetically awry.The story is told with time-shifts (which are noted on screen, such as: "Charlie: Two Days Before The Robbery", so no one should be confused); some people have said they didn't like this device but I thought it worked perfectly, adding to the skeweredness of the whole affair, considering that the two brothers in question are hardly playing with full decks - between them you couldn't make a decent poker hand to save your life. Throw in these cheesy extra tidbits: one of the brothers is a drug addict, married to Gina (Marisa Tomei, also excellent), who is having an affair with the other brother, toss in some monumental sibling rivalry, along with the fact that said drug addict brother hates his father (a wrenching performance from Albert Finney), who has apparently caused him serious past pain, and you've got a Shakespearean/Greek tragedy on your hands. Proceed with caution.

Ex Output:
positive

Ex Input:
Clint Eastwood is Bronco Billy, the leader of a Wild West troupe, one of six regular misfits who comprise a struggling-to-break-even touring show. The seventh member of the bunch is a woman, Billy's assistant, but such women never last long, and the position is chronically open. Enter Antoinette Lilly (Sandra Locke Eastwood's girlfriend at the time). It seems Miss Lilly, as Doc (Scatman Crothers) calls her, is a would-be heiress who will only receive her long-deceased father's estate if she's married by the time she turns 30, so on the eve of that birthday she gets hitched to the cartoonish Geoffrey Lewis.So, what's the plot of this film? It's hard to say. There's the romantic tension between Billy and Miss Lilly, but the problem is that for the first half of the movie she's so haughtily insipid and detestable that when she suddenly becomes 'one of the troupe' halfway through the film, it's not only unbelievable, but the audience is well past caring about her. There's the chronic lack of funds behind the Wild West show, but this topic isn't touched upon enough to really be the raison d'etre of the film. There's Miss Lilly's predicament of being stranded in the rural west, cut off from the funds that fuel her spoiled life of luxury (she's mistakenly believed to be dead by her family and the press). But are we really supposed to believe that she couldn't get back to New York and her waiting fortune if she gave it a bit of effort?No, the point of this film seems to be that Billy is the leader of a family, a lovable bunch of losers who hang together through thick and thin. This is a warm, fuzzy film or at least tries to be. Along the way, Clint shows us his skills with a gun, even foiling a bank robbery in a shooting that is grotesquely out of place in an otherwise relatively non-violent film. One of the gang is arrested on an old draft evasion charge; Billy bribes the local sheriff. The show's tent burns down; an orphanage makes them a new one. But numerous mundane pitfalls do not a plot make.Compounding the problem is the acting, or lack thereof. Aside from Scatman Crothers, the supporting cast is quite amateurish. Eastwood isn't on top of his game either, though he looks better simply by virtue of being surrounded by such a lackluster bunch.And for all this, the film plods on for 116 minutes. To what point? Good question 4 out of 10

Ex Output:
negative