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 movie was a brilliant concept. It was original, cleverly written and of high appeal to those of us who aren't really 'conformist' movie pickers. Don't get me wrong - there are some great movies that have wide appeal, but when you move into watching a movie based on "everyone else is watching it" - you know you're either a tween or don't really have an opinion. This had a lovely subtle humor - despite most people probably looking only at the obvious. The actors portrayed their characters with aplomb and I thought there was a lot more "personal" personality in this film. Has appeal for kids, as well as adults. Esp. nice to find a good movie that's not filled with sexual references and drug innuendos! A great film, not to be overlooked based on public consumption. This one is a must buy.
Example Output: positive

Example Input: It is projected that between 2000 and 2020, 68 million people will die prematurely as a result of AIDS. The projected toll is greatest in sub-Saharan Africa where 55 million additional deaths can be expected. Beyond the grim statistics are personal stories that we rarely hear about. Christophe Honore describes one of the most moving in Close to Leo, a film produced for French television as part of a series dealing with issues facing young people. Though fictional, it deals with a situation that is unfortunately too common -- the effect of a diagnosis of HIV on a loving close-knit family.When twenty one-year old Leo (Pierre Mignard) tells his parents and two teenage brothers, Tristan (Rodolphe Pauley) and Pierrot (Jeremie Lippmann) that he has AIDS, the family is devastated. Out of concern for his youth, they decide to withhold the information from his youngest brother, 12-year old Marcel (Yannis Lespert) but he overhears the conversation and begins to sulk and act erratically. When Leo goes to Paris for treatment, he takes Marcel with him but the young boy confronts Leo and demands to know the truth. Leo tells him that he is ill and Marcel is sad but accepting. When he brings Marcel along to meet some former gay friends, however, tension between them boils to the surface, setting the stage for a riveting conclusion. Although I was uncomfortable with scenes in bed involving physical contact between the brothers, I feel that the sincerity of Close to Leo and the brilliant performances by Lespert and Mignard more than tip the scales in its favor. Seeing events unfold from the young boy's perspective gives the film an authenticity that reminded me of the Quebecois film Leolo and Truffaut's The 400 Blows. Unlike some American films that dance around the anguish of AIDS, Close to Leo tells a harsh truth but does so in a way that is tender and wonderfully real.
Example Output: positive

Example Input: SLIGHT SPOILERS (but it doesn't matter anyway).An exercise in gobblygook of catastrophic proportions not even worthy of the l0 lines I need to put these remarks on the netwaves. This is the single worst episode of the Masters series to date and the first that qualifies for the defunct Mystery Science Theatre treatment. Even if it took me a full half hour to realize the intended ironic angle, it was still a very lame mess. Its sole value lies in the perspective that forces one to realize that in addition to gore and ugly masks the genre only succeeds when the classic cinematic notions of photography and lighting, dialogue and acting, editing and timing are put to use. Here they are absent and John Carpenter is no master. Period. And no trite analysis of the easy social comment herein will change that. Oddly, Carpenter never has been anything more than a B director, but at least such films as 'Fog' and 'The Thing' had terrific atmosphere (the latter is one of my cult favorites).Abominable acting. Camera angles stuck in cement. Tensionless rhythm. Yet perhaps the single most obnoxious element of the episode is the storyline which of course JC cannot really be blamed for (unless the writers were buddies of Cody.) The initial two minute slo-mo of a girl running through a forest only to be nearly run over by a would be Scully-Mulder duo is the first and last thing that works in the film. But come on, a girl hurtling through a deserted woods to nowhere in particular in desperate need of an abortion fortuitously rendez-vous with the fender of a pair of 'women's rights' MDs whose clinic just happens to be at the end of the road around the corner. Oh, and I won't even nitpick about how the doc whips the accidentee into the car and speeds away at 0 to 60 in six seconds. Does wonders for possible broken ribs or concussion.Then things fall apart real quick. The vacuous dialogue "I just want to help you", the interminably sluggish back and forth at the gate, grandiose battle tactics like cutting the telephone line (in the age of cell phones?) followed by the the shoot-out: a born-again Ramboesque clinic director vs Ron Perlman and the high school bullpen out for a few kicks at Easter break. Another lovely line: "So what are we going to do?" from the kid who had just been sitting on a pile of assault rifles in the back of the van. Er, no it isn't yet pheasant season. So who needs those teen boys anyway. What about the good old tried and true method of the lone lunatic who bashes his way through the gate with his all-American SUV?As for the exchange of bullets scenes themselves, the cuts here were as stiff as the staccato of a DC comics strip. All that was lacking were the Wham, Bam, and Whiz of the balloon titles. And all to the tune of a soundtrack worthy of an old Mannix episode.At one point we learn that Daddy isn't really the daddy, but at this point we haven't been led to care much any more either. This story's single source of drama is the conflict between the pro-life father and his pregnant daughter who is only thankful she's not having twins. Yet there is not a single scene, flashback or not, where they are actually ever found together. They remain mere abstractions to each other throughout.With the exception of the gatekeeper every single one of the characters is absolutely dislikeable. Bland, hysterical, dull-headed, macho. As perfectly flat as human wallpaper can be. None of the doctors seem to have anything medical about them. And there's that bickering Dad who rails at his pregnant daughter as though he himself were the stressed out boyfriend. He fortunately got his. There are two great MST-worthy comic moments: the gusher when Angelica's plumbing goes out and later the new-born lobster with a glued on baby's head. Also cute was Angelica's rugby ball belly before she finally popped the right-to-life little monster from Hell. As for that audacious male abortion scene...well, they should have retained Miike's episode and banned this one instead.In short, a 3rd rate Rosemary's Baby meets Alien set on the turf of a M.A.S.H. episode. This stinker alone, appreciable only to today's permissive under-16 generation, will assure as someone else said here, that this series will not be renewed for a third season. A real shame, since there have been a number of brilliant productions, including such really decent spoofs as Dante's 'Homecoming' or McKee's deliciously quirky 'Sick Girl'. Not to mention the superb imagery of Malone's 'Fairhaired Child'.Sorry John Carpenter, I believe your directing days are over. It's time to run for President.
Example Output:
negative