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.
--------
Question: The Running Man is one of those films that if overwatched, would become boring and depressing even.My advice is to watch it maybe once or twice a year with a couple of mates and a few drinks.In todays climate of TV Media domination and the capitalist mode in society it really does work as a revisionist social commentary, post 1980s-boom. Forget that though! There are other brilliant and better reasons to watch this film.Schwarzenegger is on top form as Ben "The Butcher of Bakersfield" Richards, and the inclusion of Bond-belting one liners was completely inspired-thety are truly leg-end-dary (with his rant to Killian over a camera the main highlight).The design of the stalkers is authentically American, and mirrors the characterizations seen in the PC 'Gladiators' TV show, and the WWE as well. Buzz-saw's grisly end will chill any viewer to the core (as a foot note, why does his death stand out as particularly disturbing in what is ostensibly an upbeat actioner with a bitter sense of humour?)Jesse Venturer and Sven Ole Thorssen are great as backing muscle (and are Arnies buds in real life), and its even got Mick Fleetwood in it too! What more could you ask for?I highly recommend the Running Man if you're looking for a great piece of entertaining action, with a glossty finish and some great characters. Just don't expect an education from it (at least on surface value).Quality, I bloody love it actually. You will too unless you're a thesp. 7/10

Answer: positive

Question: It's not quite the timeless masterpiece you would hope it would be based on the acclaim it garnered, but 1969's "Midnight Cowboy" is still a powerhouse showcase for two young actors just bursting into view at the time. Directed by John Schlesinger and written by Waldo Salt, the movie seems to be a product of its time, the late 1960's when American films were especially expressionistic, but it still casts a spell because the story comes down to themes of loneliness and bonding that resonate no matter what period. The film's cinematic influence can still be felt in the unspoken emotionalism found in Ang Lee's "Brokeback Mountain".The meandering plot follows Joe Buck, a naive, young Texan who decides to move to Manhattan to become a stud-for-hire for rich women. Full of energy but lacking any savvy, he fails miserably but is unwilling to concede defeat despite his dwindling finances. He meets a cynical, sickly petty thief named "Ratso" Rizzo, who first sees Joe as an easy pawn. The two become dependent on one another, and Rizzo begins to manage Joe. Things come to a head at a psychedelic, drug-infested party where Joe finally lands a paying client. Meanwhile, Rizzo becomes sicker, and the two set off for Florida to seek a better life. This is not a story that will appeal to everyone, in fact, some may still find it repellent that a hustler and a thief are turned into sympathetic figures, yet their predicaments feel achingly authentic.In his first major role, Jon Voight is ideally cast as he brings out Joe's paper-thin bravado and deepening sexual insecurities. As Rizzo, Dustin Hoffman successfully upends his clean, post-college image from "The Graduate" and immerses himself in the personal degradation and glimmering hope that act as an oddly compatible counterpoint to Joe. The honesty of their portrayals is complemented by Schlesinger's film treatment which vividly captures the squalor of the Times Square district at the time. The director also effectively inserts montages of flashbacks and fantasy sequences to fill in the character's fragile psyches. Credit also needs to go to Salt for not letting the pervasive cynicism overwhelm the pathos of the story. The other performances are merely incidental to the journeys of the main characters, including Brenda Vaccaro as the woman Joe meets at the party, Sylvia Miles as a blowsy matron, John McGiver as a religious zealot and Barnard Hughes as a lonely out-of-towner.The two-disc 2006 DVD package contains a pristine print transfer of the 1994 restoration and informative commentary from producer Jerome Hellman since unfortunately neither Schlesinger nor Salt are still living. There are three terrific featurettes on the second disc - a look-back documentary, "After Midnight: Reflections on a Classic 35 Years Later", which features comments from Hellman, Hoffman, Voight and others, as well as clips and related archive footage such as Voight's screen test; "Controversy and Acclaim", which examines the genesis of the movie's initial 'X' rating and public response to the film; and a tribute to the director, "Celebrating Schlesinger".

Answer: positive

Question: My discovery of the cinema of Jan Svankmajer opened My eyes to a whole tradition of Czech animation, of which Jiri Trnka was a pioneer. His Ruka is one of the finest, most technically-impressive animated movies I've ever seen.A potter wakes up and waters his plant. Then he goes about making a pot. But in comes the huge hand which crashes the pot and demands that the potter make a statue of itself. He casts the hand out, but soon it returns and imprisons him in a bird cage where he's forced to sculpt a stone hand. He sets about it, fainting from exhaustion, but eventually completes the task.In a marvellous sequence of metacinema, the potter uses a candle to burn his visible puppet strings, which keep him in thrall, and he escapes back home. He shuts himself in and is accidentally killed by his own beloved plant when it falls on his head.This movie doesn't hide the fact it's pure animation, unlike modern movies that strive to be realistic (why?). The hand, for instance, is clearly someone's hand in a glove. Everything else is clay. Strings are visible and are part of the narrative, making it a precursor of the movie Strings. The atmosphere is eerie: that hand going after the little potter managed to instill more dread in me than many horror movies combined.The movie is obvious but it avoids being totally manipulative for its simplicity. it's a fable about artistic freedom and tyranny which can't help winning the heart and mind of anyone who holds freedom as a natural right.

Answer:
positive