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:
I downloaded this movie yesterday through an internet site the Quality was kinda good! I was watching the movie with high expectations (though i knew it was a flop), especially as the film has superstar Amitabh Bachchan playing the role of a villain.I though at least actors like him would have done some worth to their roles.But unfortunately Mr Bachchan failed to impress as villain this proved that nobody can compete AMJAD KHAN's magic Rgv's trial to re-kindle the past backfired royally! Sholay, the old one is a milestone in Indian cinema with an all-star cast, cult dialogue, stylish cinematography and a brilliant soundtrack which is still a hit with present generations too.A good actor like Ajay Devgan's TALENTS ARE wasted and his performance was average.Prashant Raj, a newcomer doesn't know what acting is . Nisha Kothari proved she is one of the worst actresses we have I don't know how she is still in RGV's crew Urmila & Abhishek seen in a song with no excitement and passion Mohanlal tried his best and Susmitha Sen's work was good i somehow liked her work in this movie It was a Total carnage of the original Sholay

Ex Output:
negative

Ex Input:
A hilarious and insightful perspective of the dating world is portrayed in this off beat comedy by first time writer/director Peter M. Cohen. The story unfolds as the four male protagonists meet weekly at the local diner to confer about their dating woes. We meet Brad: a good-looking, wall-street playboy with a quick-wit and sharp tongue; Zeek: a cynical, sensitive writer; Jonathan: a sexually perplexed nice guy with an affinity for hand creams and masturbation; and Eric: the married guy, who cherishes his weekly encounters with his single friends in hope for some enlightenment to his boring and banal married existence. The trials and tribulations of the men's single lives in New York are amusingly expressed, mirroring that of Sex in the City and HBO's new comedy The Mind of Married Man, and bring an astute light to scamming. The story takes a twist as the three singletons meet Mia--wittily played by Amanda Peet-and all fall for her. She seduces them each with her uncanny ability to conform to the personalities' they exhibit. When they come to realize they have all met and fallen in love with the same woman, they chose her over their friendship. Whipped is a realistic portrayal of the dating world, one that the critic's failed to recognize. In plain language, they missed the point. The protagonist's here are caricatures of real people. The exaggerations are hysterical, mixing satire and humility, and are not to be taken as seriously as the critic's disparagement suggests. See this movie, you'll laugh from start to finish.

Ex Output:
positive

Ex Input:
I saw this film in a London cinema in 1975 and have not seen it since. I found it hilarious. I loved it's originality. It's rare that someone MAKES a movie like this - and it's sad too.What I mean is, I once read a book called "The Black Hotel" - and as a film-fan, I always "picture" books as films. Kinda "adapt" them, you know? But as I read it, I thought, well, this would make a great movie - but of course it would have to be "adapted" - to the point where it would bear little relationship to the book.But then I thought, well WHY? Sure, it could never be shown on Sunday afternoon TV, but provided it were shown in cinemas to ADULTS, who knew what it contained, where's the HARM? Dammit, my civil liberties were being crushed here. A director SHOULD be able to make a literal film adaptation of "The Black Hotel".In an ideal World, censorship of films for adults should not EXIST. But sadly, whilst I accept that with INTELLIGENT adults, such freedom might be harmless, there would always be those who would lack the rationality to differentiate between fantasy and reality, and who might be spurred on to commit foul deeds.However, it's hard to see how "La Bete" falls into that category.On it's appearance in England, the British censor dismissed it out of hand. Despite the '69 relaxation on nudity, given the film's theoretical theme of bestiality, had the censor passed ANY of it, he'd have been looking for a new job on Monday.BUT... in those days, there was an alternative. The G.L.C. This was a local town council with a department who had the power to pass a film just for London, where it was deemed audiences were more "sopisticated" than those who lived out in the sticks.The film was duly submitted and PASSED. However, it later emerged that the "board" consisted of just four people - three who voted, plus a "chairman". And on the day, one of the voters was off sick. Thus the remaining two voters and the chairman sat down to view "La Bete".One of said voters thought, like me, that the film was hilarious and hardly likely to encourage foul deeds by ANYONE. The other lacked imagination and simply thought the piece disgusting. And the chairman didn't understand it, so decided to err on the side of FREEDOM.When the missing voter finally saw the film, they too thought it disgusting, but it was TOO LATE! The film had received its "X-London" certificate and opened to mixed reaction. The G.L.C. film censorship board was disbanded soon after! Thus "La Bete" only opened in London by what could best be termed a FLUKE! But I'm glad it was. It's GREAT! If you haven't seen it, DO so. It's a FANTASY, and as such, it's far less disturbing than most things you see on the news these days...

Ex Output:
positive