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:
This is a great movie from the lost age of reactionary made-for-television drama. My all-time favourite actor, Robert Culp skillfully plots a trajectory through uptight liberal fairmindedness and faith in the system, kneejerk conservativism and fear of crime, and homicidal psychosis. The teens are a collection of pure sneering evil stereotypes, and the eventual message of this film makes episodes of Dragnet look evenhanded by comparison. But what really shines in this is the great pace of the movie, building the fear and paranoia by degrees, as well as the feel of the whole California setting. The cars are really great as well, as I recall. I give this film a 10, and I defy anyone to watch this film and not enjoy every minute. Remember, just because it's made-for-television doesn't mean it isn't great art.

Ex Output:
positive

Ex Input:
Margret Laurence probably didn't intend on having any of her novels adopted for film, let alone the Stone Angel. Hagar, as a character, was one who constantly challenged the social norm (Gainsay who dare, anyone?), and ended up nearly sacrificing her humanity in the process. The symbols in the book (the Stone Angel, Silver Thread, etc, etc.) are constant reminders of this struggle of the old and new, and the carnage (so to speak) along the way.While the film is reasonably faithful to the plot of the book (but it isn't really a plot kind-of storytelling, is it?), I think it missed the point on capturing the spirit of the film. Hagar's defiance (for the sake of defiance) was not there. Bram could have been a lot more crude than portrayed, and Hagar's father could have been played more "traditionally", so to speak. If the filmmaker would insisted on stronger portrayals, the film would drive the point straight to home.Along the same vein, why should we see cell phones, organic produce, and other modernizations? Are we trying make some points for the sake of making some points (e.g., the Muslim girlfriend and the Native people). Hagar and co. are everything but politically correct in the book, so why should we see that in the film version. Modernization may be an excuse for a low-budget operation, but using that as an excuse to send subliminal politically-correct messages that are totally irrelevant to the novel (and the film) seems like throwing punches below the intellect.There is also the audience. It seems that we have been conditioned to see bitter old people as cute and lovable. Why should be laugh every time Hagar is at her tantrums? I doubt Magaret Laurence wanted her readers to laugh at, or with, Hagar. These people are frustrated and are full of angst, and all we do is to laugh at them. I don't think it did Hagar and other folks in her situation any justice.

Ex Output:
negative

Ex Input:
This film was bad. Bad acting, bad directing, bad writing. But it wasn't bad in a funny way. It was bad in a boring way. I watched "Surface to Air" because I thought it might be a laugh. It wasn't. Don't make the mistake I did. There are plenty of more enjoyable ways to spend an hour and a half such as watching paint dry or reading the dictionary. Seriously.

Ex Output:
negative