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.

[Q]: This was the first "Walking Tall" movie I saw, I think in a $2 movie theater along Hollywood Blvd. , so I didn't have any reference to the first installment done by Joe Don Baker. I remember being shocked at the corrupted system of McNairy County and the brutality of the "redneck gangs". I was also amazed at the fact that one man decided he's not going to let it slide, and went out to do something about it. Courageous ? I thought so - to a point where it sent shivers up my spine.I think this movie is a great story about American courage to stand up and do something about a system that's only serving its own interest. I was pretty blown away about it, and think this is still one of the best movie of the hero/anti-hero genre, which one might laugh but includes recent movies like the "The Punisher", but even more so because it's a true story. The recent remake starring the "Rock" just doesn't do any justice to the real fire in the story of Buford Pusser.A "classic" that I'm sure will resurface again in the future.
[A]: positive


[Q]: "A Mouse in the House" is a very classic cartoon by Tom & Jerry, faithful to their tradition but with jokes of its own. It is hysterical, hilarious, very entertaining and quite amusing. Artwork is of good quality either.This short isn't just about Tom trying to catch Jerry. Butch lives in the same house and he's trying to catch the mouse too, because «there's only going to be one cat in this house in the morning -- and that's the cat that catches the mouse».If you ask me, there are lots of funny gags in this cartoon. The funniest for me are, for example, when Mammy Two Shoes sees the two lazy cats sleeping and says sarcastically «I'm glad you're enjoying the siesta» and that she hopes they're satisfied because she ain't, making the two cats gasp. Another funny gag is when Tom disguises himself as Mammy Two Shoes and slams Butch with a frying pan and then Butch does the same trick to Tom. Of course that, even funnier than this, is when the real Mammy Two Shoes appears and both (dumb!) cats think they are seeing each other disguised as Mammy and then they both attack her on the "rear" - lol. Naturally that she gets mad and once she gets mad, she isn't someone to mess with. But even Jerry doesn't win this time, because he is expelled by her too.
[A]: positive


[Q]: I remember seeing this when it was released, in a theater in Palo Alto, and not expecting much. I mean -- an Australian movie? But it finally got to me. Here's a scene. Richard Chamberlain is sitting cross legged on the floor of a shabby apartment in Sidney, facing an Australian aborigine elder named Charlie.Chamberlain: "You were outside my house last night. You frightened my wife. Who are you?" And Charlie at a deliberate pace replies, "Who are you? Who are you? Who are you? Who are you? Who are you?. . . . Are you a fish? Are you a snake? Are you a man? . . . . Who are you? Who are you? Who are you?" It's a stunning scene, shot all in close ups, with Chamberlain's blandly handsome face filling the screen in opposition to Charlie's black, broad-nosed, bearded visage.The two guys couldn't be more different and this film is the story of how Chamberlain accidentally stumbles from his humdrum lawyerly existence into the inexplicable, almost unspeakable, mysteries of Charlie's world.I don't think I'll go on much about the plot. It's kind of an apocalyptic tale. But I must say, whoever did the research on Australian aboriginal belief systems should get an A plus. They've got everything in here, from pointing the bone to the dream time, a kind of parallel universe in which dreams are real. It's an extremely spooky movie without any musical stings or splendiferous special effects. Charly's world simply begins to intrude into Chamberlain's dreams, for reasons never made entirely clear.If there's a problem with the script, that's it. Nothing is ever made entirely clear. Does Chamberlain, who seems to have some extraordinary rapport with the aborigines, die in the last wave? Do the aborigines? Does the entirety of Sidney? The basic premise is a little hard to accept too, though granted that this is a fantasy. The aborigines are invested with the kind of spiritual power that Americans bestow on American Indians, whereas the fact is that mythology is mythology and while one may be more complex or satisfying -- more elegant and beautiful, if you like -- mythology is still an attempt to transcend an ordinary, demanding, and sometimes disappointing physical existence. The mysticism of Charlie is more convincing that the miracles of Moses in Cecil B. DeMille's "The Ten Commandments," but they're brothers under the skin.But I don't care about that. Taken as a film, this one is pretty good, and it's especially important for marking the celebrity of the director, Peter Weir, and the Australian film industry. This was the first of a great wave of films from the antipodes, some of them raucous, like "Mad Max," and some subtle and dramatic, like "Lantana." I like Weir's stuff, which resembles Nicholas Roeg's in being pregnant with subliminal dread. Try "Picnic at Hanging Rock" for an example of how to make a truly chilling movie with not a drop of blood.
[A]:
positive