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: OK this movie had a terrible premise. Be serious according to the movie they had just been through an apocalyptic war yet they have money to buy huge robots and pit them against each other. Each country decides instead of investing into rebuilding their country they would rather fight with robots no one could afford. Here's a better idea, lets rely on our most inept resource,jocks, to fight our battles. Everyone says what about the director, what about him. He makes a good movie, he makes a bad movie. There is no reason to give this movie some credit just because of the director, maybe he was asleep? I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, because it was so cheesy and ridiculous I had to laugh. I actually had a good time watching it, well except for the cowboy mentor who turns out to be an assassin(trust me no one would see this guy as an assassin, so it is a surprise, however lame) What kind of training exercise is a jungle jim anyway. I was sad to see Mst3k had not done this one. I am giving a two star rating however because nothing could be as bad as "manos the hands of fate."The budget does not matter either, I have seen plenty of reasonable movies that had nothing for budgets like cube. The storyline was not even plausible and I have seen better acting in school plays. Surly they could have afforded an eleven year old from any middle school play.Anyway pick it up, it is a fun movie to watch.

Answer: negative


Question: They constructed this one as a kind of fantasy Man From Snowy River meets Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid, and just for a romantic touch Ned and Joe get to play away with high class talent, the bored young wives of wealthy older men. OK, there are lots of myths about Ned Kelly, but there are also a lot of well documented facts, still leaving space for artistic creativity in producing a good historical dramaticisation. I mean, this is not the Robin Hood story, not the Arthurian legends, not Beowulf, not someone whose life is so shrouded in the mists of many many centuries past that any recreation of their life and times is 99% guesswork. It's only a couple of lifetimes ago. My own grandparents were already of school age when Ned was hanged. So it's silly me for fancifully imagining this movie was a serious attempt to tell the Kelly story. Having recently read Peter Carey's excellent novel "The True History of the Kelly Gang" I had eagerly anticipated that this would be in similar vein. But no, the fact is that Mick Jagger's much derided 1970 Kelly was probably far closer to reality, and a better movie overall, which isn't saying a whole lot for it.Glad it only cost me two bucks to hire the DVD! I'll give it 3/10, and that's only because some of the nice shots of the Australian bush make me feel generous.

Answer: negative


Question: Meryl Streep was incredible in this film. She has an amazing knack for accents, and she shows incredible skill in this film overall. I really felt for her when Lindy was being persecuted. She was played realistically, too. She got cranky, upset, and unpleasant as the media and the government continued their unrelenting witchhunt. I didn't expect much from the film initially, but I really got interested in it, and the movie is based on a real person and real events. It turned out to be better than I had anticipated. Sam Neill was also outstanding; this is the best work I've seen from him, and I've really liked him in other movies (The Piano, for example). I gave the film a 7, but if I could rate just the acting, I'd give the it a 9.5, and a perfect 10 for Streep.

Answer:
positive