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: 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.

A: negative
****
Q: As someone who lived through,and still remembers that decade vividly,if the actual '70s had been half this funny and (semi)normal,they would have been so much more enjoyable.Actual kids in that era did not act or behave anything close to as bright-eyed and normal as these kids did.The country's youth was still under the influence of the hippies and the drug culture all that '60s rebellion that it spawned,especially in the behavior department;the petulance,the smugness,the self-righteousness,the childishness,the unreasonableness of them - none of the characters exhibit any of that.Someone compared to "Happy Days",and I can see why:They were both sitcoms that take place 20 years before the current time they were broadcast,and they both offer only surface ,cliched depictions of the actual eras,not even close to the full scope of it,just showing the obvious things - the fashions,toys,music,contraptions,etc,and that's it.For those too young to remember,or weren't born then,trust me,the '70s weren't like that,any more than "Happy Days" were like the actual '50s,as "M*A*S*H*" didn't accurately portray life at a US Army medical base during the Korean War,etc.

A: negative
****
Q: I read all these reviews on here about how this is a such a good movie. Jeez, this movie was predictable and pretty boring. The acting was below average most of the time, especially by Mckenna. I haven't seen a more pathetic attempt at making someone "badass" in a movie. Oh man, this movie was a letdown. I also read somewhere this might be a cult classic. I know there are followers of the director, but this movie was just a average piece of film.The script was lame, for the most part the acting was lame, this movie was lame.Oh and pray for the guy that used to be in Cheers. He looks really bad. The best actor in this movie was probably the guy in Office Space, and he was only in this movie for about 8 minutes.4/10

A:
negative
****