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]: I dug this out and watched it tonight. I honestly think it must be 20 years since the last time I saw it. I remember it being a seriously flawed film. I don't remember it being THIS bad!!!!!I am absolutely aghast that a project with this much potential should have been mistreated so reprehensibly. Who am I to blame for this? The 2 guys who wrote (and I use that word loosely) the script? The casting directors who so terribly miscast at least 3 major characters in the story? (Only 2 of them are among "the amazing 5".) The director, who clearly refused to take it seriously, and kept shoving awful music on top of bad writing & bad acting everywhere? (I LIKED the theme song-- but it should never have been used all the way throughout the entire film!) Don Black, who should be ASHAMED at some of the lyrics he wrote for that music?It figures that I should pull this out, less than a week after re-reading the comic-book adaptation. The first 15-20 minutes of the film more-or-less (really, LESS) parallel the first issue of the comic. As I watched it tonight, I kept wondering-- why was ALMOST every single detail changed? Doc showing up, then using his wrist-watch remote-control to open the safe, and the sniper's bullet missing him by 5 inches because the refractive glass, were just about the only things left the same. I mean, if you're gonna do an "adaptation", WHY in God's name change EVERYTHING???Once they leave Doc's HQ, virtually NOTHING is as it was in the comic (which, given Roy Thomas, I figure probably follows the book). I read somewhere they actually combined elements of 2 different novels into one movie. Again-- WHY? I've heard it was changed because they weren't able to secure the kind of budget they wanted. I look at the film, and think... LACK OF MONEY in NO WAY explains what I saw on the screen!!You know, when people complain about Joel Schumacher, they should really take a look at this thing. The best thing I can say is, I think it would make a great double-feature with the 1966 BATMAN feature-- and probably a great triple-bill with that and the 1980 FLASH GORDON. All 3 films are "silly". Maybe we can "blame" the 1966 film (and TV series) for this. Some fans have complained over the years that Adam West's BATMAN ruined the image of comic-books in the minds of generations of non-comics fans. I think the same could be said for Hollywood. I'm reminded of how many really, really BAD films based on "classic" characters have been made over the years, especially (it seems to me) in the late 70's & early 80's. Charlie Chan, Fu Manchu, Tarzan, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, The Lone Ranger-- all "murdered" by Hollywood types who think, "OH, comic-books! So you know it's supposed to be STUPID!" More like they're the "stupid" ones. What a waste of potential.Let me say some good things... Despite the script and the directing, Ron Ely is GREAT. When I read a DOC SAVAGE story, I don't think of the James Bama paintings, I think of Ely. Bill Lucking (who later was a regular on THE A-TEAM) is terrific. Eldon Quick (who I've seen somewhere else, but can't recall where) is terrific. Paul Gleason-- who I absolutely HATED with a passion and a vengeance in THE BREAKFAST CLUB ("teachers" like the one he played should be banned from ever teaching anywhere), may be the best of the "amazing 5" in the film. Pamela Hensley-- though her part was almost unrecognizable from the original story-- is terrific. Before she let her hair down, I also realized she looked a HELL of a lot like "Ardala Valmar" from those awful John Calkins BUCK ROGERS strips I just read the other day. She's got a big nose like Ardala-- only not quite as pronounced. The comics Ardala actually looked more like the 1936 movie Princess Aura-- or Cher. Or maybe Streisand. Take yer pick. (Ardala actually got plastic surgery in the George Tuska strips-- after, she was stunning!)Paul Wexler, funny enough, I saw just last week in a GET SMART episode. I wonder if he was anything like the character he was supposed to be playing? I don't know, because that character sure wasn't in the movie the film takes its title from.
[A]: negative

[Q]: If you're a fan of Mystery Science Theater 3K, Attack of the Giant Leeches, or Pinata Survival Island, this movie might be for you.I live in Nashville and I didn't even know of this movie's existence until the day prior to its release, when the advertising company panicked and blanketed Music Row with dozens of fliers and billboards. It barely lasted two weeks in theaters anyway.Bad acting, bad writing, and poor production only begin to describe this embarrassment of a film. For starters, the names are a bit much: Bo Price, Angel, and Dixie? Eesh.Toby's awkwardly slow delivery of lines makes one wonder what production assistant got stuck holding the cue cards off camera. Angel's character rapidly transitions from her city-slicker ways to a cowgirl, slipping into southern slang after two days on the ranch. Her wardrobe goes from chic to a female version of Toby's--in fact, in the final scene, their outfits are identical, making one wonder if the wardrobe assistant called in sick.The audio is inconsistent - perhaps the most noticeable example is when Toby decides to go for a swim and his voice suddenly sounds like he's shouting in a gymnasium.There's never quite enough explanation or character development to suffice what happens on-screen. Overacting, exasperation, grimaces, and moodiness best describes the actors' interpretation and direction of the terrible script.This movie is best enjoyed after consuming a couple of alcoholic beverages and in the company of your wittiest friends. But that's not saying much.
[A]: negative

[Q]: While in her deathbed, Ann Lord (Vanessa Redgrave) repeats the name "Harris" and recalls the day on the 50's when she was an aspirant singer and traveled from New York to be the maid of honor of her wealthy friend Lila Wittenborn (Mamie Gummer) in Newport. Ann Grant (Claire Danes) is welcomed by Lila's alcoholic and reckless brother Buddy (Hugh Dancy) in the Wittenborn's cottage at seaside and he tells her that his sister is in love actually for their friend and servant Harris Arden (Patrick Wilson), who fought in the war and has graduated in medicine. Later the bride-to-be confesses her true feelings about Harris to Ann. However, when Ann meets Harris, she has a crush on him and they have a brief affair during one night stand while a tragedy happens with Buddy. Meanwhile Ann's daughters, the insecure and unstable Nina Mars (Toni Collette) and the happy wife and mother Constance Haverford (Natasha Richardson), are worried with their mother and have differences to be resolved."Evening" has one of the best feminine casts I have ever seen in a movie, with magnificent performances. The resemblance of the stunning Mamie Gummer with her mother Meryl Streep is amazing and she has a performance that honors the name of her mother. The locations, costumes, set decoration, cinematography and soundtrack are also awesome. Unfortunately the plot is confused and I have not clearly understood the message of this film. Why motherhood is so important in the story? Was Constance engendered in the night stand of Ann and Harris and he would be her father? Why Ann and Harris have not stayed together, if the guy really loved her like he confesses in their occasional encounter in New York? Which issues Ann Lord has resolved after the visit of Lila Ross? Was Buddy Wittenborn bisexual or his love for Harris was a fraternal love? Why Nina Mars changed her thoughts about motherhood in the end? It seems that the screenplay writers or the director failed since they were not able to make sense and fulfillment to the beautiful love story. My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): "Ao Entardecer" ("In the Eventide")
[A]:
positive