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 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.
[EX A]: negative

[EX 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.
[EX A]: positive

[EX Q]: This is one of the worst movies i've ever encountered, but i want to say that some of the criticisms i had heard turned out to be unwarranted..As far as pure film-making technique goes, this director is competent. He's held back by the limited budget and the VHS camera, but the actual editing, camera angles, camera movements and scene staging are pretty professional. i've seen many movies where the "directing" was much worse. At least the scenes flow in a way that is not confusing and he has a few clever shots here and there. Also, the forest scenes contained a decent atmosphere. There is only so much you can do with a VHS camera, and he does a nice job as far as the technicalities go. As far as artistic merit, there is none. The scene where the camera pans down so that we can watch a guy urinate in the woods for 15 seconds sort of epitomizes the artistic style of the whole film. This is pure trash... Total garbage.The gore is decent for a film in this budget range. , it's obviously fake but there's lot's of it, and it's very outlandish..I saw the American version with the intentionally campy dubbing. This was a good idea (and it's the only thing that allowed me to make it through the film)... Unfortunately, it's overdone, especially towards the end.It's really a terrible film, but i have to recommend it for it's camp value. It's really hard to find a movie that's worse than this and that sort of puts it in a unique category.
[EX A]:
negative