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 saw a preview of Freebird at the Isle of Man TT as i had heard about it in a couple of motorcycle mags. Although i was over mainly for the racing, the lure of seeing Phil Daniels in a motorcycle movie (yes i love Quadrophenia like everyone else) proved enough to get me away from the beer and partying. At last! we've done it! us British have actually made a great motorcycle film (and no it's not like Torque) this is up there with the best of British comedy. Mark my words, this is Phil Daniels best screen performance, and as far as Geoff Bell is concerned, there's a new British legend making his name felt. I loved Gary Stretch in Shane Meadows' fantastic Dead Mans Shoes and here he gives a quietly touching performance that he can proudly add to his growing film reputation. This is a film not just for us Bikers, but I think for everyone (even my girlfriend loved it). I hope it gets the same brilliant response on the mainland as it got at the Isle of Man. I'm not going to go into the details of certain classic scenes that this movie has, (watch out for the shop), as it would spoil the fun, but i would say, go see, enjoy, and have one of the best nights in the cinema you've had in a while. I really think this could well be a cult classic. As they were saying at the TT... C'Mon Freebird!

A: positive
****
Q: It started out slow after an excellent animated intro, as the director had a bunch of characters and school setting to develop. Once the bet is on, though, the movie picks up the pace as it's a race against time to see if a certain number of worms can be eaten by 7 pm. We had a good opportunity on the way home to discuss some things with our son: bullies, helping others, mind over matter when you don't want to do something.Of special note is the girl who played Erica (Erk): Hallie Kate Eisenberg. The director kinda sneaks her in unexpectedly, and when she is on-screen she is captivating. She's one of those "Hey, she looks familiar" faces, and then I remembered that she was the little girl that Pepsi featured about 8 years ago. She was also in "Paulie", that movie about the parrot who tries to find his way home.Ms. Eisenberg made many TV and movie appearances in '99-00, but then was not seen much for the next few years. She's now 14 and is growing up to be a beautiful woman. Her smile really warms up the screen. If she can get some more good roles she could have as good a career (or better?) than Haley Joel Osment, another three named kid actor, but hopefully without some of the problems that Osment has been in lately.Anywhozitz, according to my 8 y.o. son, who just finished reading the story, the film did not seem to follow the book all that well, but was entertaining none the less. The ending of the film seemed like a big setup for some sequels (How to Eat Boiled Slugs? Escargot Kid's Style?), which might not be such a bad thing. It was nice to take the family to a movie and not have to worry about language, violence or sex scenes.One other good aspect of the movie was the respect/fear engendered by the principal Mr. Burdock (Boilerplate). Movies nowadays tend to show adult authority figures as buffoons. While he has one particular goofy scene, he ruled the school with a firm hand. It was also nice to see Andrea Martin getting some work.

A: positive
****
Q: Like many people here, I started out finding my patience being tried by this film. By the end, I actually shed a few tears.It seems to be in the nature of most old films to drag for 7/8th length and then catch fire right at the end. Older film-goers learned to bide their time patiently through the slow parts, calm in the knowledge that the big payoff is on the way. But that isn't quite accurate. You see, to earlier audiences, what are to us the "slow parts" were the main body of the story. They watched and found anecdotal and thematic interest there. Modern audiences, post-Spielberg, are in a constant state of waiting to be hit with a small climax every two minutes when they see older films. It's the inflation problem of modern movies. Well, that isn't going to happen. It is not necessary to apologize for these films; it is simply that you have to adjust your expectations and personal rhythm when you watch them. At this point, the difference between Avatar and The Informer is like the difference between Euripides and a traveling production of Rent. Think about it for a minute or two. Not to strain at the obvious, but Euripides still deserves a hearing.The "exciting part", for most modern viewers, begins with the IRA tribunal scene and escalates to the final couple of minutes, which, if you are at all on board or even paying attention by that time, will tear your heart out. It's not some high-tone universal abstract plea for forgiveness; it's a plea from one dimwit, and those who feel sorry for the big lummox, for a little mercy. It's that personal, and that embarrassingly naked an appeal. For after being mad at Gypo, irritated at him, thinking this is the dumbest character of all time, you finally find yourself won over by the scene of Gypo's erstwhile girlfriend pleading to another woman to talk her man into going easy him. The film may be sentimental, but the sentimentality is not cheap as some here have charged. There's a matter of life and death that plays out here, and as long as you take the proposition of one life to a customer seriously, it's sentimentality wrung out of the most serious stuff.8 of 10. And the fault for it not being 10 of 10 is my own and in some measure yours, if you are reading this. We have all asked for more, ever more, faster, ever faster until we cannot put ourselves in 1935 -- just yesterday, really -- as easily as we should be able.

A:
positive
****