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.

I can just about understand why some people might wish to stress this film's link with the Eighties but I really wouldn't say it's an accurate depiction of most peoples' lives in that era - even on the poorest Bradford estates. It is however typical of the blunt agitprop rubbish the dear old Royal Court Theatre was churning out at that time. Plenty of 'right-on' artistry for small, small audiences but enough well-connected backslapping to ensure future commissions for turgid playrights. IThe simple fact is that if you want to reflect upon truer common experience you'll find millions more nodding in knowing agreement to love and live as depicted in 'Gregory's Girl'. I would be tempted to call this a 'kitchen sink' drama but that would be doing a great disservice to the plumbing industry. However, as far as having a decent script is concerned, this film is indeed all washed up. For some reason it has accrued an odd following amongst Guardian reading film-goers - I can only assume they get a visual frisson out of pretending to slum it. Steer clear my friends. It is a poor film with a poor script that likes to think it is breaking boundaries by adding humorous insights into grim life on the estates. it isn't..but it is grim. Do the washing up instead.
negative

There was not one single redeeming factor in this movie. The girlfriend and I both love action films. Especially fight scenes (Bloodsport and Kickboxer was awesome), but this movie was not entertaining. Five minutes of action followed twenty minutes of talking and "angry" facial expressions. The main hero is a troubled character who has seen battle and thus is forced to look seriously constipated at all times. The Army has disrupted his bowel movements on top of perfecting his fighting technique. The music isn't good either. They fight to the rap and hip-hop style of the streets, 'cause these guys are thugs. The rest of the soundtrack is the usual background noise to low-budget dramas.Everything about this movie is classic B-style. The actors deliver their lines as if reading them from cue cards and the lines themselves should be set on fire and left burning in some rotten Hollywood alleyway. The film is called "Honor," but there was no honor in making this film. It was simply a waste of money, and spending wisely is something I consider to be honorable.Go see Felon instead. The fight scenes and situations are more real.
negative

...that the Bette Davis version of this film was better than the Kim Novak version.Despite all of the other comments written here, I really prefer the Bette Davis version, even though the Novak version has a more coherent story line.However: Davis' Mildred's raw emotions seem to me to be more apt to a sluttish girl who seems easily to become a prostitute.And it is those raw emotions that constitute *part* of what the poor doctor falls in love with. He has emotions of despair, of failure, of "otherness" - strong emotions that he represses. Davis' Mildred, on the other hand, displays her emotions immediately and without censure. She has no feelings of despair, or of failure, or of "otherness"; rather, she is merely surviving as a poor Cockney woman in the Victorian era.Novak's portrayal was a more vulnerable Mildred than was Davis', almost through the the whole movie. Davis' Mildred was **never** vulnerable until she actually had to go to the doctor and beg for assistance. And when he reviles her - for her method of keeping body and soul together, and for continually taking advantage of his love for her - she unleashes arguably the most passionate repudiation of snobbish holier than thou attitude ever seen on screen: "I wiped my mouth! I WIPED MY MOUTH!!" Novak's vulnerability was excellent. Davis' realism was monumental.IMDb votes concur!

positive