TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: 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!

SOLUTION: positive

PROBLEM: Based on one of the books by Gabriel Marquez and it might be brilliant literature, this cinema-adaption really sucks as it's more like fighting against sleep rather than enjoying some cinematographic delices. The story is about an old couple whose son died and living a life that is heavily dominated by poverty, and wherein the main character is a cock that hopefully one day brings some money for a forthcoming cockfight. I am in no mood to spill more words on this useless pretentious piece, just perhaps that you can see Salma Hayek in here, but sitting 90 minutes in front of your screen for just that? No gracias.....

SOLUTION: negative

PROBLEM: (possible spoilers)Someone once asked Dr. Seuss if they could secure the movie rights to his 1957 Christmas classic How the Grinch Stole Christmas. He turned them down, insisting that no one could do better than the marvelous Chuck Jones TV special from 1966 (also in mind, perhaps, was his bitter experience writing the script to 1953's The 5,000 Fingers of Dr. T). When the good Dr. died in 1991, his widow, Audrey Geisel, still obstinately refused to sell the movie rights. But with the commonplace use of CGI effects becoming a reality, Mrs. Geisel had a change of heart. Universal made her a generous offer she accepted; she also accepted the casting of Jim Carrey as the title character. Supposedly she was satisfied with the final result. Well, Mrs. Geisel, that makes one of us.The film was given a $123,000,000 budget (which is more than even Heaven's Gate cost, including the adjustment for inflation), which obviously went towards the very elaborate makeup, set design, and special effects (which are underminedsomewhat by the rather hazy cinematography). Unfortunately, it seems that none of that money was set aside to get a better script than what Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman (scribes of Who Framed Roger Rabbit?, which made much betteruse of a high budget) turned in. Whereas the TV special was a trim 26 minutes without commercials, this film tries to fill a running time of 105 minutes with more background information about the Grinch. It turns out that, as a child, he was the subject of ridicule, including an especially humiliating experience one Christmas at the age of eight. So it turns out that everything that ails our poor Mr. Grinch is directly because of the Whos. Trouble is, it seems like a rather long 105 minutes, with too much dead wood clogging up the story. That might not seem so bad if only the Grinch were a little more...well, Grinchy. The character that Dr. Seuss wrote and Chuck Jones later animated was a sly fox whose slick attempts to hijack the holiday season were undermined by his sudden change (and exponential growth) of heart. Carrey's Grinch is a loud, hyperactive oaf and, at times, a thug who, when made the holiday `Cheermeister,' trashes the Whoville town square in anger(hopefully the scenery tasted as good as it looked). This undermines the script's attempt to make the Grinch more sympathetic, with all the Whos down in Whoville so unsympathetic (at least in this interpretation).The Whoville of Dr. Seuss's vision was a small town populated by honest folk who knew in their hearts the true meaning of Christmas. The Whoville of the movie is a rather noisy and crowded place populated by spoiled, selfish, materialistic ninnies; an obvious attempt to comment on American consumerism. This is offensivelyhypocritical inasmuch as the film industry has benefitted greatly from American consumerism, and as this film contributed to it with a huge merchandisingcampaign.The film also expands and redefines the character of Cindy Lou Who, a small but crucial character in the original. The innocent two-year-old waif who walked in on this spurious Santa is now older and wiser, constantly questioning the false values of the Whos and trying to understand the Grinch's point of view (her one major scene from the original is re-enacted, making it seem out of character). Sheseems to be the only one who would ever know that Christmas is more than just gifts and decorations, thus making her a completely different, and more annoying, character.Those who celebrate Christmas should sooner accept a lump of coal in theirstockings on the morning of December 25 than a copy of this overlong, overacted, excruciatingly tedious, ham-handed, crude attempt to turn the children's classic into a feature film. It proves once and for all that darkness, vulgarity,manipulation, and heavy-handedness are inadequate substitutes for charm, wit, sincerity, and heart. The folks at Universal should get down on their collective knees and thank God that this truly bilious $123 million stink bomb grossed $260 million domestically or they'd not be here today. Furthermore it made Mike Myers' The Cat in the Hat possible!

SOLUTION:
negative