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: Kate Beckinsale is excellent as the manipulative and yet irresistibly charming Emma in this TV-adaptation of Jane Austen's novel. When I read that novel I was sometimes quite doubtful whether the protagonist really deserved to be considered the heroine of the story: for honestly, she is so terribly self-righteous and scheming that one is tempted to dislike her seriously. Kate Beckinsale's interpretation, however, saves Emma from herself so to speak: she is portrayed with all the innocence and generosity of her character in full view, and one can't help but give in and like (not to say love) her in spite of her less amiable qualities. Kate Beckinsale is the main, but not the only, reason why this TV-series is so delightful; Raymond Coulthard is perfect as Mr. Frank Churchill, expressing this character's personal magnetism to the full (which is all the more conspicuous because of this role being not very well handled by Ewan McGregor in the 1996-screen adaptation of Emma), and Mark Strong, Samantha Morton, Bernard Hepton, and Olivia Williams are all as they should be in their respective roles. This production is, in short, a great achievement and one to view many times with increasing pleasure.

A: positive
****
Q: Insignificant and low-brained (haha!) 80's horror like there are thirteen in a dozen, yet it can be considered amusing if you watch it in the right state of mind. The special effects are tacky, the acting atrocious and the screenplay seems to miss a couple of essential paragraphs! "The Brain" takes place in a typical quiet-American town setting, where every adolescent works in the same diner and where the cool-kid in high school flushes cherry bombs down the toilet. It is here that a TV-guru named Dr. Blake and his adorable pet-brain begin their quest for nation-wide mind controlling. Under the label of "independent thinkers", a giant cheesy brain sends out waves through television sets and forces innocent viewers to kill! How cool is that? Now, it's up to the Meadowvale teen-rebel to save the world! The funniest thing about the plot is that it never explains where Dr. Blake and his monstrous brain actually come from. There are obvious references towards extraterrestrial life but that's about it. Meh, who needs a background in a movie like this, really? There's not that much bloodshed unfortunately and the "evil" brain looks like an over-sized sock-puppet. The only more or less interesting element for horror buffs is taking a look at the cast and crew who made this movie. Director Ed Hunt and writer Barry Pearson are the same men who made "Bloody Birthday" (guilty pleasure of mine) and "Plague". Both those are much better movies and they wisely decided to resign the film industry. The most familiar face in the cast unquestionably is the great David Gale, whom horror fans will worship forever for his role in Re-Animator. A girl named Christine Kossak provides the nudity-factor and she's obviously a great talent She has exactly 3 movies on her repertoire of which THIS is her "masterpiece". In her debut, she was credited as 'runaway model' and in "3 men and a baby", her character is referred to as 'one of Jack's girls'. I really wonder how she feels about her career as an actress

A: negative
****
Q: This movie was a real torture fest to sit through. Its first mistake is treating nuclear power as so self-evidently a 'bad thing' that it barely needs to convince the audience of it. When it does stoop to putting in its argument, it has the participants breathlessly deliver barely substantiated facts ; all that's missing is someone crying "when is someone going to think of the children!". While watching this movie, I kept thinking "where'd you hear that?" or "that can't possibly be true" - yet little of the info was backed up by any reliable sources. And bless 'em, the 'regular folks' in the movie came across more like Luddites than people with any understanding of the pros and cons of nuclear power; to be fair, that might be the fault of the film-makers, but equally fairly, it's a condition shared by the movie's rock stars.As for the performers........... Now some of these people are highly respected musicians whose music I've enjoyed, and I'm sure a few of them really did believe in this cause. But they all come across as wheezing old hippies desperately searching for something to get worked up over, now that the 60s have passed them by. Particularly embarrassing are Graham Nash and James Taylor. Nash seems to be trying too hard - he looks like he can't possibly believe the things he's being told (not that I blame him), but desperate to feel noticed and included. James Taylor performs what has to be the wimpiest protest "anthem" ever, "Stand and Fight", in the most sickeningly cheerful way you can imagine. In fact, most of the performances are pretty bland when they're not being patronizing. Nobody seems worked up by this event, as if it really doesn't mean much to them at all. It's worth noting that the driving force behind this whole event seems to be John Hall, of the band Orleans, and responsible for some of the wimpiest MOR pop of the 70s. (Remember, if you dare, "Dance With Me" and "Still the One".) It's worth noting because that's symbolic of how the cause here fails to inspire any real passion in the music. The cause is supposedly life-or-death, but everybody sleepwalks through their numbers like they're playing the Catskills. Except maybe Gil-Scott Heron - his protest number "We Almost Lost Detroit" is on topic at least, but delivered with all the smugness of a high-schooler impressed with how 'controversial' he's being.Only Bruce Springsteen's performance raises a pulse; I've never been a big fan of the Boss, but he absolutely smokes, no question. Part of me thinks he was taped separately, at another event, and edited into this movie to give wake the audience. Compared to the general blandness and air of self-satisfaction here, it's no wonder Bruce was hailed as the savior of rock'n'roll.But even his performance is hobbled by the lifeless concert shooting. I don't expect a lot of flashy camera movement from a '70s film, but the shots are unnecessarily static, broken up only by split-second cutaways to a back-up singer's tonsils. Now, some of this may be because the performers are lifeless to start with; and *maybe* the film-makers are more skilled at shooting documentaries than concert footage - but all you have to do is watch "Rust Never Sleeps" or "The Last Waltz" to see a movie like this done with more skill. And with more exciting musicians. So really, there's only two things to watch this movie for: Springsteen's stellar performance, and as a sad snapshot about a counter-culture in decline.

A:
negative
****