input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: A so common horror story about a luxury building at Brooklyn which hides the gates to hell. It is reminiscent of Polanski's "The Tenant" (released a year before "The sentinel"), but is too far from the movie of the polish filmmaker in any aspect possible. "The tenant" was so disturbing, whereas "The sentinel" is not at all.

What it's more surprising from this film is the cast: it is full of great names of American cinema (Burguess, Gardner, Wallach), veteran actors acting for food (I guess).

Verdict: barely entertaining.

*My rate: 4/10
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: This is one of those movies that should have been way better than it turned out to be. I dread to think what the Blockbuster-approved edit must have looked like, because the director's cut on DVD was a bore of the epic proportions. Naturally, you don't expect it to be "The Godfather", but an acting class or two might have come in handy.

Also, there were so many cute guys in this movie, but they were woefully under-exploited. I like watching a bevy of hotties writhe around in their BVDs as much as the next guy, but even I have a right to expect a little more. It wasn't a total loss, though; at least we got a peek a Drew Fuller's (covered) junk and truly upsetting haircut. And there's Huntley Ritter looking even cuter than he did in "Bring It On" (and acting about as well). There's always a silver lining, kids. You just have to look really hard for it. And occasionally, you have to make use of your pause button.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: A bit of a disappointing film, I'd say: the acting was stilted, somehow. In many cases, I just couldn't feel that the facial expressions matched the words spoken or the intent of the scene. An angry (or sad, happy, frustrated) character should make the viewer believe that he's angry (or sad, happy, frustrated). That doesn't happen here.

The comment about the writers assuming you already know the characters was apt. They do things and say things which come out of nowhere: the character Andrew accuses his parents of sending signals to each other at dinner; then he blows up and storms out, telling his father "Don't touch me, you f***!". Maybe, if we'd seen the prequel, we would understand where all that comes from, but there is no prequel, so we're somewhat at sea as to the reason!

One odd, quirky thing that Andrew does is to go to an old stone quarry, sit down on the edge overlooking the "still water" below; then he reaches into his jeans pocket and extracts a pack of cigarettes and lights one up. He did this same thing three times during the film; I guess we're supposed to see this as some tortured act of being alone and angry? Maybe once, but three times? It might even have been four times, I lost count.

To be honest, there is the fact that he's recently found out that he's adopted; this happens very early in the film so there's no sense of any dramatic change he might be undergoing because of this discovery. It's not really clear if that's why he's so bitter or if it's about something else.

I guess there is a sort of Lynchian feel to the film but should a first-time director really be trying to scale such a mountain so early in his career?
....
output answer:
negative