input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: SWING! is an important film because it's one of the remaining Black-produced and acted films from the 1930s. Many of these films have simply deteriorated so badly that they are unwatchable, but this one is in fairly good shape. It's also a nice chance to see many of the talented Black performers of the period just after the heyday of the old Cotton Club--a time all but forgotten today.

Unfortunately, while the film is historically important and has some lovely performances, it's also a mess. The main plot is very similar to the Hollywood musicals of the era--including a prima donna who is going to ruin the show and the surprise unknown who appears from no where to save the day. However, the writing is just god-awful and a bit trashy at times--and projects images of Black America that some might find a bit demeaning. This is because before the plot really gets going, you are treated to a no-account bum who lives off his hard working wife (a popular stereotype of the time) and when he is caught with a hussy (who, by the way, totally overplays this role), they have a fight which looks like a scene from WWE Smackdown! And, the one lady wants to cut the other lady with a straight razor--a trashy scene indeed! Later in the film, when the prima donna is behaving abominably, her husband punches her in the face and everyone applauds him! It seems like the film, at times, wants to appeal to the lowest common denominator in the audience PLUS they can't even do this well--with some of the worst acting I've seen in a very long time.

Still, if you can look past a lousy production in just about every way (with trashy characters, bad acting and direction and poor writing), this one might be worth a peek so you can see excellent singing and tap dancing--as well as to catch a glimpse of forgotten Black culture. Just don't say I didn't warn you about the acting--it's really, really bad!
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I have two very major complaints regarding this film.

1. That my local rental store shelved what is very clearly a soft core porn in the "suspense" category. (Had I known what it was, I would not have wasted my time renting it in the first place. And yes, this movie is a soft core porn.)

2. The title has nothing to do with the movie. No one in this movie does anything that is either deviant or obsessive, let alone a combination of the two.

Actually, make that three major complaints:

3. That I for some reason watched the movie long enough to discover point number two on this list. Boy do I regret that. Stay away from this movie. Learn from my mistake. This movie is valueless on virtually every level.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: LES CONVOYEURS ATTENDENT was the first film I saw in 2000 and I doubt I'll see a better one this year. This beautiful tragicomedy by Belgian filmmaker Benoit Mariage is set in the industrial wastelands of Wallonia. Benoit Poelvoorde plays a father who desperately wants his son to win a car (a Lada!) for him. To do this the son has to break the record opening doors. What the father actually wants his for his son to be someone, because he himself has never made it further as the reporter of local news for a newspaper ironically called L'Espoir (Hope). Of course nothing works out as planned. This film can best be compared to Aki Kaurismaki's DRIFTING CLOUDS, although it is more dramatic and the humour is darker. Just like in that film however the tone is more melancholic than depressing and the ending upbeat, without being unrealistically happy. The humour is absurd, without making the plot unbelievable, and Mariage finds stunning images in the bleak settings that never seem artificial. The best thing about LES CONVOYEURS ATTENDENT is the acting by Poelvoorde. This actor shot to fame with the also brilliant cult-classic C'EST ARRIVE PRES DE CHEZ VOUS in which he played the charismatic hitman Ben. Since then he only played two small roles in films that were not released in the Netherlands, because, as he said in an interview, he was not convinced of his own acting capabilities and all the roles he was offered were reprises of the Ben character. With his return to a leading role in LCA there should be no doubt anymore about his acting. He's simply brilliant as a man stupid and evil enough to put his family in misery, but smart enough to realize what he's done and be torn by remorse about it. A must see.
....
output answer:
positive