input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: When I first saw the trailer for Prom Night, I have to admit, the trailer looked good and like this would be a fun horror movie. So my friend and I saw Prom Night last night and I have to say I must be growing up because this was such a ridicules film, not to mention I am so sick and tired of the typical horror slasher movies with the loud noises as an excuse to scare people. There was no tension, the characters, how was I supposed to care about them? They had no development what-so-ever, the killer?! Oh, my God, this was very possibly the most stupid serial killer that has ever existed, I know it's a film, but why would a man who never(or at least we know of) killed any one before, kill a girl's family and friends that he's just obsessed over? I mean, was he going to kidnap her or was he going to kill her? I have no idea, because this film made no sense and is too predictable and insulting to true fans of horror.

Donna's family was just brutally murdered by her teacher, who has become very obsessed over her, he was captured and put in jail. It's been 3 years and she's just now getting some peace in her life, she's even going to her senior prom. But the killer has escaped and still has Donna on his mind, he follows her to her prom which means bad news for her friends, and the hotel maid, and the bell boy, because it is such a good idea to kill the maid and bell boy so no one become suspicious enough to check to see where these employee's are. Donna is in big trouble because also this killer who is clearly human can apparently get into houses un-noticed and can kill people so silently, just, wow.

I'm sorry, I really did want to love this movie, we haven't had a good slasher flick in a long time, but this was just a stupid movie that I was not impressed with. Just the situations were unbelievable and the actors were obnoxious. I know that this was a PG-13 movie, but I just love how someone was brutally stabbed to death and they only have just a little blood on their clothes? Not to mention no stab holes? I wouldn't recommend this movie for anyone unless you're a teen, this movie was made for the teenagers, not adults, and not for those who know a real horror movie, no offense to those who did enjoy this film, but I don't understand how anyone could.

2/10
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I like animated shows. I enjoy the Nick fare pretty much, including Hey, Arnold. But moving a TV show to the Big Screen isn't easy and this just didn't feel big enough. It was more like a long episode of the show, and it just didn't move along that well. Judging by the behavior of the kids we had with us, it didn't score that well with them either.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: "Creepshow 2" is little more than a pale imitation of the original, designed with little purpose other than to cash in on the name of the previous film. It even amplifies the flaws of its predecessor, which was often predictable and heavy-handed. Still, the first time around, there were enough thrills to make up for it's periodic lulls, resulting in an uneven but overall fairly entertaining effort. The sequel has few worthwhile moments, so the transparency of the stories are even more apparent. Once in a while, it delivers, but most of the time, it just lingers there.

As in the original, all the stories revolve around the common theme of revenge and just desserts. A wooden Indian comes to life, wreaking vengeance upon the killers of its owner. Teenagers are devoured by an aquatic monster. A hitchhiker returns from the dead to pursue a careless motorist. None of these premises are inherently bad in themselves, but they are utterly lacking in inspiration. There are few surprises and no scares. This a textbook example of unmotivated, by-the-numbers filmmaking. It doesn't help that this cheap-looking movie suffers from a flat directorial style, although to be honest, there wasn't much to work with. In the end, the second story comes off best, but not by much.

For the most part, the performances are okay at best. George Kennedy, as the ill-fated general store owner, does an adequate, if not particularly inspired job. Dorothy Lamour, on the other hand, is quite good as the guilt-ridden motorist, evoking sympathy for her plight despite the predictable, redundant material. However, most of the characters are pretty thin overall.

One would think that "Creepshow 2" would have turned out better. George Romero, who directed the original, returned to pen the screenplay, based on more of Stephen King's stories. Makeup effects artist Tom Savini turns in some good, gory work. So why is the film a letdown? I guess Romero didn't really want to make a second film, but was forced to do so for financial reasons. It was a decade of horror sequels, clones, rip-offs, and whatnot, so this one was certainly inevitable. I can imagine the guy writing the script in a hurry, picking up his paycheck, and running off. I guess he had to do what was necessary to get his own projects financed; we can't blame him.

Rating: *1/2 (out of ****)

Released by New World Pictures
....
output answer:
negative