input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: La Coda Dello Scorpione (a.k.a. Case of the Scorpion's Tail) was director Sergio Martino's follow-up to the wonderful giallo Strano vizio della Signora Wardh. This is the quintessential giallo, featuring all the aspects fans of the genre have come to know and love. Twisty plot, beautiful girls, black gloves, sharp blades, and a bit of gore all come together to make one heck of a piece of Italian exploitation.

A group of gialli favorites, both in front of and behind the camera, work to make this one of the best non-Argento gialli around. There's the aforementioned Martino adding his touches as director, giallo great Ernesto Gastaldi as the writer, Bruno Nicolai creating the music, and a host of giallo stars and starlets, such as George Hilton, character actor Luigi Pistilli, and the fetching Anita Strindberg.

With all this talent behind it, does Scorpione deliver? You bet. The film works on many different levels. It's a thrilling murder mystery, a tense and violent horror film, and a suspenseful thriller. All in all one of the best gialli around.

Martino definitely knows what fans want when it comes to gialli. At some points in the film, he almost seems to be channeling Argento in his approach. For example, there is a direct rip-off of the scene in Bird With the Crystal Plumage where the killer tries to break through the door, that actually outdoes Argento's flick.

Are there any problems with the flick? Hmmm... only minor ones. First, any scenes that aren't following the murders or the budding romance between the two leads begin to bore. But just before you fall asleep, the killer will pop out of nowhere and you'll be right back in the swing of things.

Also, towards the end, the twists get a little too bizarre. I mean, what purpose did the scorpion pins really serve? If you don't play close attention to the dialogue, you could easily become lost with the twisting, weaving storyline.

But these minor quibbles aside, La Coda Dello Scorpione is a tense, suspenseful, classy and all around entertaining film for giallo fans. Seek it out!
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: For those fans of Laurel and Hardy, the 1940s and beyond were a very sad time for the team. Their contracts with Hal Roach Studios had expired and now they were "free agents"--able to work for any studio who offered them a job. Unfortunately, Fox, RKO, MGM (without Roach) and even a French film company who hired the boys had absolutely no touch for their comedic talents. Plus, Stan and Ollie were a lot older and seeing these geriatric men taking pratfalls seemed sad, not particularly funny. Stan looked very ragged and Ollie's weight had ballooned up to the point where he could barely walk--and so it made me feel uncomfortable laughing at their very, very sedate antics.

In addition to their age, this particular film suffers because Fox Studios oddly cast them in a supporting role and created a parallel plot involving a young couple--something that reduced their time on screen AND turned them into insipid "hangers on" instead of just being themselves. A cute and cuddly Stan and Ollie is very foreign to the old Laurel and Hardy of the 20s and 30s--and just seemed awfully strange and suited them poorly.

Now even with their age, this COULD have been a decent movie if it had been given decent writing and if it appeared the studio cared--and it's quite obvious they were using the "B unit" here--with, at best, second class support. In particular, there are very few laughs and the last 10 minutes of the film is simply dreadful--relying exclusively on a sloppy rear-projected screen for the stupid chase scene--which might just rank as one of the worst of its kind in film history.

For mind-numbed zombie lovers of Laurel and Hardy, it's probably a film they will love. But, for lovers of the team who are willing to honestly evaluate this film relative to their amazing earlier films, it simply comes up wanting indeed. In fact, of all their full-length films pre-1940, I can't think of one I liked less than DANCING MASTERS. Unfortunately, of the post-1940 films, this might just be one of their better ones. Sadly, it got a lot worse--with wretched films like THE BIG NOISE and NOTHING BUT TROUBLE. I just wish the boys had just retired after SAPS AT SEA.

Finally, I wonder if all the generally positive reviews for this film on IMDb might reflect the reviewers' love of the team more than it's an indication that this is a good film? For an audience who are NOT already in love with the team, I don't know HOW this film will do anything but bore the audience--it certainly WON'T convince anyone that Laurel and Hardy were comedic geniuses. But even comedic geniuses need material worthy of their talents.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: This film is really bad. It maybe harsh, but it is. It really is. Poor script, every vampire cliche in the book is used, and no sympathy is given at all to the origins of the main character ... i.e. ole Dracula. There have been some truly brilliant Dracula/vampire movies in the past, but this doesn't even make it into the "dire" slot.

Take a selection of people who seem to have dropped out of a teen-slasher move, add a dribble of Dracula Lore and mix in a heady tonic of religious/surreal day-dreaming ... and you get a confusing mess of a film - Dracula 2000.

I really cannot find any good things to say about this movie, as if it wasn't bad enough that it was made in the first place, they seem to have made Johnny Lee Miller effect an English accent ... Whats the problem with that I hear you cry ... Well, he is English, but he sounds like an American trying to do an English accent.

All in all you may as well say your money (if you were thinking of buying it), or rent it out, watch it, and discover for yourself why it's about as scary as the Tellytubbies.

P.S. Although La La is pretty frightening!
....
output answer:
negative