input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Movies about dinosaurs can be entertaining. So can Whoopi Goldberg movies. But Whoopi AND dinosaurs?

After the first 20 minutes of "Theodore Rex", I had come to one conclusion: this movie is evil. Evil, vile, wicked and reprehensible in its spite for the audience. Nothing this bad is made by accident; this is the visual equivalent of a torture chamber.

First of all, Whoopi does not make good action movies (watch "Fatal Beauty" if you think I'm lying), but the film makers don't care - she's a tough cop here, yet again.

Seen a million cop buddy flicks this week? Well, here's number one million and one, pal.

Don't like cute, humanistic animated dinosaurs since that Spielberg TV show about them? Too bad, here's another one and he's a cop, too!

You one of those people that hates car chases, shoot-outs, sloppy dialogue, boring futuristic FX and seeing talented people (Goldberg, Mueller-Stahl, Roundtree) stuck in a movie that looks like a tax write-off? A BIG tax write-off?

And you read this review all the way to the end. You DESERVE a sequel. Seriously.

No stars, not a one. And if they really make a sequel to "Theodore Rex", Hollywood deserves to be attacked a whole herd of wise-cracking foam rubber dinosaurs.

Now, I'd pay to see that.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I have to say this is an awful movie, for the mere fact that when you see this movie on the guide, it is listed as a documentary. As I watched it, I started laughing, thinking to myself, does this guy actually expect me to believe this is real? So I had to look it up, and now see that it is a movie, but now since it isn't a documentary, it is now a movie with bad acting. SO, either way, it is pretty bad. I actually didn't make it to the end. I had to shut it off. I am a NYC Police Officer, and felt that someone was trying to mislead people into thinking this is a documentary, with the intentions of making money off of a terrible day for me and my coworkers. So, I took it a little personal. Maybe I was blinded by that, and it isn't as bad as I personally think it is. Everyone has their own opinion.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: First of all, DO NOT call this a remake of the '63 film. Even though this version is truer to the stage play, it is Extremely long. The casting was good with some exceptions. Chyna Phillips was not a good casting choice. She was almost 30 when she did this film, and it was hard to believe she was a teenager. Jason Alexander was good choice, but after a while he gave me a headache. Tyne Daly overdoes her part as Mae Peterson. George Wendt was funny as Harry McAffee, and showed he could even hold a tune. Like the '63 film, they casted an unknown to play Conrad Birdie. Marc Kudisch had fun with his role as Birdie and it showed. I even have the soundtrack and i love listening to his singing. So what made this a TV ratings flop? It was lengthy for one. They put in new songs and scenes. Even though some of the new songs were good (like "Let's Settle Down"), was it really necessary? Now don't get me wrong, I liked it, but I rather watch the '63 film (see my review). This was just a case of some actors overdoing roles, making some changes, and once again, LENGTH. One more thing I forgot to mention is Vanessa Williams. She does a good job with the role and the music. Give her any lyrics and she could sing them. So here is my advice coming from someone who's done a couple productions of Bye Bye Birdie: If you want to watch an entertaining take on the play, watch the '63 film. If you want to watch a version that is truer to the play, watch the '95 version. Just take it in moderation though. Don't be a hero and try watch it all in one sitting.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer:
positive