input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I really don't get all the adulation that this film has received. It's mawkish, unnecessarily manipulative and dodges many of the big issues - ie Nash's affairs and his predilection for having sex with men in public places. That, I suppose, in the context of a commercial Hollywood film is just about tolerable, but what's with all the praise for Russell Crowe's performance? The man just seems to shuffle about, clutching his briefcase and wearing a grungy hat and somehow that seems to qualify as fine acting? Anyone who has ever known a person with mental health problems will realise that Crowe's performance is little short of caricature. It is also rather offensive. And, dare I say, just on the right side of being truly terrible
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Completely ridiculous "period" film is only a thin excuse for its extensive, graphic depiction of the heroine's affair with "the beast", a monster who supposedly appears every century to rape some women. That's pretty much what he does, and the film's depiction of the beast is really really awful; it's basically a tall guy in a fur suit with a mask and a huge PVC tube for a hard-on that squirts copious amounts of white liquid. For fans of fake animal porn, I guess maybe this is a real turn-on. I was amused, however, by the opening shots of horses having sex in a public square.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Time has not been kind to this movie. Once controversial adaptation of Jeffrey Konvitz' best-seller, now this film looks like a mere mainstream version of your typical spookfest. Gruesome touches aside (particularly that crazy, over the top finale), this is essentially a glossy horror movie for those people that do not care much for the genre. It has an extraordinary cast in small roles (Jose Ferrer, Ava Gardner, Eli Wallach, Burgess Meredith, Christopher Walken, and many others), but something tells me that the producers wanted such an expensive cast in order to convince the audience that this is not your average lowbrow movie (producers of '70s disaster movies had a similar idea). I kind liked to see the familiar faces, but the story is very silly, and no matter how high class the film pretends to be, it operates at the level of your average '70s exploitation movie (not an entirely bad thing, though). Still, it is an enjoyable movie, especially for those viewers who enjoy stargazing. As usual, Albert Whitlock's matte work is outstanding. Overall, pretty entertaining.
....
output answer:
positive