input: Terrible film with Frank Sinatra as Tony Rome. Here, he gets involved with a dead woman below the sea.

Rome is soon hired to find out what happened to a woman. Naturally, it's the woman below the sea. Her room mate, Lainie Kazan, soon winds up dead on the floor.

An aging Richard Conte plays a police officer and friend of Rome. When a local club owner gets killed, the blame falls on Rome and there becomes an interesting chase scene. That's how bad this picture is if you have to depend on a chase scene to supply the action.

Raquel Welch plays the beauty up to her neck in intrigue. Her acting leads a lot to be desired.

Martin Gabel is a retired hoodlum whose son is trying to outdo him.

By the film's end, you don't know why the girl was murdered. Don't even bother to ask.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

input: About five minutes in, and I saw where this was heading. Bunch of high school kids get annoyed by the school's administration and thoughts of rebellion start fomenting. I said to my girlfriend: if it gets below a 5 on IMDb, I'll go and read a book. It got 5.0, so she persuaded me to go on watching. What are the good things? Well, it is a good thing this film does not have a story, because you would surely be distracted from it by the editing. It's like the student's drawing that was torn up by one of the teachers, all the footage for this film was cut up in a freak accident involving a meat-grinder, and left half the stock destroyed, with the other half spliced into two-second bits. Even in a ten-second scene of the local TV news, there are about six cuts and three different angles. And then there are the montages. These are all set to electronic music, which forewarns you of yet another montage, so that like Pavlov's dog you start cringing every time you hear it, which is about every three minutes. Oh, I was supposed to say what's good about this film. Well, the film was shot very well, with a nice color palette, that nicely matched the emotional content - such as there was - of the scenes. Okay, now with the film's major flaw, and it wasn't the story, or lack thereof. The director made that fatal mistake of leading you astray about people and situations, not by clever storytelling, but by being highly selective about what to show about the main characters. That's just cheating. I guess he did it in order to make the central character more likable. But it just became plain annoying. If the story is full of holes, it's no good trying to patch it up by misdirecting the viewer. And often there wasn't even any point to it. And then the ending. Basically, the main villain of the peace turns out be an okay guy, if a coward. Plus it turns what seemed to be the whole point of the movie, that you should stand up for a just cause on its head, by the already mentioned misdirection, and makes it into a point about the nature of revolutions, that was already made, and much better, by animal farm. It also committed what I call the Bill Cosby sin: no matter how things may seem at first, in the end adults are always right, and children always wrong. And let's face it: unless you're me, that's just not true.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

input: the movie sucked, it wasn't funny, it wasn't exciting. they tried to make it so bad that it would be good, but failed. and thinking it's cool to like this movie, next to the hype, are the only reasons that this movie is a success...

the fact that at this moment 50% voted a 10 out of 10 for this movie seems pretty concerning to me, either the movie going public is going insane or this vote is unrealistic which can have numerous causes, and should be dealt with. anyway it is a less than average movie which bloomed through mouth to mouth advertising. It's success can only be described as a marketing marvel.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

input: It took a long time until I could find the title in a special videothek in Berlin, and I was lucky to find an english version with hollandish undertitles. I think it's one of the best horrormovies ever. It seems strange for me that some people call this movie a black comedy. I must admit, I wasn't able to laugh about, when I saw it the first time (and it was the same with the second time!) On the one hand Trelkovski seems so nice and even cute in his shy behaviour, but on the other hand he beats this boy on the playground and there is no explanation for that. But the most weired thing is of course his transformation in Simone Choule and the fact, that he doesn't know, who he really is. His halluzinations are the most terrifying in this movie. Of course it's all in his mind, but is it this flat that brings out this female side of him or was it also before he moved in - I think that's an interesting question. His shizophrenic behaviour is hard to understand and it's horrible to see his two sides or identities fighting against each other. The result of it is that he cuts his hand first and later jumps out of his/her window. But this terrible cry - does that mean, that all will repeat again and again and again... that his soul is in a cage or something? And these egyptian hieroglyphs and other egyptian stuff ? The fact, that he/she looks like a mummy in the Hospital - that's not an incident, but a clue in my point of view.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans:
positive