input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Since my third or fourth viewing some time ago, I've abstained from La Maman et la putain while I wait for the DVD. In the meantime, I've read the french screenplay as well as Alain Philippon's monograph on Jean Eustache. The latter ends with a frustrating filmography, eleven films, fiction, doc, and in-between, impossible to see or, in the cases of Mes petites amoureuses and Le Pere Noel..., re-see.

A few questions that hit me this moment: Polish Veronika's French is plenty colloquial (un maximum d' "un maximum d'"). Even so, does she have an accent? I think I can tell she does. What does the absence of color add, especially at the single spot the fringe of the city is glimpsed? How does this fringe differ from the sleep and journey that separates worlds of The Tempest and The Winter's Tale? Ditto Alphaville. We may imagine the elapsed years since have done it, but does Eustache deliberately circumscribe the film's milieu? Is this an enchanted isle? Is Alexandre's a fairy tale? Alexandre's always choreographing himself, worrying about how or where to stand or walk, what to say when, announcing these decisions to who have to care less than he does what he does. Or is this his way of trying to choreograph others by doing it to himself? How different is he from Vertigo's Scottie? (I say, I think, very.) What's the difference, and is there one, between Eustache's Leaud, and Truffaut's, and Godard's? How different is the present Leaud? Isn't he still doing it, whatever it is, in recent roles, Irma Vep, Le Pornographe, whatever, approaching old age? Once I arrived early for one in a series of mostly Antoine Doinel (Leaud's character) Truffaut films. For a long while, every three or five minutes, down the aisle would come a twenty-something male in scarf, tweedy coat, Leaud hair, with a direction-seeking nose. I have no idea whether this was conscious or unconscious mimicry. I was that age, but have no idea what I myself looked like then. No scarf, at least. I do have a brother, though, who seems to have learned his carriage from Bresson.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: This is one of those films that I could only sit through once. Charlotte Henry is fine -- in fact, all the actors were fine. The problem was in the script, the dialog, the direction, the editing, the sets and the special effects. Granted, this was 1933, but it really creaked. Part of the problem is that actors like Richard Arlen, Gary Cooper, W.C. Fields and Cary Grant are not recognizable (there faces cried for a recognition that was not forthcoming). The movie just clumped along with no cohesion. Much of Lewis Carrols spirit, humor and continuity are missing. What a pity! It's such a great book. I would recommend Disney's 1951 version.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Working at a video store I get to see quite a few movies and on occasion I try to watch some of the not so big movies. Proud happened to be one of them. The initial idea of telling of the story of a primarily black crewed ship during WWII had some merit. However in less than 10 minutes of watching the movie you find out that the primary point of the movie was to tell about racial tension in WWII. The underlying story is about the ship, the crew and their exploits in the war. This primary point is hammered at you to the point of excessiveness all throughout the movie. I commend the men that served on the USS Mason for their triumph in the face of adversity and for the hardships that they endured. A movie should have been made focusing on the accomplishments these men did for themselves, the Navy and for their country and not making a movie whose focus is racism during WWII.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer:
negative