input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Rating: 4 out of 10

As this mini-series approached, and we were well aware of it for the last six months as Sci-Fi Channel continued to pepper their shows with BG ads, I confess that I felt a growing unease as I learned more.

As with any work of cinematic art which has stood up to some test of time, different people go to it to see different things. In this regard, when people think of Battlestar Galactica, they remember different things. For some it is the chromium warriors with the oscillating red light in their visor. For others, it is the fondness that they held for special effects that were quite evolutionary for their time. Many forget the state of special effects during the late 70s, especially those on television. For some the memories resolve around the story arc. Others still remember the relationships how how the relationships themselves helped overcome the challenges that they faced.

Frankly, I come from the latter group. The core of Battlestar Galactica was the people that pulled together to save one another from an evil empire. Yes, evil. The Cylons had nothing to gain but the extermination of the human race yet they did it. While base stars were swirling around, men and women came together to face an enemy with virtually unlimited resources, and somehow they managed to survive until the next show. They didn't survive because they had better technology, or more fire power. They survived because they cared for and trusted each other to get through to the next show.

The show had its flaws, and at times was sappy, but they were people you could care about.

The writers of this current rendition seemed to never understand this. In some ways he took the least significant part of the original show, the character's names and a take on the story arc and crafted what they called nothing less than a reinvention of television science fiction. Since that was their goal, they can be judged on how well they accomplished it: failure. It was far from a reinvention. In fact it was in many ways one of the most derivitive of science fiction endeavors in a long time. It borrows liberally from ST:TNG, ST:DS9, Babylon 5, and even Battlefield Earth. I find that unfortunate.

Ronald D. Moore has been a contributor to popular science fiction for more than a decade, and has made contribution to some of the most popular television Science Fiction that you could hope to see. One of the difficulties that he appears to have had was that there could be no conflict in the bridge crew of the Enterprise D & E. That was the inviolable rule of Roddenberry's ST:TNG. Like many who have lived under that rules of others who then take every opportunity to break the rules when they are no longer under that authority, Ron Moore seems to have forgotten some of the lessons he learned under the acknowledged science fiction master: Gene Roddenberry. Here, instead of writing the best story possible, he has created a dysfuntional cast as I have ever seen with the intent of creating as much cast conflict as he could. Besides being dysfunctional, some of it was not the least bit believable. Anyone who has ever been in the military knows that someone unprovokedly striking a superior officer would not get just a couple of days "in hack," they could have gotten execution, and they never would have gotten out the next day. It wouldn't have happened, period, especially in time of war.

The thing that I remembered most of Ron Moore's earlier work was that he was the one who penned the death of Capt. James Kirk. He killed Capt. Kirk, and, alas for me, he has killed Battlestar Galactica.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: When I went to watch this movie my expectations were really low, but I was pleasantly surprised.

I thought I was going to watch a boring teen-flick, BUT in fact the plot is interesting and well executed, the acting was somewhat convincing - especially from Melville who really shows his talent in this movie, and the fight scenes were - for a low budget movie - very well done .

I think this movie deserves a broader audience than it has received. It is a movie, which can be seen by the whole family - maybe not the smallest of kids, since it contains some rather rough scenes. A movie about love, and the problems that can occur, when you go against your family traditions.

Yes, the movie is very much like "Bend it like Beckham", but I actually think this movie pulls it off better.
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: JUST CAUSE is a flawed but decent film held together by strong performances and some creative (though exceedingly predictable) writing. Sean Connery is an anti-death penalty crusader brought in to save a seemingly innocent young black man (Blair Underwood) from the ultimate penalty. To set things right, Connery ventures to the scene of the crime, where he must contend not only with the passage of time, but a meddling sheriff (Laurence Fishbourne). Twists and turns and role reversals abound -- some surprising, some not -- as the aging crusader attempts to unravel the mystery. The climactic ending is a bit ludicrous, but JUST CAUSE is worth a look on a slow night.
....
output answer:
positive