input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I really wanted to like this movie, but it was just imposable. The acting was ultra hammy, the plot was annoying, and the pace was SLOW, sooo slowwwwww. The whole time sitting in the theater i wanted the movie to end. Twenty minuets into a films and I'm praying for an ending. Sure some of the visuals were nice, but c'mon guys, I mean really! And for a movie about a guy tuning magical instruments there really wasn't much music to speak of. The music there was was annoying, and boring. There were sound loud shrill sounds at times too, those were also annoying. Mainly this film managed to bore me, and creep me out at the same time.

I'm glad its over. I need to go see "Tideland" and wash this bad taste out of my mouth.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I saw this movie way back when it premiered.

It was based on the notion that autistic children could communicate with typed-out messages with someone else merely aiding them and guiding their hands.

Then suddenly these children, many of whom weren't even observing the keyboard or the screen when the messages were being typed out (they could be looking up at the ceiling in some instances), but their moderators were eyes glued on the keyboard, began typing messages of abuse from their parents and other persons, sending parents and child welfare agencies in a proberbial tizzy, left and right.

This whole thing was proved a fallacy when a third person presented a folder, opened it to the child and said 'type the picture you see', then as the presenter turned the folder to the moderator, a fold would fall down, revealing another different picture.

So while the child may have seen a dog, the moderator saw something like a boat.

Every time, every bloomin' time, the name of the picture typed was what the moderator had observed, never what the child was shown.

So who was doing the typing? Never the child.

This movie further took a disastrous turn with, as the Australia poster stated, the person who molested the child in the movie was IN the situation trying to help the child.

Had Melissa Gilbert never put her son IN that place, he wouldn't have been molested, is what the movie says. He was better off under her supervision.

If I turn my kid over to your organization for aid and he gets molested instead, do you think I'm going to be keen to listen to anything you have to say after that? Not likely! I think it is a safe bet that all of these accusatory messages that these kids were typing out, that this movie was based on, they never accused someone within their operation as took place here.

Unfortunately, I do recall that the movie gave a very good performance from Gilbert as the mother of an autistic, but other than that, the movie really didn't do much.

The worst by far was the child typing at the end to Patty Duke, and we hear the mechanical voice read back what he typed, . . . . . "we won!" This child was molested. If you cut my leg off and I take you to court and you are found guilty of damaging me, assault, whatever, then that is legal justice, but it doesn't bring my leg back.

At best, in my condition, I will view it as a hollow victory.

Whatever chance this child had at what is perceived as normalcy with the autism alone is further damaged by the molestation.

A 'normal' child has enough to contend with from such an experience.

It's utterly superficial to think that you must look upon any situation and go 'we won' if that person is found guilty in court.

Just a bad handling of a situation and circumstances all the way around here.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: While the British produced some hilarious and slick sitcoms in the 1990s - Ab Fab, Men Behaving Badly, One Foot in the Grave, etc. - the 70s were the real golden age.

In the 1970s there were whole new territories to explore, including the sexual revolution, feminism, and the slowly evolving awareness of a need for "sensitivity" that would, twenty years later, become Political Correctness. Attempts to grapple with the confusion of this thoroughly modern world were the subtle and not-so-subtle themes in everything from the skits of Monty Python's Flying Circus to sitcoms like Man About the House. (By the late 70s this "grappling" resulted in more meditative and bitter-sweet sitcoms such as the masterpiece Butterflies.)

Man About the House is a perfect example of the good Britcoms of the time - slightly genteel, cheeky, fresh, ingenuous, sometimes outrageous, with some well made observations on contemporary life. Compare it to a cynical 90s show such as Ab Fab, and it is hard to believe the two were created in the same country.

Man About the House is one of the great Britcoms of the 70s, right up there with Good Neighbors (The Good Life), and About the House's spin off George and Mildred. Its quality is attested to by the fact that - as with Good Neighbors - its creators, writers, and many of its cast have had continued success in British television.
....
output answer:
positive