input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: there was some truth to this movie. I remember a story reported 15 to 20 years ago of 4 fisherman finding a body in the water and they chose not to report it until their trip was finished. I also recall they were charged with interfering with a corpse (or some such charge). I'm not sure if it was in Australia. The viewers outside of Australia must think we live in a country full of rapists and serial murders. Wolf Creek and this film would encourage this perception. The film itself reminded me of A Simple Plan. But as far a being one of the best Australian films ever, as someone claimed, I can't be that generous. Put it this way, I wouldn't bother watching it again.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: This was a well written tale of the Making of the Batman Sitcom and actually reunites our heroes on a great quest as well as offers their TV shows history. Unlike the Brady's and Partridge family documentary movies we not only get a look into the past and present lives of Adam and Burt , but also get to see them back in action. Filled with Kapow's and catwomen and the Riddler(s), Batman is back ina well told , tale that not only gives us a satisfactory closing to the Batman series , but fills the modern fan in on all the hollywood tales that about them that haven't been heard in 35 years.

Kudos!!!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: A bit of a disappointing film, I'd say: the acting was stilted, somehow. In many cases, I just couldn't feel that the facial expressions matched the words spoken or the intent of the scene. An angry (or sad, happy, frustrated) character should make the viewer believe that he's angry (or sad, happy, frustrated). That doesn't happen here.

The comment about the writers assuming you already know the characters was apt. They do things and say things which come out of nowhere: the character Andrew accuses his parents of sending signals to each other at dinner; then he blows up and storms out, telling his father "Don't touch me, you f***!". Maybe, if we'd seen the prequel, we would understand where all that comes from, but there is no prequel, so we're somewhat at sea as to the reason!

One odd, quirky thing that Andrew does is to go to an old stone quarry, sit down on the edge overlooking the "still water" below; then he reaches into his jeans pocket and extracts a pack of cigarettes and lights one up. He did this same thing three times during the film; I guess we're supposed to see this as some tortured act of being alone and angry? Maybe once, but three times? It might even have been four times, I lost count.

To be honest, there is the fact that he's recently found out that he's adopted; this happens very early in the film so there's no sense of any dramatic change he might be undergoing because of this discovery. It's not really clear if that's why he's so bitter or if it's about something else.

I guess there is a sort of Lynchian feel to the film but should a first-time director really be trying to scale such a mountain so early in his career?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer:
negative