input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: The Mummy's Tomb starts with a review of the events in The Mummy's Hand and then moves the story forward several years and across the ocean to the United States of America where the current high priest and the mummy Kharis set out to wreak havoc and take revenge on those who violated the tomb in the past.

While I absolutely loved "The Mummy" with Boris Karloff as the mummy Imhotep, and quite liked "The Mummy's Hand" with Tom Tyler as Kharis (which is the direct prequel to this film), I was not as taken with "The Mummy's Tomb".

It is made in a similar style as the previous film and has a somewhat similar plot albeit in a new setting. Lon Chaney Jr is okay as Kharis, but doesn't really stand out. And I guess that's my main criticism of this movie-that nothing really stands out. There's nothing really terrible here, but nothing really outstanding either, so the viewer is left with a rather bland mummy's tale.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Please, even if you are in the worst of the moods, refrain from watching this flick.

I don't think whether anything was right with this movie at all. On a friend's recommendation I watched this and I literally flushed 1h and 48 min of my life down the closet. Poor acting, stupid direction, weak storyline and pathetic action sequences - and when you blend this together you get "Double Impact". Even least of the expectations were not met.

I guess I did learn one thing - Never watch Van Damme action flicks. They are pure wastage of time !
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: There are really two sections of this film. Firstly there's the laughable prologue to the film which is so hysterical and cornball that it would almost feel appropriate that the 'The Simpsons' Troy McClure should be doing the narration.

Then the rest of the film begins (starting off with a title song which really doesn't fit in with the rest of the film) which, while technically OK, is killed by a vague, inconsistent and unconvincing plot and not just uninteresting characters, but characters that make no sense.

This is especially so with Mickey Rooney's Spiventa, who was supposedly in on the plot and part of the 'organisation' the whole time yet what would have happened had Hackman made the seemingly arbitrary decision to take him along when breaking out? In that case he would've been a totally superfluous and unnecessary character, which in the end he still is.

The overall problem of the film is that it's totally unwilling to put any detail on who or what is behind this conspiracy. It's as if the filmmakers didn't have the courage to imply that a particular section of society would be capable of creating such an organisation and instead settled on the hope that a lack of explanation would suffice and the audience would form their own conclusions.

Put simply, the film fails on all levels.
....
output answer:
negative