input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: This has got to be one of my very favorite Twilight Zone episodes, primarily for the portrayal of two lonely souls in a post-apocalyptic environment.

The cobweb-strewn shops and rubble-laden streets are eerie in that particular way the Twilight Zone does best.

While the parable can be a bit heavy-handed by today's drama standards, it is an excellent one - using the setting to make a statement relevant to the human experience, as well as geopolitics, in a way that is timeless. The entire drama rests solely on the shoulders of Mr. Bronson and Ms. Montgomery, who do not disappoint. (May they both rest in peace.)

A true classic.
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: This was the worst movie I have ever seen and I've seen a lot of bad movies. First of I'm from Kansas this movie does not have a shred of truth in it at all. Its like they took BTK name and made up the rest. On top of that it looks like someone was like I've only got $20 bucks here take it and make a movie and oh yeah don't worry about researching btk at all just make up something. seriously pure dookie no one should ever see this movie. The slaughtering cows scenes and making his victims eat stuff and describing animal slaughter BTK did none of these things but the movie does so for the love of god never see this god awful movie. The made for TV ones are way better and way more accurate
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: THE PERVERT'S GUIDE TO CINEMA (2007) ****

If Loving Cinema Makes Me A Pervert, So Be It!

If you are a true 'moviefreak' like me then I'm sure you can't get enough of films about film-making and I don't mean necessarily the dry documentary know and then. I mean a total discourse on the film viewing experience. Well if that's the case have I got a lulu of a film experiment for you.

In Sophie Fiennes (sister of Ralph & Joseph if you were wondering) has noted philosopher cum cinephile Slavoj Zizek give his analysis on cinema with some impressive (and often outrageous) takes on everything from the silent era of Chaplin thru the modern age of the Wachowski Brothers analyzing, probing, and pontificating about the psychosexual underpinnings, socioeconomic, political and of course indefinable magic of the film going experience with his unflagging, determined and near-frenetic dissertations. To go from explaining how The Bates' house in PSYCHO is actually the mirrored psyche of the conflicted Norman Bates with each level as his Ego, Superego & Id is one thing but then to suggest the same thing about each Marx Brother in barely a beat is a remarkable test of faith that wins over the skeptic layman.

Although I had no idea who Zizek was he resembles a hybrid of filmmaker Brian DePalma, European actor Rade Serbedzija and the hyperkinetic energy of filmmakers Quentin Tarantino and Martin Scorsese with his sibilant tongue and passion, the host comes across as a mad prophet.

Fiennes cleverly inserts Zizek into several of the film clips' backgrounds peppered throughout making for a humorous tone but still lets the ranting and raving continue full throttle giving pause for argument in three acts covering the gamut of films by the likes of Kubrick, Lynch, Hitchcock and films as diverse as THE WIZARD OF OZ, THE RED SHOES, and FIGHT CLUB.

There's something for everyone and if one man can provoke an argument or at least a reason to discuss a film's themes even if they are Freudian/Jungian to a fault then I say this collection of film theory is worth the watch. Seek it out now if you can before it comes to home video; it's the only way to appreciate it.
....
output answer:
positive