input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: En route to a small town that lays way off the beaten track (but which looks suspiciously close to a freeway), a female reporter runs into a strange hitch-hiker who agrees to help direct her to her destination. The strange man then recounts a pair of gruesome tales connected to the area: in the first story, an adulterous couple plot to kill the woman's husband, but eventually suffer a far worse fate themselves when they are attacked by a zombie; and in the second story, a group of campers have their vacation cut short when an undead outlaw takes umbrage at having his grave peed on.

The Zombie Chronicles is an attempt by writer Garrett Clancy and director Brad Sykes at making a zombie themed anthologya nice idea, but with only two stories, it falls woefully short. And that's not the only way in which this low budget gore flick fails to deliver: the acting is lousy (with Joe Haggerty, as the tale-telling Ebenezer Jackson, giving one of the strangest performances I have ever seen); the locations are uninspired; the script is dreary; there's a sex scene with zero nudity; and the ending.... well, that beggars belief.

To be fair, some of Sykes' creative camera-work is effective (although the gimmicky technique employed as characters run through the woods is a tad overused) and Joe Castro's cheapo gore is enthusiastic: an ear is bitten off, eyeballs are plucked out, a face is removed, brains are squished, and there is a messy decapitation. These positives just about make the film bearable, but be warned, The Zombie Chronicles ain't a stroll in the park, even for seasoned viewers of z-grade trash.

I give The Zombie Chronicles 2/10, but generously raise my rating to 3 since I didn't get to view the film with the benefit of 3D (although I have a sneaking suspicion that an extra dimension wouldn't have made that much of a difference).
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I saw The Big Bad Swim at the 2006 Temecula film festival, and was totally caught off guard by how much I was drawn into it.

The film centers around the lives of a group of people taking an adult swim class for various reasons. A humorous idea in its own right, the class serves as a catalyst for greater changes in the students' lives.

What surprised me about the film was how real it felt. Rarely in ensemble pieces are characters treated so well. I enjoyed the scenes in the class immensely, and the drama that took place outside was very poignant. Nothing seemed out of place or out of character, and ultimately it left a very strong feeling, much like attending school or summer camp - where you find fast friends, form strong bonds, and make discoveries about yourself, yet have to depart all too soon.

My only complaint was that the character of Paula had a very strong and unusual introduction, which made you want to know a little more about her than was ultimately revealed. I suppose you don't get to meet everyone in class, though...

Aside from this, I found the film very well-rounded and quite enjoyable. See it if you get the opportunity.
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: An actor asks, "What's my motivation?," to understand his or her character. After viewing this this "docudrama," this vague and haphazard farce, a viewer wonders what anyone's motivation was.

This inept offspring of daytime T.V. (the Oprah show) missed by a mile a great opportunity to explore weighty issues.

Its characters were all shallow and superficial, its story line far less socially redeeming than a "Simpsons" episode. It gratuitously portrayed investigating police as unprofessional and incompetent. It failed to offer why the court might treat the main character, a female child molester, so differently than it would have a male perp.

Why did this unrepentant woman begin "grooming" her second grade student, beginning an affair with him when he returned to her sixth grade class? Why did the boy's mother testify in her behalf? The simple answer is overwhelming narcissism, plus generational rationalization and greed. The movie gave no hint of that.

Why wasn't the viewer informed that the victim's mother sold interview rights to print and television tabloids, parading her adolescent son on "The Today Show"? That Mary Kay's lawyer cashed in, she herself appealing a "Son of Sam" statute so she could benefit from her crime by selling her story to the highest bidder?

Why wasn't it explained that LeTourneau's father was a former right wing Republican congressman, the 1972 American Independent Presidential candidate, the John Birch Society President? In 1983 John Schmitz's political career ended when he was found to have had children by his own community college student, exposed only when that mistress sexually mutilated their infant son? Yet Letourneau's dad had removed his many kids from "too liberal" Catholic schools, fighting to keep all schoolchildren from receiving any sex education?

A month after her conditional release, again pregnant with the now 14-year-old's second daughter, Mary Kay received 7 1/2 years in prison for numerous probation violations. A prophetic editorial regarding the sad affair then appeared in the Seattle Times: "At the end of two wretched hours, LeTourneau was led off to jail, and this salacious melange of made-for-TV seaminess was over, until casting begins."

Sure enough, 18 months later, filming of this travesty was underway.
....
output answer:
negative