input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Okay, let me coin a new word here: polyphobia: The fear of polyamorous relationships. This is yet another in a long line of movies which start out by titillating audiences about some kind of threesome, only to turn on a dime and go all preachy about how it is oh so necessary and the only moral thing to find a monogamistic solution. Only one person in a thousand understands the delight of being able to love more than one person, and this director is not one of them. Bleh.

Mark my words: a few decades from now, polyphobia is going to be just as big a faux-pas as homophobia, but guess who was too close-minded to realize this? Right the first time: the producers of this movie. And so many like it. Why even make a ridiculously conservative and old-fashioned type of movie like this? Priding itself on being limitlessly open-minded about gayness, it completely overlooks the fact that we live in an age where monogamy is turning into sequential monogamy, which in turn in turning into swinging and polyamory. Open your eyes, people, please!

This is a disappointing, run-of-the-mill chick-flick. (But, damn, I gotta say, Heather Graham is the cutest thing alive.)

3 out of 10.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: After perusing the large amount of comments on this movie it is clear that there are two kinds of science fiction movie-goers. There are the ones who are well read, extremely literate, and intelligent. They know the history of the genre and more importantly they know to what heights it can reach in the hands of a gifted author. For many years science fiction languished in the basement of literature. Considered my most critic to be little more than stories of ray guns and aliens meant for pre-pubescent teenagers. Today's well read fan knows well this history, and knows the great authors Asimov, Heinlein, Bradbury, and Ellison, who helped bring science fiction out of that basement. In doing so they created thought provoking, intelligent stories that stretched the boundaries and redefined the human condition. This well informed fans are critical of anything Hollywood throws at them. They are not critical for it's own sake, but look upon each offering with a skeptical eye. (As they should as Hollywood's record has been less than stellar.) To these fans the story must take supreme importance. They cannot be fooled by flashy computer graphics, and non stop action sequences. When the emperor has no clothes they scream it the loudest.

The second type of science fiction movie goer has little knowledge about the written aspect of the genre. (Look at many of the above comments that state "Well I haven't read the book or anything by this author...) Their total exposure to science fiction is from movies or the Scifi channel. They are extremely uncritical, willing to overlook huge plot holes, weak premises, and thin story lines if they are given a healthy dose of wiz bang action and awesome special effects. They are, in effect, willing to turn off their critical thinking skills (or maybe they never had them!) for the duration of the movie. Case in point, I Robot. While supposedly based on Asimov's short stories and named after one of his novels, it contains little of what Asimov wrote and even less of what he tried to tell us about humanity and our robotic creations. (Those of you that will run out and buy I, Robot will be very much surprised-this movie isn't even based on that story at all!)

The film has enormous plot holes, that at some points are stretched to the limits of credulity. I won't point them out. I won't spoon feed you. You need to practice you thinking skills and discover them for yourself. The characters, which are named after many of Asimov's characters, do not possess the critical intelligence that was a hallmark of his stories. The plot itself with all it's action sequences goes against everything that the author stood for. His belief that humanity possesses the capacity to solve problems using their minds, not their fists, is vital to understanding his vision of the future. In short, other than the name, their is very little of Isaac in anything about this movie. There will always be those uncritical (i.e. unthinking) who will state: "The movie doesn't have to be like the book. Due to the medium, movies sometimes require that changes be made." But what about a case where the movie never even tried to stay close to the book (or books) from the start? What if all they took from the written work was the title? This begs the question: Why tarnish a great body of work by slapping it's title on your vacuous piece of crap? Save money and don't buy the rights to the works. Title it something else. Don't use the character's names. Believe me no one will accuse you of plagiarism. In fact it won't matter what you title it to the unread moviegoer who accepts everything you throw at him. But it will upset those who read, who think, who are unwilling to simply let you give them a pretty light show.

I, Robot, like much of Hollywood's take on the genre, pushes Science fiction back down into that basement it lived in years ago. Hollywood could not do this alone. It takes an uncritical mindless audience that will accept puerile dredge like this.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Having seen and loved Greg Lombardo's most recent film "Knots" (he co-wrote and directed that feature as well), I decided to check out his earlier work, and this movie was well worth the effort and rental. Macbeth in Manhattan is a tongue in cheek, excellent take on the Shakespeare favorite, updated and moved to NYC. I was impressed by the underlying wit and intelligence of the script and was wowed by the way the storyline of the production in the movie mirrors the storyline of the play itself - and very cleverly at that. The trials and tribulations of life in Manhattan parallel many a Shakespeare play, and Central Park was rarely put to better use than as the woods around Macbeth's castle. Mr. Lombardo obviously has a fond place in his heart for New York and New York stories (Knots is a funny and warm sex comedy about six thirty-something New Yorkers set primarily in a charming Brooklyn neighborhood, with Manhattan offices and a downtown loft thrown in for good measure) and has spent considerable time around the plays of Shakespeare. The movie is well-paced and the story reflects a deep understanding of the essential drama at the core of Macbeth. It reminded me of Al Pacino's "Looking for Richard" - another wonderful Shakespeare "play within a movie." I highly recommend checking out Macbeth in Manhattan.
....
output answer:
positive