input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Whatever you become in your life,you must never forget that you have roots.This is the story of true facts that was made into a beautiful and moving movie! I dare to say that this movie is well underrated.This shows us a reality of life...the more evil surrounds you ,the better person you become.Trust in your instincts and be aware that the ideal of life is to live it happy...without grudges,without living "under a rock" . The movie concept is more that interesting...connecting the storytelling with real life events...keeping us aware of everything..from facts to emotions! Bless these people and make everyone happy ! See it,i recommend it to all young people.it's not about racism it's about how to live your life !
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I saw Crispin Glover's "What Is It?" at the Ann Arbor film festival. Admittedly, the film was at least aptly named, because I got the distinct sense that even the writer/director could provide no answer. At the question and answer session after the screening, Mr. Glover said that the film was originally meant to be a short film to show the virtue of using actors with down-syndrome. However, this is in itself not enough of a reason to create a film. Actors are, in my opinion, building blocks for a larger vision - a larger vision that seemed muddled at best and absent at worst.

Crispin Glover also said that he wanted to address taboo subjects. Well, he does do that. But why? The film seems to have no stance, no reason for addressing anything. Does he feel these things shouldn't be taboo? The film doesn't even give me an indicator of that. Taboo for the sake of taboo is not interesting. It can't even afford to make the taboo disturbing or inciting on any level because he hasn't made the audience care in any way.

Ignoring problems with the concept for a moment, the thing that actually shocked me most was how poorly the film was put together. The editing, cinematography, and other technical aspects seemed frequently to be extremely amateur. Glover said 125-150 thousand dollars went into the movie, and I feel that the money should have been spent on different designers (Glover actually did some design himself - I know I saw at least sound design in the credits). The painted sets are okay (not great), but used poorly. Parts feel like a photographed stage play - which would be fine if that went to any sort of purpose, but in Glover's hands it just feels sloppy. Other parts are filmed like a sort of Home Movie, of inferior quality to a lot of the stuff I see first-time filmmakers do on iMovie.

Perhaps the biggest problem with "What Is It?" is I can't even understand how seriously the film is to be taken. There are some parts that feel like Glover is screaming at you to think seriously. At other points, he seems off on his own little joke. Perhaps he meant for this to be ironic, or meaningful in some way, but I just felt that Glover couldn't even get himself to give his film any sort of serious attention.

Glover said he originally wanted it to be a short film. If only it had been. At seventy-two minutes, the film runs out of imagery and ideas in the first twenty, and it is arguable if the ideas were formulated enough to claim that they were even there for that period of time.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I am a big fan of Stephen King. I loved The Running Man. So obviously I was very excited that someone had made a film of it. And when a local network showed the film, I was in heaven. I was all ready for a night of fun!

The first indicator that something was wrong was when I noticed that someone had cast Arnold Schwarzenegger. I could simply not believe that a man who got famous for films filled with runnin' an' shootin' could play a more cunning part, as was described in the book. I still was convinced that this would be a good film, however. Who knows, maybe Arnold had some hidden talents?

Well, he didn't. I soon found out that the only reason he was even cast was because someone had re-written the entire story to MAKE it about fightin' an' shootin'. Yup, it was a standard Arnold-film: hero is done wrong, hero solves problems by flexing his mighty muscles and scaring everyone away and hero gets the girl.

I was stunned. This is NOT what the book said at all. I know that books can't be put on screen literally, but this didn't even have ties to the book. Stephen King should have openly denounced any affiliation with the film and he should have forbidden using the title The Running Man for this shameless waste of film. I don't say it often, but this film was BAD. If I weren't at home watching, I'd have tossed rotten tomatoes at the screen. Once again: bad.

(Note that I used 'someone' a lot. I did this because I'm sure a lot of people are ashamed to have worked on this and I don't want to embarrass them even further by naming them here)
....
output answer:
negative