input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: This is so incredibly bad. Poor actors. You can tell they're trying really hard to polish a turd, but we all know you can't. The writing is so obvious and facile, it's sad watching them try to sell it. The humor and pacing are so labored, it's hard to believe any of these good actors signed on for this.

That said, it's so awful that we're having a hard time looking away from the screen. We just have to know where this trainwreck goes. But that's only because we caught it on TV. If we had actually PAID for this, we'd be disgusted.

So it gets 2 stars for being at least amusingly/fascinatingly bad. And the incidental music (as opposed to the trying-too-hard indie soundtrack) is laughably reminiscent of an episode of Scooby-Doo... but not as good.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Director/star Clint Eastwood's "Sudden Impact" is an intriguing addition to the "Dirty Harry" series - a combination of crude film-making and genius. It's mediocre and silly in parts, brilliant and classic in others, with compelling, gripping pacing. There are numerous echoes of the first film here - the shoot 'em up "Make my day" scene recalls the "Do you feel lucky" one, one of the villains is as viscerally repugnant as the first film's Scorpio, an actor who played a minor baddie in the first one returns here as Harry's partner - just to name a few.

Harry Callahan is still at odds with the higher-ups in the department, still mean, still tough, but now he's older and wearier. His constant conflicts with his superiors are a metaphor for his inner conflict - a respect and reverence for the law versus a desire to serve the pure spirit of justice, the two things not always being compatible. This "incompatibility" is the underlying theme of the series. The first film posed a simple question, "What about the victim's rights?" - (do they outweigh those of the criminal? Vice versa? Depends?). That film's answer was controversial, prompting a sequel (the highly enjoyable "Magnum Force") which set out to draw the line between Harry's brand of justice and pure, heartless vigilantism. Dirty Harry, like many of Clint's other roles, is the personification of vengeance, the protector of the the defenseless. This movie however brings it back to the victim, in this case Jennifer (portrayed by Sondra Locke), who decides to avenge the rape of herself and her now-incapacitated sister by ruthlessly hunting down and ritualistically executing the men (and one woman) who committed the crime.

Without going into a play-by-play of the whole movie, I will say this - I mentioned earlier that "Sudden Impact" echoes the first film - it actually also sprinkles in little references and in-jokes from the whole series (the confusion concerning the captain's last name is an example - an intentional prank, I believe). The relationship between Callahan and Jennifer is neat - has our rogue cop hero found a soul-mate in this lady vigilante? And is she a vigilante or a victim justifiably standing up for her and her sister's tarnished rights? The exchange between these two at the very end of the film is a poetic denouement of the series, one which I personally (as a fan) found quite moving. That last scene alone makes Sudden Impact the legitimate climax to the "Dirty Harry" collection, the perfect answer to the conflict posed in the first film. (Not to knock "The Dead Pool" - that excellent movie was a relatively light-hearted suspenseful yet comic thriller featuring Harry Callahan, rather than a character-defining film like this one).

This movie did well in the theaters - audiences in the Reagan Era found Harry and his ilk quite appealing, and the President himself frequently quoted "Go ahead, make my day."
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: This review may contain some spoilers.

The remake of the classic 1974 car chase movie Gone in 60 Seconds begins well. Actually it is well acted and the plot moves quite well. But even a big Hollywood budget doesn't change the fact that the original plot was more believable. For those who don't know, the original plot had the thieves working as insurance inspectors. Who would suspect them. But even with a change to nearly every aspect of H.B. Halicki's original, the remake is a very good movie, until we get to the final chase scene, the part of the 74 version that made it great. The one in this version is watered down, only 10 minutes, and it culminates in a monster special effect that takes all believability out of the chase. Where the original chase was very believable, the star was a stunt driver who did all his own stunt, the remake falls flat in the last 15 minutes. My advice, if you want to watch a classic car chase film, fine the original in the bargain bin at your local rental joint and stay clear of the new remake.
....
output answer:
negative