input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: This Charles outing is decent but this is a pretty low-key performance. Marlon Brando stands out. There's a subplot with Mira Sorvino and Donald Sutherland that forgets to develop and it hurts the film a little. I'm still trying to figure out why Charlie want to change his name. Every movie with "Charles" has been pretty bad.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: First off, I'd like to say that the user comments alone left me with tears in my eyes from laughing. One comment that bad SF movies become good comedies is right on the mark. MST3000 made it's living off that.

If you look at THE ANGRY RED PLANET as the fever dream of a 10 year old comic book reader from 1959, you'll have the handle on this sucker. All the elements are there: the pseudoscience, occasionally logical, more often hilariously infantile. The adolescent boy attitude toward sex, with the "gigolo" captain (good call on that one, guys!) making eyes at the buxom "scientist" with hair so red it's a wonder it doesn't set off the fire alarms. The ridiculous conception of Mars as a planet so alien that everything glows red, yet one alien monster has a mouse face, and the blob alien has an eye that rotates like a kid's toy. The comic relief, an overweight astronaut (!) who sounds like he never finished the 8th grade in Brooklyn and has a psychotic fixation on his ray gun. And of course, the mere fact that alien = dangerously evil. If these people had met E.T., they would have roasted him in two seconds flat! "OW" indeed!

Don't get me wrong. I rated this movie low. Still, it's never boring (except when the scientist tries to explain everything - only to make it all sound more and more ridiculous), and you have to admit, in your little kid core, it makes you jump a few times.

Okay, then don't admit it. I guess you were never 10.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I was excited when I heard they were finally making this horrific event into a movie. The whole era (1980's Southern California) and subject matter (drug and porn industry) is intriguing to me. I thought this would be a sure fire hit. I was not thrilled with the choice of Kilmer as Holmes, they do not resemble each other in physical appearance or mannerisms. I guess he sells tickets? However, I was willing to overlook this and give it a fair shot. I was a bit shocked that there were only like four other people in the entire theater with me on that first day of showing. Now the whole crime and story in the film is hard to do, I will admit that. There were no witnesses to this very violent and brutal act. John Holmes was there, but he was also a pathological liar and worried about what would happen to his family (and self) if he talked to police about it. In fact, Holmes never really testified about what happened and the crime did go unsolved. So this was still really one big mystery, a mystery that this movie does nothing to cast light on. The person writing the screenplay had a whole lot of discretion and most of the principal characters are dead. However, there is no real storyline, it is fragmented claptrap. The script is light and the actors try to hard to beef up paper thin lines by overacting. The film gives no insight into Holmes or the other people involved. Kilmer's character disappears for long stretches, his girlfriend is dull, the police are jokes. Even Kudrow tries hard to make a flimsy role look substantial. It is a very shallow piece and dare I say, boring. The director even tries to turn it into a love story. Which is nice, unless you know anything about what a piece of trash John Holmes really was. Perhaps a couple of viewings of Anderson's "Boogie Nights" might have helped here. "Boogie Nights" was innovative and exciting in all regards. This film on the other hand was flat and without any real charm or style. Even the music is out of place, with Duran Duran being played in a scene that was supposed to have taken place in 1980. Then we have Gordon Lightfoot? Gordon Lightfoot? There could have been a great film based on this gruesome event, but I have not seen it yet. I have not seen even a decent one yet (unless you consider the Rahad Jackson scene from Boogie Nights).
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer:
negative