input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: This is a bad movie in the traditional sense, but taken for what it is meant to be it is quite good. Very funny and well made, although there are a few death scenes that are in bad taste, what with jiggling breasts as a girl suffocates and so on.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: ATTENTION, SPOILER!

Many people told me that "Planet of the Apes" was Tim Burton's worst movie and apart from that much weaker than the original film. So I decided not to see it. Another friend of mine who hadn't seen the movie yet, advised me to watch it in spite of this because 'a Tim-Burton-movie is still a Tim-Burton-movie'. I decided to do it, and I found that he was right.

It's clear that a remake of such a famous film as 'Planet of the Apes' is automatically influenced by commercial thinking. Still, Tim Burton managed his film to represent his weird playfulness just as well as 'Beetlejuice' or 'Batman'. If you are already fond of Burton-movies, it's hard not to like one of his films, even if it has some flaws: nerve-racking monkey squeals, over-dressed apes and a leading actor who could have been, without difficulties, replaced by anbody else.

What the film gives us in the first place, is an answer to the question: What's the result when Tim Burton is instructed to create a remake? First of all, Burton wouldn't be Burton, if he wouldn't refuse to call it a remake from the start; it's a 're-imagining'. On the other hand, Burton knows that almost every viewer of his movie has seen the very first film version starring Charlton Heston (as human), and he knows that a remake doesn't exist without its model and that the two films will not stop being compared. So all he does is playing with this comparison at every moment of his film, e. g. by referencing to quotes. Concerning the story-line, Burton does a brilliant job by answering open questions of the original first, and then driving the whole audience to despair by destroying this wonderful clarity and ending the movie with AND HERE IS THE SPOILER Leo coming back to earth and finding himself inside a world that seems to have been ruled by apes forever.

Now, this is the burtonesque answer to people's expectations they hold because of the astonishing, shocking ending of the first 'Planet of the Apes'. An ending, even more unexpected, more astonishing and: completely confusing, because and here I'm disagreeing with various 'Planet of the Apes'-homepages and -platforms it does not make any sense. There cannot be a meaning to it, or just a so complicated one that it becomes ineffective. Tim Burton is playing his cruel games, he does it with a grin and he does it well. Burton fans will sure like it, others may feel betrayed and complain about some sort of manierism. Well, and I don't think producers will ever ask Burton to direct a remake again
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Peter Ustinov plays an embezzler who is just getting out of prison when the film begins. As soon as he walks out the gates, he immediately begins working on a scheme to once again make a bundle by stealing, though this time he has his sights set pretty high. This is actually one of the weak points about the film, as he apparently knows nothing about computers (few did back in 1968) but manages to become a computer genius literally overnight! Yeah, right. Anyway, he comes up with a scheme to impersonate a computer expert and obtain a job with a large American corporation so he can eventually embezzle a ton of cash. Considering his knowledge of computers is rudimentary, it's amazing how he puts into effect a brilliant plan AND manages to infiltrate the computer system and its defenses. But, it's a movie after all, so I was able to suspend disbelief. By the end of the film, he and his new wife (Maggie Smith) are able to run away with a million pounds.

At the very end, though, it gets very, very confusing and Smith announces she's managed to actually accumulate more than two million by shrewd investing in the companies that Ustinov started (though she didn't realize they were all dummy companies). This should mean that eventually these stocks she bought were worthless. What they seem to imply (and I could be guessing wrong here) is that Ustinov and his new partners quickly cashed in the stocks before this became known and the stocks would thereby then become worthless. Either way, the film seems to post on a magical ending whereby no one is hurt and everyone is happy--and this just didn't make much sense. It's a shame, really, as the acting and most of the writing was great. Karl Malden, Bob Newhart, Peter Ustinov and Maggie Smith were just wonderful.

If I seem to have interpreted the end, let me know, as the film seemed very vague in details at the end.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer:
positive