input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Being a slasher film aficionado, I typically will settle in to watch every slash movie that passes over my retinas, which sometimes does more harm than good to my brain, I will say. While channel surfing the other night, Sleepaway Camp II happened to cross paths with me. Of course, I wanted to check it out, as I had heard of the Sleepaway Camp franchise, but have never actually seen any of them (for shame, I know). I will note that since I have not seen the original, my criticism should probably not be taken too seriously, because perhaps what I think is wrong with it is totally intentional by the franchise's own design.

Now I'm assuming that the franchise of Sleepaway Camp is, in itself, a joke on itself. Hell, even the name comes off as an intentional joke. Sleep away camp? It's good fun. I can appreciate the film for wanting to just put together something for pure camp horror value, but that's about as far as I can go. The acting in this movie made the cast of the original Friday the 13th look like thespians doing a rendition of Macbeth. Campy requires bad acting, but come on. Pamela Springsteen as the evil out-of-touch-with-reality killer did a better job of killing off my interest than she did killing off the entire cast. As far as comedy goes, there were a few times where I chuckled, but it was few and far between.

Ultimately, SAC II is pretty boring, and I really did want to sleep away the camp. The deaths are so obviously staged and fake that you can barely appreciate them. If you're looking for a slasher film comedy with good camp, I recommend Club Dread. If your channel surfing takes you across this one, check and see what else is on.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Whoo-boy, that was definitely one of the worst flicks I've seen all summer. Granted, it was on Sci Fi, and I don't watch much Sci Fi, but man, talk about a razor thin plot and two dimensional characters to the max.

The characters were stereotypical and overdone, the plot and setting were unbelievable, the vampires were less intimidating, more funny-looking, the gore was unnecessary, the special effects were down-right horrible, and the ending? Well, the only thing unpredictable about the ending was when suddenly the tomboy becomes a lesbian and starts to do it with the female vampire, which, by the way, isn't really all that hot considering it occurs for about three seconds, in which you're closer to "What the hell?" then "Man, that's hot." If this ever appears in reruns, God forbid, DON'T WATCH IT.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Let me start by saying that I'd read a number of reviews before renting this film and kind of knew what to expect. Still, I was surprised by just how bad it was.

I am a big werewolf fan, and have grown accustomed to forgiving a great deal when watching one. Most of them have sub-par effects, poor acting, and weak storylines (at best rehashed from earlier films). So far, with the possible exception of some of the later "Howling" series films, this is the worst of the lot.

First, the story. It's been quoted several times in reviews on this site, so I won't go into specifics. However, it is very obvious that the writer(s) had absolutely no affinity for lycanthropic monsters. As so often happens when a horror film is given to a writer who considers themselves "above" such fare, they tried to come up with a new spin on the werewolf mythos. That's fine, but a non-horror fan trying to do this generally has disregard for the intelligence and sophistication of the horror audience and ends up writing down to them. The plot feels like a parody of werewolf films, and the events depicted just ring so false that I felt my intelligence was being seriously insulted. TV news footage, for example, never pans away from the reporter to close-up on someone in the crowd behind them. Give the characters and the viewers credit for being able to spot the bad guy in the scene without using a flashing neon sign. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

As for effects, I have NEVER seen a less believable werewolf. I'd have been happier with Lon Chaney Jr. in crepe hair. The beast they used look a great deal like... well, like a guy in a cheap rubber suit with some hair glued on and some truly awful animatronics. And, I know that many people have already criticized the CG, but my God it was awful. One scene features a woman changing, and starts with a completely CG version of the actress, nude but for some reason without nipples. My first thought was, "hey, why is one of the characters from 'ReBoot' turning into a silly looking werewolf?"

Anyway, I like to look for positives in any film, and there were a few. The cinematography was passable (the film was shot all-digital, which is interesting) and some of the performances were not terrible. It was also interesting seeing Tippi Hedron as the world's most well made-up homeless woman, and Kane Hodder as the title bad guy. Also, the Yellow Power Ranger got all growed up and... well, damn. And if you're looking for skin, there's some pretty tasty examples. This ends the male-pig segment of the review.

Overall, if you want a good werewolf film, try "An American Werewolf in London", the original "The Howling", "Dog Soldiers", or even "The Wolfen" (though that one's got more wolf than were). If you're a lycanthrope completest, then take a gander. Otherwise, give this one a miss.
....
output answer:
negative