input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Given the title, this first follow-up to QUARTET (1948) obviously reduces the number of W. Somerset Maugham stories which comprise the film. The author still turns up to introduce the episodes, but there's no epilogue this time around; by the way, while the script of the original compendium gave sole credit to R.C. Sheriff, here Maugham himself also lent a hand in the adaptation, as well as Noel Langley (though it's unclear whether they contributed one segment each or else worked in unison). As can be expected, much of the crew of QUARTET has been retained for the second installment though this also extends to at least three cast members, namely Naunton Wayne, Wilfrid Hyde-White and Felix Aylmer (the last two had bit parts in the episode from QUARTET entitled "The Colonel's Lady"). While TRIO ultimately emerges to be a lesser achievement than its predecessor (slightly unbalanced by the third story which takes up more than half the running-time), it's still done with the utmost care, acted with verve by a stellar cast and is solidly enjoyable into the bargain.

"The Verger" tells of a church sexton (James Hayter) for which the story's title is another word who's dismissed after 17 years of service by the new parish priest (Michael Hordern) simply because he's illiterate. Rather than rest on his laurels, despite his age, he not only takes a wife (his landlady, played by Kathleen Harrison) but opens a tobacconist shop strategically placed in a lengthy stretch of road where no such service is offered and, with business flourishing, this is developed into a whole chain. The last scene, then, sees him pay a visit to bank manager Felix Aylmer who, not only is surprised to learn of Hayter's lack of education, but is prompted to ask him what his other interests were to which the wealthy (and respected) tobacconist replies, with some measure of irony, that he had the calling to be a verger!

The second episode, "Mr. Know-All", is the shortest but also perhaps the most engaging: a voyage at sea is utterly beleaguered by the insufferable presence of a pompous young man (Nigel Patrick), British despite his foreign-sounding name of Kelada, who professes to be an authority on virtually every subject under the sun. Naunton Wayne and Wilfrid Hyde-White are the two passengers who have to put up with him the most the latter because he shares a cabin with the man and the former in view of Patrick's attentions to his pretty wife (Anne Crawford). During a fancy-dress party, however, the passengers decide to enact their 'revenge' on Kelada by having one of them impersonate him (a jest which he naturally doesn't appreciate)!; still, it's here that he contrives to show a decent side to his character told by Crawford that the necklace she's wearing is an imitation, Wayne challenges Patrick to name its pricebut the latter realizes immediately that it's the genuine article and that this would compromise Crawford's position if he were to tell, so Kelada allows himself to be publicly ridiculed rather than expose the fact that the woman probably has a secret admirer!

As can also be deduced from the title, "Sanatorium" deals with the myriad patients at such a place run by Andre' Morell; the protagonist is a new intern, Roland Culver, who wistfully observes the various goings-on. The narrative, in fact, highlights in particular three separate strands of plot one humorous (the 'feud' between two aged Scots long resident at the sanatorium, played by Finlay Currie and John Laurie), one melodramatic (the erratic relationship between disgruntled patient Raymond Huntley and long-suffering but devoted wife Betty Ann Davies) and one bittersweet (the romance between naive but charming Jean Simmons and dashing cad Michael Rennie which, in spite of having pretty much everything against it including the fact that Morell has diagnosed Simmons as a 'lifer' while Rennie only has a few years left to him, leads the couple to the altar).
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: It's hard to tell if Noonan and Marshall are trying to ape Abbott & Costello, Martin & Lewis, Curley & Larry, or some other comedy team, but whoever it was they were trying to imitate, they failed miserably. There's barely one weak laugh in this whole incredibly stupid picture. Noonan (who helped write the alleged "script") and Marshall have no chemistry whatsoever; Marshall seems to be trying for a Dean Martin type of devil-may-care coolness, but he doesn't come even remotely close. God knows what Noonan thought he was doing, but being funny sure wasn't it. He seems to think that flapping his arms and legs a lot and staring dumbly at everyone and everything is the height of screen comedy; maybe for him it is, but not for the audience. I remember seeing this in the theaters when it came out. It was on the bottom of a double bill with a three-year-old Jeff Chandler western ("Pillars of the Sky," which was pretty good) and a Three Stooges short ("Sappy Bullfighters", which wasn't), and about 20 minutes into this thing all the kids in the audience were throwing stuff at the screen; it was so staggeringly unfunny that it didn't even measure up to the worst of the Three Stooges shorts. I stayed around for the end of it (not that I wanted to, but my folks weren't due to pick me up until after the movie ended), and by the time this mess was over, I was the only one in the theater. I saw it again about 15 or so years ago on cable one night, and stuck around to watch it to see if it was as bad as I remembered. It was worse. The only thing it had going for it was Julie Newmar, who was as smokingly hot as ever; other than her, this thing has absolutely NOTHING to recommend it. The two of them also play Japanese soldiers, and the way they do it makes Jerry Lewis' infamous playing of Japanese characters as thick-lensed, buck-toothed, gibbering mental defectives look benign by comparison. Marshall went on to host "Hollywood Squares," and Noonan kept trying his hand at making movies, but most of them were almost as bad as this. Not quite, though, as I don't think ANYTHING could be quite as bad as this. A truly pathetic waste of film. Don't waste your time on it.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I have not yet seen anyone slate this film and i think i may be the first.

It was awful. I actually didn't watch the end of it. It was like watching a boring soap or a really good one (all soaps are crap). The actors were poor and storyline was bad. The person who rated it 10/10 has no idea what he is on about. The script was awful. 2 People was in an angry conversation together involving threats and you expect the good guy to say some thing really good and beat the crap out of him but no. He says "If you do that ... I will hurt you" Hahahahaha. If comedy is your thing, watch away. Please do not watch this film because ... It's CRAP!!!

Summary: Poor acting, bad fights, bad script.

Don't watch! Of course this is in my opinion.
....
output answer:
negative