input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: This is what I call a "pre Sci Fi; Sci Fi" movie. It gets no better than Lugosi/Karloff in this incredibly good "mood" type motion picture. These two genuine artists are at their very best, as is the story line.

Karloff does an amazing job as a scientist that sees himself caught in a vise of vanity, pride, and scientific competition. I was caught up in the idea of watching a man as he drowns himself in the three previously mentioned concepts. I was saddened and at the same time fascinated with the two stars as they do themselves in.

This is the sort of motion picture that begs for a remake. This time put Harrison Ford in the Karloff part and maybe Kieffer Sutherland as the Bela Lagosi role. It might be possible to do it almost as good.

This is one of the very best that Hollywood EVER produced. As I said..it gets no better. No way.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I love this film. It is well written and acted and has good cinematography. The story blends action, humor, mysticism, and tenderness with great sets and beautiful location shots. See it, buy it, show it to your friends.

The acting is good and Murphy especially does a fine job portraying the reluctant/unlikely hero. I enjoyed all the characters and found them to be interesting and well developed with dynamic interactions.

I cared what happened to these people and, while the outcome was pretty predictable (the good guys win, the hero gets the astonishingly attractive girl and the holy child saves lives--who doesn't see that coming?), it still made me happy when everything worked out well in the end. Thank God this film's dignity was never ruined with a crappy sequel. Grab some popcorn, cuddle up on the couch, and watch this fun, happy and entertaining film.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I only hope that no classicists/ancient historians saw "Cleopatra", or, if they did, that they took it as a laugh. The movie is horrendously inaccurate, more laughably, even, than "Gladiator" (which is at least a well-written script whose historical errors are articulate and correspond well to the story). Most blatant is Octavius, Caesar's heir, in the Senate before Caesar's assassination: at the ripe old age of 19!

Besides this, the acting is mediocre. Timothy Dalton has more than a hint of James Bond in him when he says, "Caesar. Julius Caesar." Billy Zane is a laughably dense Marc Antony. And Leonor Varela tries her best to be the seductive Pharaoh (who in real life was not good-looking at all) but comes off as unbelievable.

So this is a warning for all historians--this movie is not true to life!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer:
negative