input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: This movie is flawed on many fronts. Like many before it, it portrays more of the mythology of the Alamo than the history. The production is poor, overall giving the impression of a welfare project for lots of actors who might have otherwise had to work on Hollywood Squares. This to me was the greatest flaw - I know the ages and general personalities of the real Alamo protagonists and the geriatric ensemble of TV actors chosen to portray them never let any hint of believability intrude.

As a native Texan, I grew up with the mythology. I later learned more about the history. I can accept a decent production from either perspective (although I prefer more historical accuracy), but this never gave me a chance to enjoy it. Even John Wayne's or Fess Parker's versions had more life than this stolid mess, while being only slightly less accurate.

Very disappointing - avoid it.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I unknowingly had this movie on my shelf for a while in a Mill Creek Collection, and one night I just decided to watch it; though not expecting much. As the beginning credits roll around I'm surprised to discover this film was made under the Filmirage company. Filmirage brought the world such amazing stinkers as "Troll 2", "Ator the Invincible", and "Quest for the Mighty Sword", so I was compelled to watch.

As the movie started out it had potential to be pretty decent, even though it was unoriginal. The gore scenes could have been improved if they were extended and more frequent. But after a while into the film, the pace started dragging and I found myself thinking "Okay someone better get killed soon",or "Someone better mutate". At the onset of this drag, when I was having these thoughts, though someone may have gotten killed or have mutated, however as noted, the gore and effects weren't very good. What made matters worse was that the scene transitions were confusing; example: first Dr. Houseman would be at the Zoo, then he'd have a flash back about possibly killing someone, finally he'd wake up in a cold sweat in bed-- making the audience ask "Was he dreaming he was at the zoo?". Like the movie's pace, these scene transitions got progressively worse.

I could try to say the character development of Dr. Houseman was pretty good, but towards the end of the film, that is, once you've seen what the Doctor has metamorphosed into, hopefully you'll laugh-- which really, is the only reason to see this movie at least once; this movie unintentionally runs like a long-winded joke.

The costume of the um, thing that Doctor Houseman becomes can also be seen in Joe D' Amato's "Quest for the Mighty Sword", which was made in the same year. You've gotta love Filmirage movies, they're always re-using the same stuff!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: This sure is one comedy I'm not likely to forget for a while.

Wouldn't normally bother to comment on this movie: it's so minor that no one would watch it anyway, but as it happens, it's kind of popular in p2p sharing networks such as Kazaa, and so this saaad production needs to be exposed for what it is.

So what is it then? Well, of course it's not really a comedy; instead, it's intended as a horror flick -- "intended" very much being the key word here. The script is a totally incoherent and unbalanced mess, the special effects are only special in that they're especially pathetic, and as for the acting, well, let's just say that if this had been my graduating play at primary school, my teachers would have burst out crying at our talent.

Of course I realise that this is a very low budget film and that in those cases one should lower one's expectations, certainly as far as things like special effects are concerned. Also, even though I'm a big fan of the horror genre, I'm aware that these movies are only rarely the places to look for interesting scripts and top notch acting.

But still.

B-movies often have some redeeming features to make up for the lack of funding, such as humour. The only laughs in Cradle to Fear lie in the ridiculous performances. If you can find the humour in that--and I could for the first 20 minutes or so, gradually dozing off after that--then that's going to be the only thing the movie has to offer. Oh, that and two or three pairs of breasts.

Woohoo, how exciting.

As for the story, it's not even that it doesn't try to convey anything: the victims either use drugs and/or are involved in serious crime. The lesson: Watch out, naughty boys and girls, because one day you'll be made to pay for what you've done.

I rest my case.

So, all in all, a little bit of sex, a fair amount of drugs, but absolutely zero rock 'n roll.

I rate this one 1 out of 10, but would go to 0 if I could. Or perhaps I wouldn't: it deserves a 1 for spelling the actors' names correctly in the titles. I mean, that's something, innit?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer:
negative