input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: EARTH (2009) ***1/2 Big screen adaptation of the BBC/Discovery Channel series "Planet Earth" offers quite a majestic sampling of nature in all its beauty with some truly jaw-dropping moments of "how the hell did they get this footage?!" while taking in the awesome scenics of animals in their natural habitats and environmental message of the circle of life can be cruel (witness a Great White Shark gulping down a walrus seal as a quick meal!) and adorable (the various babies and their 'rents). The basso profundo tones of narrator James Earl Jones solidifies its 'God's eye views' and profundity. Culled from literally hundreds of hours of footage, the only gripe comes from the fact this should have been in the IMAX format and could've even gone longer! Oh, well, there's always the next time (since Disney Studios has produced this count on a series of more to come). Dirs: Alastair Fothergill & Mark Linfield.
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: The tragedy is that this piece of rubbish was part of my curriculum while I was studying cinema. So imagine how I was forced to watch it in complete. Believe me going through hell is much much easier. Our professor told us that this is some film ???, but he never thought that we'd disagree or assume the apposite. I don't think that there is any gods on earth, we're only humans, so all the filmmakers, therefore they CAN make mistakes, bad movies.. Or very bad too. The main problem wasn't that art, by all means, is susceptible to endless points of view, but that a lot of people just don't get it, that every single human got his own genuine taste, his own opinion, hence what I suppose it the greatest movie ever made, can also be your worst one ever, and how that is right both ways, but how many people can understand this correctly?. So my professor believes in this movie, and simply I don't. However, the only way to evaluate this "thing" is by measuring it by its original intent to show us different kinds of old folk stories or whatever to catch on this society's mentality, imagination, and nature. To tell you the damn truth Mr. Pier Paolo Pasolini as the scriptwriter and the director made it too unbearable to watch in the first place. The movie is so UGLY. I can't stand this, so how about analyzing it, then discovering the potential beauty in it !! It's beyond your mind hideousness, and strangely not for the sake of the movie's case or anything, it's for the sake of the unstable vision of (Pasolini). His work is so primitive to underdeveloped extent. The deadly cinematic technique, the effective sense of silliness, and the incredible horribleness made everything obnoxious. Look at the atrocious acting, the unfruitful cinematography, the awfully poor sets, .. OH MY GOD I've got the nausea already. It can terminate your objectivity violently as watching this movie is one true pain like taking the wisdom tooth off by a blind doctor. There are dreadful nightmares which could be more merciful than this. So originally, how to continue THAT just to review it fairly ? Actually, you don't. As this very movie doesn't treat you fair at all. There is really memorable scene in here where some boys are peeing into the eye of the camera (!) I'm trying to connect some things like that with Pasolini's end as murdered.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Last year we were treated to two movies about Truman Capote writing the book from which this film was made - Capote and Infamous.

I cannot imagine a movie like this being made in 1967. A stark, powerful and chillingly brutal drama; elevated to the status of a film classic by the masterful direction of Richard Brooks (Elmer Gantry, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, The professional, Blackboard Jungle).

It is interesting that Robert Blake, who starred in this film, has had so many problems of late that may be related to his portrayal of a killer in this film.

This is a film that stays with you after viewing.
....
output answer:
positive