input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: This movie is intelligent. That is, more than most other movies, it transcends the least common denominator - stupid people will probably not appreciate it. The story also relies heavily on dialogue. It has some parallels to Lost in Translation, although Before Sunrise is much brighter, somehow less abstract, and simply a lot better.

The script, the characters and even the slightly surreal atmosphere feel totally realistic. The actors play absolutely brilliantly. Rarely have I seen a movie where the script and the acting has melted this perfectly together.

The dialogue moves into very personal issues, with the risk of becoming a little over the top. It does, however, stay on the right side almost all the time, although I found a few moments a little awkward and embarrassing. Balancing on this fine line demands outrageously talented actors. Sometimes, it yields great results, and overall this movie is simply stupendous! Only very, very rarely is "love" in films depicted in a way that I find trustworthy and realistic. Every time that is achieved, the result is fantastic. I think the stunning and apparently timeless beauty of the female lead actress helped quite a bit in this respect. She still looks stunning in this film, 12 years after.

This is simply a gem of a movie that you can't miss. One of the best movies I have seen from the 1990s!
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I thought King Solomon's Mines was beautifully done. My only reservation was Alison Doody. Her acting was superb but her makeup and hair was not of the period, and always seemed to make her look out of place next to the other actors. I thought Patrick Swayze was an excellent choice for Alan Quatermain. It was nice seeing a seasoned, rugged looking actor in this role after sitting through movie after movie with the fair haired, fair skinned actors like Val Kilmer, Brad Pitt, etc. He was an excellent choice and I enjoyed every minute of this movie. This version cannot be compared with the 1950's version with Stewart Grainger. It was a big screen movie and not a made for TV movie. I thought both Quatermains were believable but the two medias have to be kept separated. I am looking forward to seeing this once more, and I hope Patrick Swayze will again look to these type of roles.
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: If scientists behaved in a way that H.G. Wells was confident they would in the future, history wouldn't quite have turned out the way it did in Things To Come. Were almost 80 years past the point that Wells wrote The Shape Of Things To Come on which this film is based and no closer to the world he describes than before, in some ways farther away.

Though such well known players as Raymond Massey, Ralph Richardson, and Cedric Hardwicke are in the cast, they're more caricatures than real characters. It's the main weakness with the film, it's devoted to Wells's philosophy of science will solve all problems and the rest of us are backward fools.

Massey's characters, two generations of the same family holds that supremely optimistic view. Cedric Hardwicke is a skeptic who feels man is rushing too far forward. And Ralph Richardson is a warlord arisen from the destruction of another Thirty Years War fought with modern weapons. By the way as the atomic bomb had not been invented, poison gas was deemed to be weapon that almost destroys mankind.

According to Wells, science and conquest can never mix. Scientists as a group are far too above the world of politics to engage in such things. In Wells's lifetime scientists certainly fled the rightwing fascistic governments of Hitler and Mussolini. Those same folks however in order to defeat them, subordinated themselves to the Allies and fashioned the atomic weapons that ushered in the modern age. If they behaved as Wells would have liked them to, someone like Albert Einstein would have headed a junta of scientists who would have established a new order after World War II.

Wells got it wrong both in time and in development. He apparently never envisioned the computer as well as atomic power. Computer programmers are far more likely to be our rulers in a brave new world than scientists at the moment. Still Things To Come, aided by the direction of William Cameron Menzies and the sets created offer an interesting glimpse into the mind of H.G. Wells, certainly a respected thinker of his time though he didn't quite get right the shape of Things To Come.
....
output answer:
positive