input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I'm sitting here Nov 2006 and I still can't help rave about this movie. Arnold's best movies came in about a 4-5 year span. Running Man, Predator, and Total Recall (1990). All 3 are amazing. The cheesy one liners by Arnold in this movie will make you laugh on more than one occasion. I find the acting in this movie surprisingly good as was the case in Predator and Totall Recall. They did a great job in trying to make the scenes futuristic as it is supposed to take place in 2017, but you can't help but snicker at the 80's style haircuts on the men and woman in the crowd and the normal television monitors in the Running Man studio which we all know here in 2006 are on the way out with the emergence of flat panel and HDTV's. Also the computer graphics of the "The Running Man" game show intro would not look like that in 2017. Nevertheless the storyline is absolutely fantastic. Not once during this movie did I want to get up and not care about the ending which is something I do often with today's movie's. I really think that Arnold's acting is much better than he's given credit for. Now I would not have elected him governor but that's California for you. Buzzsaw, Dynamo, Fireball, SubZero are fantastic "stalkers" as well and I find the producers don't try to overkill the fight scenes. When the stalker is dead...he's dead. It doesn't go on for 20 minutes each. The stalker scenes are quick and entertaining but they don't try and overplay it. I give this movie a 10/10 and that's coming from someone who doesn't enjoy a lot of movies these days. If you get the right actors and the right story then the futuristic graphical displays that you'd see in 2006 are not important or necessary.
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I can't believe anyone thought there was anything original or interesting about this movie. I'm a fan of science fiction as much as the next guy, and I can enjoy even old movies with ridiculous premises as long when they are written by someone other than a monkey. (See, for example, my glowing review of Altered States [1980].)

A monkey could have explained better exactly why I should for a second take seriously the basic idea behind this movie. The problem is not that the producers had a low budget--it's that they didn't care.

Now, to publicly humiliate the worthless magazines whose glowing reviews appear on the box:

Chicago Tribune

San Francisco Chronicle

San Francisco Bay Guardian

(Actually, I enjoy reading the latter two. Still, their movie reviewing credibility has gone through the floor. But I know if I ever make a movie with handheld camera, a cheesy plot and stupid effects, I'll show it to these journalists and remind them what they said about Conceiving Ada.)
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: In its way, Mister Foe (originally, and more appropriately, titled Hallam Foe I can't see addressing its title character as "mister"), is a tribute to good acting. Both Jamie Bell, as Hallam, a physically attractive voyeur/creep, and Sophia Myles, as Kate, his kinky partner in sex and fantasy romance, are convincing. The problem comes when you try to connect their roles to anything that happens in real life. A young man who spies on the intimate details of people's lives the way Hallam does would be deservedly beaten to a pulp. And a woman in Kate's situation would be repulsed and frightened - she would probably call the police.

These things are not, however, what happens in the movie. Poor Hallam's mother has died and his father married a woman with whom he's been having an affair. Hallam, of course, hates his stepmother and lets he know it. She has sex with him. Kate's some kind of an employment person who places Hallam in a dish washing job and plays sexual games. She looks like his birth mother. It all ends happily with Hallam "resolving" his "issues".

Forty some years ago, the play and brilliantly acted movie, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, had a similarly optimistic ending, with characters becoming wiser and better after tearing each other apart. The trouble is, it doesn't always work that way, especially when nobody really cares. In Virginia Woolf, the ending's plausible because of the intensity of the emotional revelation. In Mister Foe, the emotional revelation never really happens.
....
output answer:
negative