input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: This is a weak film with a troubled history of cuts and re-naming. It doesn't work at all. Firstly the dramaturgy is all wrong. It's very slow moving at first and then hastily and unsatisfactorily moves to an end. But there is also (and that may have to do with the cuts) an uneasy moving between genres. It starts off with being a thriller to be taken at face value and then degenerates into a farce rather than satire. the ending may be funny but it's also so blunt that I almost felt it insulted my intelligence (what little there is). So the film tries to be everything but does not really succeed on any level at all. You can also see that in the very unsteady character development.You almost get the impression Connery plays three roles rather than one.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: This is a really bad film, with bad acting and a very boring pace Lorenzo Lamas is really cool though!. All the characters are just annoying (except Lamas), and there is absolutely no one to root or to care for!, plus the action is very boring. The film gives us 3 villains who were supposed to find menacing and disturbing when in fact there boring, laughable and just a bunch of morons that i wanted to shut up!, plus it looks very cheap and amateurish!. Lorenzo Lamas has a lot of charisma but he can't save this piece of crap, and believe it or not the opening was really cool, as was the ending, however the middle is incredibly boring, and got me to have the urge to press the fast forward button!, plus The dialog is especially laughable!.There is a cool bar scene that i really liked, but once Lamas heads to the dock it all falls apart, plus the scene where The villains torture Jennifer's family, and kills them were supposed to find it disturbing when it in fact is laughable!. This is a really bad film, with bad acting and a very boring pace, Lorenzo Lamas is really cool though!, however it is not enough, not recommended. The Direction is very bad. George Erschbamer does a very bad job here, with mediocre camera work, bland location, and keeping the film at a boring pace. The Acting is pretty bad (except for Lamas). Lorenzo Lamas is awesome here, and while he isn't required to act, he is quite fun to watch, and has a really cool character, and had a lot of charisma, however even he can't save this one,and he had no chemistry with the cast either! (Lamas Rules!). Josie Bell is terrible here, and while she's decent looking, she isn't very convincing and had no chemistry with Lamas. Cheryl Jeans is hot, but does not have much to do but scream and scared, she did okay at that.Robert Scott is INCREDIBLY annoying as the main villain, and wasn't menacing at all, he was laughable as were the other 2. Rest of the cast are bad. Overall Avoid! Avoid!, even if you do like Lamas (like me). * out of 5
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: When a stiff turns up with pneumonic plague (a variant of bubonic plague), U.S. Public Health Service official Dr. Clinton Reed (Richard Widmark) immediately quarantines everyone whom he knows was near the body. Unfortunately, the stiff got that way by being murdered, and there's a good chance that the murderer will start spreading the plague, leading to an epidemic. Enter Police Captain Tom Warren (Paul Douglas), who is enlisted to track down the murderer as soon as possible and avert a possible national disaster.

While Panic in the Streets is a quality film, it suffers from being slightly unfocused and a bit too sprawling (my reason for bringing the score down to an eight). It wanders the genres from noirish gangster to medical disaster, police procedural, thriller and even romance.

This is not director Elia Kazan's best work, but saying that is a bit disingenuous. Kazan is the helmer responsible such masterpieces as A Streetcar Named Desire (1951), On The Waterfront (1954) and East of Eden (1955), after all. This film predates those, but Kazan has said that he was already "untethered" by the studio. Taking that freedom too far may partially account for the sprawl. The film is set in New Orleans, a city where Kazan "used to wander around . . . night and day so I knew it well". He wanted to exploit the environment. "It's so terrific and colorful. I wanted boats, steam engines, warehouses, jazz joints--all of New Orleans".

Kazan handles each genre of Panic in the Streets well, but they could be connected better. The film would have benefited by staying with just one or two of its moods. The sprawl in terms of setting would have still worked. Part of the dilemma may have been caused by the fact that Panic in the Streets was an attempt to merge two stories by writers Edna and Edward Anhalt, "Quarantine" and "Some Like 'Em Cold".

The gangster material, which ends up in firmly in thriller territory with an extended chase scene near the end of the film, is probably the highlight. Not surprisingly, Kazan has said that he believes the villains are "more colorful--I never had much affection for the good guys anyway. I don't like puritans". A close second is the only material that approaches the "panic" of the title--the discovery of the plague and the attempts to track down the exposed, inoculate them and contain the disease. While there is plenty of suspense during these two "moods", much of the film is also a fairly straightforward drama, with pacing more typical of that genre.

The dialogue throughout is excellent. The stylistic difference to many modern films could hardly be more pronounced. It is intelligent, delivered quickly and well enunciated by each character. Conflict isn't created by "dumb" decisions but smart moves; events and characters' actions are more like a chess game. When unusual stances are taken, such as Reed withholding the plague from the newspapers, he gives relatively lengthy justifications for his decisions, which other characters argue over.

In light of this, it's interesting that Kazan believed that "propriety, religion, ethics and the middle class are all murdering us". That idea works its way into the film through the alterations to the norm, or allowances away from it, made by the protagonists. For example, head gangster Blackie (Jack Palance in his first film role) is offered a "Get Out of Jail Free" card if he'll cooperate with combating the plague.

The technical aspects of the film are fine, if nothing exceptional, but the real reasons to watch are the performances, the intriguing scenario and the well-written dialogue.
....
output answer:
positive