input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: STAR RATING: ***** Unmissable **** Very Good *** Okay ** You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead * Avoid At All Costs

Stuck-up career bitch Kate (Franka Potente) heads to the London underground to catch a train to take her to meet George Clooney. However, after a hectic working day, she dozes off and awakens to find herself alone in a deserted platform. As she races off on a situation taking her from one daunting encounter to the next, however, she learns of something far more malign and evil waiting for her out there.

In a lot of ways, the British Film Industry is really becoming one on it's own, especially in the horror thriller department, with films such as Creep and the successful 28 Days Later (which this has strong echoes of in parts.) In terms of succeeding in what it set out to do, Creep does cleverly create (especially at the beginning) a scary sense of isolation and tense fear. At it's clever running time, it also (though inadvertently, I suspect) manages to pay homage to some of those pioneer high-concept horror films from the 70s that rely on shocks and fear through-out without really focusing too much on character development and such.

Of it's weaknesses, some scenes are a little predictable, but these don't really succeed in making it less scary or effective in any way. I'm not sure if the ending was meant to make it come off as some sort of morality play and it's not exactly perfect, but it's certainly very effective and serves it's basic function very well. ***
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: To anyone not familiar with c.S. Forrester's book this film should be interesting. It is colorful, well acted and depicts high adventure, but to those of us who know the original stories it is appalling. I could hardly sit through it.

For some reason screen-writers seem compelled to rewrite the stories they are working on. Of course, the spoken word is different from the written word, and there are some episodes that would be difficult to film. But, why do the screen-writers rewrite the story instead of just adapting it? In this case the writers out-did themselves.

Just a few examples: There was no mutiny on the Renown. The officers did take over the ship after the half-insane Captain was driven completely mad when he fell through a hatchway -for reasons implied but never given. There was no court martial. The court of inquiry was conducted in an almost congratulatory atmosphere. Captain Pellew does not appear appear in this part of the Hornblower saga, nor does Col. Ortega's wife. Hornblower, himself, was never in the brig either on the ship or on shore. There are plenty of such manipulations of Forrester's story.

On a purely technical basis, I think the film's repeated use of the flash-back device hurts the continuity of the story.

Why, oh why did screen-writers have to mess up a good story?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: This splendidly-directed fantasy is the second in the popular by flawed Tarzan series put out by MGM. It is a first-class adventure for many reasons, I suggest--fine photography, strong imaginative qualities, a delightful cast, good simulated-jungle locales and a very exciting storyline. Johnny Weissmuller plays Tarzan, a mono-syllabic untutored sort unlike Edgar Rice Burroughs' creation; but he is honest, loyal, brave and very courageous, and he needs to be during this narrative. As Jane Parker, his wife who had been Jane Porter in the novels, Maureen O'Sullivan is very attractive and lively, as well as being athletic where the script calls for that quality. The effect of the lighting, the spacious and clever sets is quite unusual. This is an outdoor adventure filmed on the MGM back-lot which really works. The fabulous Mutir Escarpment is a remote locale which allows Tarzan and Jane to live undisturbed; but into their idyll come people searching from them, emissaries of a civilization Jane has left behind and into which Tarzan could not really be comfortably habituated. One is Harry Holt, still in love with her, who with his friend tempts her to come back to civilization with him; the gown and perfumes interest her, but she refuses to leave Tarzan. Tarzan has to protect her against several wild animals, in scenes that look like a humanized King King. The group claim to want to hunt animals, and Tarzan agrees for Jane's sake to a bit of big game trapping; but at some point, the idea of ivory and of obtaining a fortune turns the expedition's heads' minds. Tarzan is shot, left for dead; and the group force Jane to accompany them on an expedition as they follow a dying elephant to the fabulous "elephant's graveyard". But they find the area guarded by a savage tribe and are attacked by lions. Tarzan rides in on an elephant he has revived in time to call; in a most spectacular elephant-filled scene, he saves Jane and what is left of the expedition, who return home little richer but much wise, as Jane continues her savage idyll with her new husband. The film was directed by set-design wizard Cedric Gibbons, and quite beautifully too. His work and the lighting are the outstanding accomplishments of this entertaining and exciting film,which manages to seem real despite all its Hollywood shortcomings from start to finish. Neil Hamilton is a very good Harry, Paul Cavanagh is even better before and after he reveals himself to be thoroughly bad. Forrester Harvey and Nathan Curry round out a small cast very professionally. An unusual and well-realized fantasy film with interesting situations and some strong dialogue confrontations as well. Recommended.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer:
positive