input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I watched this movie because I like Nicolas Cage and well, I found it strange and completely pointless... so I decided to poke around a little bit and got my hands on the 70s copy of it. Wow. what a difference. The original one was way better. I'd like you all to know it did originally actually make a statement, it's existence did have a purpose. It was really the Christian public expressing their fear of paganism. If you dig deeper into it it also makes comments on life but I don't want to go into details, just, simply put, if you were disappointed and you'd like to know what it SHOULD look like, feel free to watch the 70s version, a little dated, but A lot better.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: First off, this is not supposed to be a brilliant and thought provoking film like so many other reviewers seem to compare it to. the first review says something along the lines of anyone who likes this knows nothing about horror cinema, apparently its the other way around. If one were to look back after the film it really wasn't meant to be convincing, it was a low budget ipecac. But really thats all it was aiming for, it was meant to blow viewers away with sheer shock value (and all the flaws it its visuals were much less noticeable back in the original VHS versions).

I gave this one a high score because it reached its goal and even though it was not downright horrific (in non-shock sense) it did make me slightly sick and thoroughly paranoid/pessimistic(i didn't trust anyone for about a week because i didn't want to wake up strung up and tortured)
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Tarzan and Jane are living happily in the jungle. Some men come looking for ivory and to take Jane back to civilization. But Jane loves Tarzan and refuses to leave. One of the men falls in love with Jane and is determined to take her back...even if that means killing Tarzan.

This is a rarity--a sequel that's better than the original. "Tarzan, the Ape Man" of 1932 was good but had some dreadful special effects and sort of dragged. This one has MUCH better effects and is a lot more adult. There is tons of blatant racism (a black man is shot to death point blank--and no one really cares) but this was 1934. There's also plenty of blood, gore and violence (for a 1934 movie) and uncut prints have Jane doing a lengthy underwater swim totally nude! There's also obvious sexual content and Tarzan and Jane are wearing next to nothing and (it's implied) they sleep together and have sex--without being married. This wouldn't bother anyone today but in 1934 this was pretty extreme.

That aside, the movie is well-directed, very fast-moving and full of adventure and excitement. Seeing Weissmuller in that skimpy lion cloth is certainly a treat for the eyes and Jane's outfit is pretty revealing too. I still think Maureen O'Sullivan is bad as Jane but Weismuller is perfect as Tarzan. Everybody else is OK.

This is easily the best Weismuller--O'Hara Tarzan out there. WELL worth seeing but not for kids!
....
output answer:
positive