input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: With a story and screenplay that seems to have been written by a high schooler, 'The Art of Seduction' fails to deliver the romantic, sophisticated experience it tries to bill itself as. The two main characters have the potential to be interesting - both male and female lead are "swinging singles (or in the female lead's case, engaged)", but 'The Art of Seduction' doesn't even try. Shirking from a frank examination of these two characters' personalities, 'The Art of Seduction' eschews anything of substance for a basis of thin, lean stereotype.

'The Art of Seduction' is insulting - insulting to its characters, insulting to men and women, and insulting to its audiences' expectations. It takes the awful beautiful people we all know and plays out their painful interactions while expecting us to idolize them. Ji-wan is an immature, spoiled, manipulative bitch. The viewer is expected to like and forgive her flaws because she's pretty. Min-jun, well, he's exactly the same. Neither are nice people. The "humour" in this film primarily revolve around Ji-wan and Min-jun's outlandish attempts at outdoing each other in the honourable art of lying and manipulation. No character development occurs, and we never learn why Ji-wan and Min-jun are like this. We are simply expected to take them as they are, and not ask questions - they're cute!, and that's all that matters. The copious references to the celebrity of the main actors in azn cinema scenester's reviews may tip you off to 'Art of Seduction's shallowness.

If you're still in high school, you liked Grease, or you are a yellow fever victim, you may like this movie.

Despite its "Romance" tag, this is not a very good date movie.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: DD films were damn corny, damn stupid and had a plot which seemed wafer thin but those days they was a plot at least

This film isn't just a comedy but a mix of melodrama, romance everything

Every drama scene is blown out of proportion

The comedy is funny but corny too Yet the film keeps you entertained, those days Govinda films were loud, crass yet they had some funny moments people enjoyed

David Dhawan does a okay job Music is okay

Govinda acts well in comedy and drama Karisma is decent in parts and annoys in parts Kader is as usual Gulshan, Prem Chopra are typecast Shakti is hilarious
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Usually, I don't think Hollywood productions are fit to be called film, so I call them 'movies' instead. But this piece of elephant manure, is not even fit to be called a movie, hence the quotes in the title.

Where shall i start? 1. If this isn't the start of geriatric casting, it sure is the epitome of it. Stefanie Powers is supposed to play someone even LESS than half her age, she's supposed to play an 18 year old, and she is FORTY effing TWO!!!!

2. A horrible and stupid mindless portrayal of Paris and France, where we see cliche characters such as: the sympathetic grumpy shop owner, the bitchy queen of models, the fairy god mother ex-queen of models, etc. This film is surpassed only in this respect by the Da Vinci Code, (which reviewers correctly determined was a comedy).

3. It's highly and utterly ridiculous to have no nudity in a film about a time and a place where nudity was so common place, especially if the whole focus is about that

4. The horrible accents!!!

5. The Nana Mouskouri elevator-music!!!

I could go on, but i think this is enough. And I was able to make these observations after watching this crap for just half an hour, WHILE surfing the internet and talking to my friends about math equations ... I mean ...!!!!!

I invite everyone to add to my list. :) :P :D
....
output answer:
negative