input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: This, for lack of a better term, movie is lousy. Where do I start......

Cinemaphotography - This was, perhaps, the worst I've seen this year. It looked like the camera was being tossed from camera man to camera man. Maybe they only had one camera. It gives you the sensation of being a volleyball.

There are a bunch of scenes, haphazardly, thrown in with no continuity at all. When they did the 'split screen', it was absurd. Everything was squished flat, it looked ridiculous.

The color tones were way off. These people need to learn how to balance a camera. This 'movie' is poorly made, and poorly done.

The plot - You got to be kidding. If I was an SS agent, I'd sue the producers. looked like the Marks Brothers with radios and guns. Sutherland was in his '24' mode - I can see this for free. Eva Longoria would have been better with a little less on, and a lot more showing. As an action bimbo she wasn't much.

I couldn't see a real plot, other than Douglas boinking the Presidents wife. Never did say why the mercenaries were trying to kill the pres. I just don't see the President of the United States running for his life in the utility tunnels of a building, like a rat in a maze. p-l-e-a-s-e.

Hollywood is dead. This movie is the proof. I like 'the big screen'. Have since I was a kid. Many more 'movies' like this and I'll quit going. Whats the matter Hollywood, made so many chick flicks, forget how to make a real movie? If I owned a theater, I'd start running the old movies. The one with real actors, good story lines - and good Cinemaphotography.

This 'movie' is a dog. Don't waste your time or money on it. I rate this 'movie' a zero! Douglas isn't suited for this role. I can over look his age, but his just is to much of a wimp to carry this off.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: this movie is a very relaxed, romantic-comedy, which is thoroughly enjoyable. Meg Ryan does a very good job as the genius niece of Albert Einstein, though she does believe in her own skills. Tim Robbins does an equally good job as the mechanic who falls in love with her when she comes into his shop with her fiance after her car stuffs up. I loved Walter Matthau as the one and only Albert Einstein. This movie just has a very relaxing feel to it, while still keeping some sort of seriousness to it (if that is actually possible, it happens here).

I personally found this movie extremely entertaining, especially the old scientists - i thought they were fab and hilarious! This movie seems to have been underestimated beyond comprehension. If you have a cheeky sense of humour, this is the movie for you!
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I recently rented the animated version of The Lord of the Rings on video after seeing the FANTASTIC 2001 live action version of the film. The Lord of the Rings live action trilogy directed by Peter Jackson will undoubtably be far better than George Lucas' Star Wars "prequel" trilogy (Episodes 1-3) will ever be as the real fantasy film series of the 21st century!

I remember seeing the animated version as a child, and I didn't quite understand the depth of the film at that time. Now that I have read the books, I understand what the whole storyline is all about. To be sure, some of the characters are quite silly, (Samwise Gangee is particularly annoying, almost as much as Jar Jar Binks in Star Wars Episode One, (AWFUL!)) but, I have to say it follows the book rather closely, and it goes into part of book two, The Two Towers. The good things are that the action is somewhat interesting and some of the animation is quite remarkable for it's time. The bad things are that it ends upruptly halfway through The Two Towers without any result of Frodo's quest to destroy the one ring, and the animation looks quite dated compared to today's standards.

Overall, not AS bad as many say it is. BUT, the 2001 live action version is the new hallmark of The Lord of the Rings! At least Ralph Bakshi took the script seriously! Peter Jackson has said that the animated version inspired him to read the books, which in turn caused him to create one of the greatest fantasy series ever put on film, so we can at least thank Ralph Bakshi for that matter! I'll take the animated version of Lord of the Rings over the live version of Harry Potter anyday!

A 7 out of a scale of 1-10, far LESS violent than the 2001 live action version, but NOWHERE near as good! For diehard fans of the books and film versions of The Lord of the Rings.
....
output answer:
positive