input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: This was another World War II message to the soldiers and to the Allies to be careful about spreading rumors. These were called "instructional" cartoons because it was a mixture of serious messages along with a funny-looking main character called "Pvt. Snafu."

All of us have imaginations, along with fears and what-have-you, and that's what happens here as Pvt. Snafu incorrectly adds two and two to something he hears and comes up with "five." You can start panics and all kinds of disasters if you spread enough rumors and enough people believe them. That includes losing confidence in your country and your cause, as pointed out here in this cartoon. A good way to lose a war is demoralize the enemy. That's still being done today.

"We lost the war," declares one big baloney near the end of this cartoon. Amazing how some Americans still haven't learned. This cartoon may be 65 years old but it sure has relevance today. As I write this, there were two terrorist bombings in Europe today and some people still think the "War On Terror" is just a bumper sticker slogan. Amazing.

The writer, the famous "Dr. Suess," uses analogies of "hot air balloon juice" here to present the above message. With Theodore Geisel (his real name) you know the rhymes will be clever.

Nothing hilarious here, but it wasn't meant to be. You have to understand the climate of 1943 and the justified paranoia that was out there during World War II. People forget that war could have easily wound up with the other side winning. It was a tense time
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: At the time I recall being quite startled and amused by this movie. I referred to it as the most important movie I'd seen in ten years, and found myself bumping into people who said similar things.

Bernhard has an unusually perceptive behavioral notebook. And she has shaped the bitter adolescent personality that we all had, into a corrosive, adult world-view. The two together provide a startling mix which may be too edgy for some viewers. (Hi Skip. I wish you weren't my brother so I could **** you!)

Bernhards search for herself after returning to LA from New York, results in the immersive trying-on of various personas (all of which fit poorly) for our amusement, but enough of them involve acting out to appeal to a "black imperative" values system that the real barometer of her resituation is whether black culture accepts her. (It's been a while. Nina Simone comes to mind. And she has an impressive, solidly-built black lover in the movie) A pretty black girl attends the shows, and seems to be authorizing Sandra's faux-blackness, but ultimately rejects her.

Just as Catholics deem themselves lucky to suffer for Christ, here Sandra depicts herself suffering at the hands of a black culture in which she craves a place; as if she cherishes her worthiness and her rejection. It's the only value system implicated in the films world, outside of Bernhards arty confusion.

For a nation whose chief issues are racism and money, it's refreshing to see one of the 2 topics dealt with in an atypical way.
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I finally got my wish to see this one in a cinema. I'd seen Fritz Lang's film on video some years ago. I'd been hoping that ideal screening conditions would work their magic.

Conditions were ideal at Cinematheque Ontario. Pristine full-length print. Intertitles in the original Gothic-script German with simultaneous English translation, accurate without being too literal. Live piano accompaniment. Ideal.

The film's magic sputtered for a little while but ultimately failed to catch, at least for me.

This film bears no real relation to Wagner's Ring cycle as I already knew but some may not. Wagner had adapted the 13th c. Niebelungenlied to his own purposes. Part I of Fritz Lang's epic -- "Siegfried" -- has much that will be familiar to listeners of Wagner however.

"Kriemhild's Revenge" is the story of Siegfried's wife Kriemhild, her marriage to King Etzel (Attila) the Hun, and her desire for revenge against Hagen and Gunther, the rechristened Nibelungs, for the murder of Siegfried. The spectacular conflagration in this film presumably evolved and expanded in the Wagnerian mythos into his Gotterdammerung, his Twilight of the Gods, and the end of Valhalla. This film remains earthbound.

Most of the film is spectacular. The massive sets rival those of "Cabiria" (1914), which inspired Griffith's "Intolerance" (1916). Their decoration sets a new benchmark in barbaric splendour. There's a huge cast of scarred, mangy Huns and Art Deco Burgundians. And battles. Battles that never seem to end in fact.

Kriemhild is very successful in her plan of revenge. She manages to destroy all around her. Her loyalty to her martyred Siegfried seems not to stem so much from love, or devotion, but from something closer to psychosis. Lady Macbeth cried out, "Unsex me here." She knew she was emotionally unprepared for what she needed to do. But Kriemhild displays no normal human emotions, and certainly nothing one equates with the feminine principle. She is already "top full of direst cruelty", to borrow Shakespeare's phrase, from the outset. Margarethe Schon and her director convey this with a glower. I don't want to exaggerate, but that glower is virtually the only expression ever to "animate" Kriemhild's face. It's the ultimate in one-note performances. It's clearly intentional however, not simply a case of poor acting.

What we have then on offer is a one-dimensional sketch of an avenging Fury. Some might see Kriemhild as an empowered heroine. I just see the film as misogynistic.
....
output answer:
positive