input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I won't argue with anyone who pronounces this film execrable, as is January Jones's performance, but please check her out, if you haven't already, in the AMC TV series 'Mad Men," starting later this month. She's excellent, as is the entire cast. I'll charitably assume she took on the "Taboo" role strictly for the money, and, realizing what a putrid mess it was going to be, turned in a minimal acting job to avoid starvation. Don't know if that's the case, but I (now) know for sure that she can act.

At first, watching "Taboo," I was convinced her flat delivery was a shrewd choice that would later give rise to some significant revelation about her character or the plot. No such luck. Hard to believe the director didn't suggest to her at least once that not changing expression for 17 successive scenes could cause lockjaw.

Ironically, her winning performance in "Mad Men" comes as a character who, at least in her early appearances, is very repressed, reserved, unsure of herself, and rather colorless, not unlike her "Taboo" role. But as the TV series progressed, she began to blossom into someone who questions her traditional early-60's whitebread Mom role. Can't wait to see where they take her character in the 2nd season.

To sum up, avoid "Taboo" like leprosy, but definitely check out "Mad Men."
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Back in 74 Eric Monte made the classic T.V show Good Times. JJ has always been my favorite and I love watching the Reruns on T.V Land. Jimmie Walker always seemed to be the star and not Esther Rolle. John Amos most of the time felt a little jealous of Jimmie Walker's popularity winning millions of fans time to sit and watch Good Times. The show would have been dead if JJ would't have been there to save it with his always Kool Aid attitude. Drinking KOOL AID was like his favorite thing on the show. I was 3 when it came out and 8 when it ended. Instead of 1974-1979 it should have went longer like in the 1980's when I was just growing up.
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: First off, let's start with the negative points: 1) There are HUGE, gaping wholes in the story line and questions that are raised that will get no where near being answered; 2) The movie is not for all people, so impolite viewers will get restless and start yapping during the movie.

Point two above is important because the movie is very quiet. In an older type theater (like the one I went to), you can hear the reel going through the projector at times. I loved that. The movie does not keep you busy with music, nor effects: it lets you reflect upon what is happening.

There is a lack of rhythm that generates an atmosphere that is fascinating an utterly enjoyable. The same kind of atmosphere generated by Stanley Kubrick in Eyes Wide Shut. Not for all people.

I would highly recommend it to fans of cinema, as the cinematographic work is amazing. Those that base their appreciation of a movie solely on the story will be utterly disappointed. It's the kind of story that you have to make up the links in your mind afterwards. (My version of it is pretty darn cool, but probably quite off-track!) If you do go catch the movie, there is one very cool part: when the two cops are talking to each other on their cell phones. An ultra-cool sound effect that really puts you in the moment. Hats off to the person that thought of doing this.
....
output answer:
positive