input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: 666: The Child starts as a plane crashes, the only survivor of flight 666 was a young boy named Donald (Boo Boo Stewart) who is adopted by news reporter Erika (Sarah Lieving) & her cameraman husband Scott Lawson (Adam Vincent) after they covered the incident for Channel 6 news. At first Donald seems like any normal kid but death seems to follow him around, after warnings from a Nun & Vicar Scott begins to believe that Donald is evil & the cause of all the deaths...

This straight-to-DVD horror flick was directed by Jake Perez under the pseudonym Jake Jackson & one has to say 666: The Child is really rather poor. Whenever I see The Asylum is responsible for a film I get worried, I get very worried since their track record is awful. They seem to specialise in making &/or distributing low budget horror films which are usually rip-offs of some recent successful big budget horror film & in the case of 666: The Child you don't need a degree in rocket science to realise that it's a complete rip-off to cash in on the recent The Omen (2006) which was released the same year. The script by Benjamin Henry & Austin Laurel is terrible & simply can't match the ambitions of the the Hollywood equivalent, I mean just what exactly does Donald the Antichrist expect to achieve from a middle class family in a small town? It's hardly a great starting point to bring about the destruction of thew world is it? Every character in 666: The Child is some form of the main character's from The Omen, the adopted parents, the Priest who tries to warn them & the sinister babysitter. There's a real lack of incident, there's barely any gore & the plot is poor. I mean Donald killing a dentist because they were trying to fix his teeth is just so random & needless, what were all the disgusting pictures Donald drew all about, where did the babysitter come from & there's just nothing that ties everything together & it's just a disjointed mess that just becomes very boring very quickly. The references to the number 6 also becomes annoying & are very unsubtle.

Director Perez does alright I suppose, it's competent if nothing else. There's virtually no blood or gore, there's a few sprays of blood, a cut off hand & someone gets a circular saw stuck in their face but it sounds a lot better than it looks on screen. It's certainly not scary, there's no atmosphere thanks to a throughly bland contemporary setting in a suburban house & there's no tension because we never really know what Donald is trying to do & there fore there's no threat from him.

Technically the film is alright, it's reasonably well made but since the actual film is so poor it makes little difference. The acting isn't that great but at the same time I've seen worse.

666: The Child is a poor mans The Omen rip-off, I'd sooner watch either the original or the remake over this any day of the week. Not good & definitely not recommended. Followed by the sequel 666: The Beast (2007) which also went straight-to-DVD.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I normally only write reviews for movies I really hated or really liked. And, as you can probably tell from the number of stars up there, I didn't like it. By now, I assume you have read about the plot or maybe even seen the movie, so I'll skip the summary. Let's break this down, pros and cons:

Cons: The concept: The premise was set up to be interesting. Using Chaos theory as a theme was interesting. However, it wasn't carried out so well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that Chaos theory was kind of misrepresented. The event that occurred in the movie seemed more like contrived coincidence than anything. I guess the Butterfly effect was represented by the whole "God(s) causes Tsunami to bring back statue." The presentation comes off as really sloppy though. Some people call this intelligent, but it just seems to be another souped up action film.

Storyline: Is it just me, or does it seem that Kamal just threw this together to give him an excuse to play ten roles? The plot is extremely contrived; Govind kept losing the vial so many times in obscure accidents (his friend just happens to mix up the vial with a package he was sending to India, a crazy old lady just happens to throw the vial into an idol, half the cast just happens to unexpectedly meet up in the same hospital, and the case with the idol just happened to get mixed up with one that belonged to a famous singer.)

CGI: Oh god, the CGI. It was even worse than the special effects in Jaws 3, and those sucked. Right away, I could tell which parts were animated. Even my ten-year-old cousin knows that underwater cars don't look like that.

Stunts: Yes, I now that action scenes in Tamil movies aren't realistic, but the stunts in this one were horrid and actually distracted me from the story.

Make up: I have to admit, they did a better job than expected. I thought Kamal would be playing people with similar skin tones, so the two fake white guys and the fake Japanese Aikido guy caught me off guard. However, it was still pretty bad, I could easily tell which ones were wearing masks.

The songs: The music was distracting and out-of-place in many instances.

Asin: Her character was possibly the most annoying one in the movie. She was loud, ditsy, and obsessed irrationally about that idol. I actually found myself wishing she would die.

Plot holes and Fridge Logic: Let me get this straight: a lab monkey was smart enough to get past a password-locked door, but not intelligent enough to tell the difference between a bar of chocolate and a vial with a deadly virus in it. And then, an ex-CIA agent who's after the vial figures out it's headed for India. Instead of immediately following it, he marries a pole dancer first. A famous Punjabi singer with cancer checks into a small town hospital in the third world when he could easily afford the best medical treatment available. Furthermore, he gets shot in the throat with a bullet. You'd think he would be killed, but instead, the magic bullet has cleared his tumor. You read that right, a BULLET knocked out the tumor.

Pros... The Naidu Character: Possibly the only likable part of the movie was his comedy.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: That was great fun! I never read those Chester-Gould-comics but it's not necessary to know them. Maybe there were some inside jokes I didn't figure out but what the eye doesn't see the heart cannot grieve over. This is such an ironic, colourful film and the actors are good-humoured all together. The setting is similar to that in the "Batman' movies, but not as dark and grey. Okay, the story is not so original but there is a plot (which is not self-evident) and a more or less surprising ending.

With this movie, you could play an interesting game, if you watch it with friends. Don't watch the credits at the beginning and then look who's the fastest to find out who are the famous actors under their make-up!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer:
positive