input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: This animated feature (a co-production between Ireland, Belgium and France) deals with what is surely one of the oddest subject ever for a movie: the creation in the 9th century of a famous illuminated manuscript, the book of Kells. In this fantastic retelling of that story, a prepubescent boy named Brendan, living in a monastery ruled by his uncle, a stern abbot who is worried preparing the defenses of the abbey from the impending attack by the feared vikings, must get into the forbidding surrounding forest to find the materials that a master illuminator named Aidan needs to finish the book. To do that task, in the forest he unexpectedly finds the help of a friendly fairy named Aisling.Gorgeously and delicately drawn by hand (there is some computer animation in a few key passages) in a manner that wants to resemble both medieval and traditional Celtic art, and with a very creative use of color and all sorts of geometric shapes, this film is relentlessly strange, but is a good strange, not of the off putting variety but of the eye opening sort. If one were to nitpick - beyond some anachronisms, like an African monk in 9th century Ireland one would have to say that the blend of Catholic mysticism with Celtic paganism in this movie never really coalesce. And the comic relief is sometimes a bit too broad. That's why I cannot give them the highest ranking. But these are minor problems with an otherwise delightful and superbly imaginative film.
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Horror movies can be a lot of fun with low budgets, bad acting, and a bit of panache. I think the film is just missing panache, because, one thuddingly dull scene after another, people make laughably harmless claw-handed grabs at the air. If it weren't so boring, it might be funny.

A horror film can go a long way with a tired concept like "college kids in a haunted house," in much the same way the Evil Dead movies had a lot of fun with a similar standard plotline. Hallow's End, unfortunately, doesn't go a long way. Actually, it doesn't go anywhere. It spends the better part of an hour setting up faceless and anonymous characters with what seem like endless interpersonal drama. I have nothing against character development, not even in a horror movie, but these are strictly one-dimensional characters (the alpha-male, the milquetoast, the... um... throwaway characters that exist mostly for sex scenes.) Spending forty-plus bloodless, droning minutes with them was more horrific than when the bloodshed started.

Well, implied bloodshed anyway. When the college kids turn into whatever they dressed as for their haunted house (one's a vampire, one's wearing O.R. scrubs and some white pancake) they look pretty much the way they did in their amateur haunted house costumes; The Dead Hate The Living, using a similar theme, is a masterwork in comparison. There isn't really any gore to speak of, nor are there any real scares.

I've thought about this one from almost every approach. If it was supposed to be a tight, suspenseful horror movie (which would explain why things moved so slowly), the pathetic sex scenes and cheap monsters would invalidate it. If it was supposed to be a genuine blood & guts horror movie (which would explain the schlock)... where's the blood and guts? And the anticlimax is one of the unexciting endings to a movie I've ever seen. It's the kind of movie that, though it doesn't have a narrator through the film, is bookended by voice-overs because all of the meaningless dialogue just wasn't enough.

This was a hard one... coming out of it, I wonder if I've just sat through a christian horror film. Maybe the "I know hell exists" of the opening wasn't meant that way, but there are some hints (or misdirection-- I'm not sure which). For all the profanity in the film, a line like "gosh-darnit" comes off a little absurd, and so does most of the crucifix worshipping, god-fearing, and satan-dreading, especially after some lecherous T&A sex scenes (one heterosexual, one lesbian).

If it a christian company (Highland Myst's logo even has a bit of a crucifix resemblance), then this film weighs in heavily for the atheist camp. An omnipotent being can't be this bad a filmmaker.

....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: It's my opinion that when you decide to re-make a very good film, you should strive to do better than the original; or at least give it a fresh point of view. Now the 1963 Robert Wise telling of Shirley Jackson's remarkable novel "The Haunting of Hill House" is worth the price of admission even today. Now fast forward to 1999 and the re-make. I was left shaking my head and asking, why? The acting is wooden, the story unrecognizable and the whole point seems to be to replace the subtle horror of the original with as many special effects computers can generate. I had heard that this update was bad; but couldn't believe it was that bad, considering the source material. I was wrong. After watching this and saying to my wife how awful it was, she said; "Well they got your money!" She's right, don't let them get yours. If there's no profit in making lousy re-makes, maybe they'll stop making them or come up to a higher standard that doesn't insult their audience
....
output answer:
negative