input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: This film enhanced my opinion of Errol Flynn. While Flynn is of course best known for his savoir-faire and sprezzatura (to throw in a couple of high-falutin' European terms!), this film gives him an opportunity to stretch (albeit only slightly) as an actor, as he plays an unabashed social climber with a big ego and a sense of nerve to match. The supporting cast is excellent; everyone seems well-chosen for their roles.

The story moves briskly and, while not particularly profound (it misses, perhaps intentionally, the opportunity to render social commentary on the massively uneven distribution of income during that time), it certainly entertains and satisfies. From what I know of Jim Corbett, the story is also reasonably faithful to history. I also really liked the great depictions of 1880s San Francisco. All in all, there's little not to like about this film...very well worth the time to watch it.
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: This movie was slower then Molasses in January... in Alaska. The man who put togeather the preview should get an award for managing to put every one of the 30 seconds that were interisting into the preview. I had to wake up the people I was watching it with, several times. After it was over, I felt bad for having woken them up.

Most of the film is taken up with hoping something will actually happen, but nothing ever does. It was easy to loose track of people's motives, and the characters were flat and uninteristing. By the end of the movie, you just hoped everyone would died. Everyone runs around either being contemptible, petty, or pitiful, and usually all three.

And worse, we watched a minute or two of the added features, just for kicks and giggles you understand, and all that we saw was people being smug about how socially aware they are. If they had spend the time on the movie that they did patting themselves on the back, it might have been worth watching.

I was brought in expecting the excitement of '24.' I got a lecture on social awareness through the blery eyes of the sandman.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Writer/Director Peter Greenaway cements his title as the High Lord of Art House Pretension with his latest exercise in obnoxious self-indulgence, 8 Women. The film follows a wealthy Englishman and his son on their mutual quest for sexual satisfaction, as they lure and blackmail women (guess how many) into joining their personal collection of concubines.

Think of any possible way that this premise could be offensive, and chances are Greenaway's done it. The female characters are little more than a catalogue of fetishes for the two protagonists to partake of. There's the Kabuki-obsessed Mio, the ever-pregnant Giaconda and Beryl, who's got a thing for farm animals. Giulietta has no legs and uses a wheelchair, she's the "half woman," get it? Greenaway vehemently denies all accusations of misogyny, but if this isn't it, then what is?

The film goes on to eroticize anything and everything having to do with Japan, a continuation of themes from his snore-worthy (but less sexist) 1996 film, The Pillow Book. But where the The Pillow Book was erotic and graceful, 8 Women just gets horny and exploitative. Greenaway's work is tasteless and arrogant in its fetishism, and the only person likely to enjoy watching it is the auteur himself.
....
output answer:
negative