input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: "The Dream Child" of 1989 is the fifth film in the (generally overrated) "Nightmare" series, and at the latest from this point on, the series became total garbage. The only good films in the series were Wes Craven's 1984 original, and the third part, "The Dream Warriors" of 1987. The second part was disappointing and boring, and it was the fourth part in which the formerly scary madman Freddy Krueger began to annoy with constant idiotic jokes. This fifth entry to the series has hardly anything to recommend except for (admittedly great) visuals, and one creepy scene, a flashback sequence to how Freddy Krueger came into existence. The rest of the film consists mainly of our razor-clawed maniac-turned-jokester yelling stupid one-liners, and the old formula of a bunch of teenage jackasses, who desperately try to avoid falling asleep, because good old Freddy awaits them in their dreams. Lisa Wilcox is back in the role of Alice Johnson, and a bunch of uninteresting crap, such as a super-dumb 'eerie' children's rhyme is added for no other reason than to have some sort of justification for making this superfluous and boring sequel... In Short: No originality, just a decline of the old formula, and an over-load of painfully annoying jokes. My (generous) rating of 3/10 is due to the great visuals, and especially to emphasize the difference to the terrible next sequel, "Freddy's Dead", which is awful beyond belief. In case you're not a hardcore Freddy Krueger enthusiast, "The Dream Child" should be avoided, and even if you are, this is more than likely to disappoint.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Joseph L. Mankiewicz is not remembered by most today as one of the finest directors in Hollywood history, but this film proves that he is. Already a success by doing sophisticated American dramas such as A Letter to Three Wives and All About Eve as well as successfully adapting Shakespeare to life in Julius Caesar, Mankiewicz does a marvelous job of bringing this hit Broadway play to film and does it with style. Marlon Brando is perfect as Sky Masterson, even if he can't sing too well. He is the only actor who could pull it off perfectly wit his sheer coolness and clarity. Frank Sinatra is a wonderful singer, as expected, and does a good job of acting as Nathan Detroit. Jean Simmons is also very good as Sarah Brown and her scenes with Brando sizzle with great chemistry. All supporting actors do their part, especially Sheldon Leonard as Harry the Horse in a very funny bit. Still, Mankiewicz should be given most of the credit for bringing a fine musical in its own right to the screen in such a way that it feels authentic in many scenes but is still a story in its own world. All in all, Guys and Dolls is a great musical and works on many levels it normally should not have.
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I saw this film when it first came out in 1978, when I was a sophomore in high school. I took a date to see it. I didn't "get any," needless to say, because the film was so bad! Joan Rivers' career never tanked as badly as it deserved after making this awful, unfunny crap. In fact, unfunny isn't a severe enough term: this film is ANTI-FUNNY! You walk out feeling like any laughter that might have occurred was beaten out of you before it could happen. This isn't worth watching out of curiosity, or out of any sense of it being "so-bad-it's-good." Not even the gang at MST3K could've made this worth watching! The fact that Billy Crystal's career survived this early suicide attempt is a miracle.
....
output answer:
negative