input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Wow, i'm a huge Henry VIII/Tudor era fan and, well, this was .... interesting. The only one I watched was the Catherine of Aragon one. And wow...just wow. I've seen bad acting before, but this reached new heights. When the actress who played Catherine was umm.. crying? she wails and screams and i have to admit i rewinded many times... many, many times .... funny, funny stuff. The only person who even showed any slight sliver of talent was the actress playing Anne Boleyn (i might be prejudiced though, i do have a slight obsession with Anne Boleyn, she was a really facinating woman, read up on her, it's worth it!) Also, i have read a lot about the Tudor time period and i think that the characters weren't very acurately displayed, they were all very stereotypical. Only see this movie if you are prepared to see a very important time period, and the important lives of those involved turned into a laughing stock.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: This film was terrible. OK, my favourite film is 'The Wicker Man' (1973), so I was always bound to be a little biased.

The plot rambles along, throwing out enough of the key elements of the original to make the term 'remake' highly dubious. (He's not a virgin, but IS allergic to bees. WOW!) So many things happen that make no sense and are unexplained, which I'm afraid Mr LaBute does not a horror movie make. (How are two people we clearly saw blown up in a car at the start alive and well at the end of the film?) Cage looks haggard and bewildered throughout, and his character is prone to calling out "Rowan!?" at the slightest noise. The 'nods' to the original are irritating as they come off as tacky rather than as intelligent homage. For example, certain incidents mirror the original (The girl falling out of a cupboard pretending to be dead when Woodward/Cage is searching the island) and several lines of dialogue are plucked straight from Anthony Schaffers original screenplay and shoehorned in.

I'm sure others will provide a better and more detailed analysis than this, I really can't be bothered to write any more about this film. It lacks any kind of substance. Throw it on the scrap heap with all the other remakes that have sullied the good names of the films they were 'based' on (in this case very loosely).
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Walter Matthau and George Burns were a famous vaudeville comedy act, Lewis and Clark, who haven't spoken in over 10 years. Burns retired and Matthau took it personally and has held a grudge ever since. Such is the premise of this hilarious Neil Simon play made into a movie. Of course, what makes it so good is Matthau and Burns in their prime, and the material is funnier than anything you can find today. Richard Benjamin shines as Matthau's nephew and agent. There's even old clips of actual stars of the golden era to get you into the groove of the film, and character actor Fritz Feld starts it all off with a "pop." Rosetta LaNoire, who started out in the 30s in theater with Orson Welles and later was Grandma on "Family Matters," is great in a small role.

The only problem I had with it (and maybe I'm being too picky and/or serious) is the way Matthau treats Burns when they first meet. Granted, he's had a lot of resentment festering in all these years, but some of the things he does would be considered rude or just plain bad manners taken out of context. Also, I'm used to seeing Matthau act that way in other movies, but not to George Burns. And, Matthau's bellowing tends to get a little old.

All in all, if you need a consistently funny film to help and forget your troubles, put in "The Sunshine Boys." They'll lift your spirits and make you think of a simpler time and way of life.

Benjamin: "You have to slide it."

Matthau: "Wait, wait. I think you have to slide it."
....
output answer:
positive