input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: This film was just painful to watch... not in the good dramatic way that makes you cringe with emotions for well developed characters in dramatic situations (yeah, I pretty much made that last sentence up as I went along), but in just an absolute dull way for OVER two hours. Now, you all may think I'm just some ignorant reviewer who has no respect for Shakespeare or "artistic film-making"... well, you'd be wrong on both counts. I love the works of Shakespeare, especially the tragedies of Romeo and Juliet, Julius Caesar, Macbeth, and Hamlet, and I've watched plenty of "arthouse" films such as the surreal and well-made Eraserhead and Fellini's 8 1/2... but this was just over two hours of lost-in-translation Shakespeare, WAY too much nudity (I can understand artistic nudity in SOME scenes... but not in every other shot of a movie!!! IT WAS POINTLESS AND SERVED NOTHING FOR THE STORY!!!), and basically just overzealous film-making. I had high expectations for this film in that it was said to be "very artistic" and was an adaptation of Shakespeare's The Tempest... but this was just an extreme letdown. I gave this film a three ONLY because of Sir John Gielgud's acting presence (which far surpassed all of the no-names in this film) and the cinematography/set design combination as it made a lot of scenes look like paintings in motion... however, a lot of this film would've been better off as JUST a painting with a scroll of text below it. A true disappointment... maybe if Zeffirelli had been given the director's chair, this would've been much better. But this is one audience member's opinion, many others may enjoy this far more than me. That being said, if you can't find this at any nearby video stores (it's currently not on DVD), don't try to go too far out of your way to find it... it's not really worth it.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Although this film is somewhat sanitized (because it was made at a time when people just didn't talk about sex), it is an extremely helpful short film to show prepubescent girls so they know what to expect during menstruation. Not surprisingly, it was paid for by the Kotex company, though what may surprise many is that Disney made this film--as they made a lot of educational films during the 1940s-60s. However well made the film is, though, I think the film maker's missed a real opportunity. Instead of the nice female narrator's voice and the relatively bland visuals it would have been GREAT if they'd used Minnie Mouse and the rest of the Disney gang!! I know this would have given old Walt a heart attack, but wow that would have been a great film! By the way, although the notion of sex is barely hinted at in the film, it DOES adequately explain menstruation in general. However, it does lack some details (especially about intercourse) that I assume were included in the accompanying booklet.

Now if only I can figure out why I watched a cartoon about menstruation.
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Never before have the motives of the producers of a motion picture been more transparent. Let's see: FIRST, they get every willing televangelist to hype this film as the greatest thing since sliced white bread. NEXT, they encourage as many fundamentalist Christians as possible to purchase copies of the film so as to recoup its paltry production costs and pump up its advertising budget. And FINALLY, when the film hits the theaters, get as many said Christians as possible to see it yet again, bus them into the multiplexes if necessary, NOT on the merits of the film itself, but because a #1 box office opening will be seen as some sort of profound spiritual victory.

But THAT, of course, won't be enough. I imagine that any film critic with the audacity to give "Left Behind" anything short of a glowing review will be deemed "anti-Christian."

Of course, this shamelessly manipulative marketing campaign shouldn't surprise anyone. It is, after all, good old fashioned Capitalism at work. What DOES surprise me is how many people have been suckered into the whole "Left Behind" mindset. As someone who tries to balance his spiritual beliefs with some sense of reason and rationality, it leaves me scratching my head. It would appear that there are many, MANY people who actually believe that sometime in the near future a "Rapture" is going to occur, and that millions of people all over the Earth are going to simultaneously vanish INTO THIN AIR. What kind of reality, I wonder, are these people living in? Is this "Rapture" something they actually believe in, or is it something they fervently WANT to believe in? And when they reach the end of their lives and realize this "Rapture" has not occurred, will they be disappointed and disillusioned? Will there still be people 100 years from now insisting that the "Rapture" is imminent?

In a way, I almost wish that such an event would occur! What an interesting day that would be! What would be even more interesting is if the Apocalypse were to occur in a more spectacular fashion, not in the anthropological sense the authors of the "Left Behind" series have portrayed, but as more of a Stephen Spielberg production, with boiling clouds, trumpets, angels descending out of the sky, Moon turned to blood, the whole nine yards. Imagine coming to the realization that it was all coming true, just as the evangelists had been warning for years, and that there was something more awesome than just the cold, hard, physical reality we inhabit. Wouldn't THAT be something???

Yet in the final analysis, it's that cold, hard, physical reality that I will content myself with. My life is not so meaningless that I need the fear of a "Rapture" and the "End Times" to make sense of it all ... nor do I need Heaven or Hell to bribe or scare me into behaving decently, thank you very much.
....
output answer:
negative