input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Let's face it; some lame kid who dies and has his soul transfered into a scarecrow. Das no gonna happen neva! OMFG This stupid loser kid who can't stand up for himself gets his ass handed to him by some drunk bastard screwing his mom. Right as he dies, he looks up at the scarecrow and he let's his spirit go into the scarecrow. The drunk guy covered up his death by making it seem suicidal and thought he had gotten away with it. We later see he is tossed out of the trailer and later earns another encounter with the scarecrow. They had a brief encounter which includes the drunk calling him a loser and the scarecrow rebounding with "Takes one to know one, loser!" The scarecrow flips off the building, calls him "daddy-o", and then beheads the poor man. We can see how this awesome movie unfolds from that. He goes on to kill many people, afterward. He mainly kills the people who gave him a hard time in rl and goes off to kill some random ass people, just for some laughs. No laughing here. He adds a punchline to every kill, too. Every time he killed someone, he would do some karate flips and finish it all off with one of his signature punchlines. In the case of someone who was hard of hearing, he would say "Here, have an EAR of corn!" then shove it up their ass. OR we can actually take an example from the movie! He just got done killing a cop and was on his way to killing the only person who ever stood up for him. Her father, the sheriff, yelled to the madman to stop, and he said "Hey, stay awhile!" and threw a dagger threw his chest and stuck him onto some tree. In the end of the movie, he killed two guys and threw in the punchline "Gotta split!" and killed two guys by shoving a scythe into their heads. Wowzors, this movie made me want to cream my pants so bad. Maybe next time this guy makes a movie, it won't be gay.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: The actual crime story at the core of In Cold Blood might seem a little 'tame' for those who are weened on the classic serial killer stories (Gein, Bundy, Dahmer), or just the more notorious cases out in Hollywood (OJ, Manson). The essential facts in the case don't amount to anything terribly convoluted: Perry Smith and Dick Hickock (here played by Robert Blake and Scott Wilson respectively) met by some luck, conspired to rob a man's farmhouse safe out in Kansas, and after killing a family of four with a shotgun and dagger came away with 43 dollars. Aside from their returning to the US after fleeing briefly to Mexico, there isn't a whole lot of mystery to the resolution either. They were caught by some stroke of ironic chance (a cop followed them and stopped them for having a stolen car after Smith and Hickcock helped out a boy and his old man collecting bottles for change), and sentenced to hang by the neck until dead. The story ended in 1965.

But it's the handling of the story, moments of moot, the performances, a pure cinematic touch that Brooks and his absolutely marvelous (the late/great) DP Conrad Hall provides in crisp widescreen black and white, and a storytelling style that feels realistic without going into too much naturalism or too much melodrama (save perhaps for near the end, which is pitch perfect). The air of tragedy hangs over the story, and not so much because of the killings themselves, no matter how brutal they are as the "third" man that is conjured up, as the narrator observes, by Smith and Hickcock teaming up, but because of the inevitability of the story. You feel somehow for these criminals, who in any other hands would be just be conventional figures or something out of a B-movie. These aren't good people, but they aren't necessarily monsters either, at least all the way through.

It's also an excellent 'road-movie' as we see Smith and Hickcock on the road down to the Clutter residence (the actual night-time scene of the crime taking place late in the film), then on to Mexico, then back to America towards Las Vegas. We get to soak in the personalities of these two, probably even more than that of the police detectives who at first have no leads and then finally get a break with an inmate. It's actually kind of disturbing to get this close to these two (sort of akin to the aimless quality of Malick's Badlands characters), and it's also a sign of daring for the period. There's no sermonizing, like "he did this because of that and this or the other." We see how Smith had an abusive, psychotic father, but that Smith loved and hated him. The complexity there is too much for the movie, maybe even too much for Capote's book (which, I should confess, I've still yet to read, though I plan to). And we see Hickcock is this creature of slick confidence (i.e. getting the suit and other things with bad checks), but without any deep-rooted explanation to it all.

The streak of fatalism in In Cold Blood is some of the starkest of the 60s, and it's the luck of Brooks to have its stars as Blake in his top-of-the-pops performance (this and Lost Highway, oddly enough considering his real life saga in recent years, his quintessential pieces of work), and Wilson's breakthrough before becoming a character actor. While they're surrounded by fine supporting work, they themselves are eerily absorbing, driven more or less by greed and fantasies of escapism with treasure, and staying pretty much grounded in their situation through the death row and on through their ends. Is this a morale of the story, if there could be one, that it's more horrifying to confront the possibility that those who kill can't be classified, of good vs evil getting smudged? Smith apologized for his crime before being hung, and he points out, "but to who?" This is a story bound to give the most hardened fans of true-crime the bonafide chills, and it's quite possibly the best American film of 1967.
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: This film has all the earmarks of too many cooks spoiling the stew. Based on Shielah Graham's autobiography, it seems like the powers that be couldn't leave well enough alone. They couldn't decide if this was to be Graham's story or Fitzgerald's story, and also how much they should soft-pedal whoever's story it turned out to be. So a film that could have been a story about two fascinating (Fitzgerald) and notorious (Ms. Graham)personalities becomes a dreary disjointed soap opera about that tells us little about either. Added to this there is absolutely no period feel other than for 1959. Clumsy scene follows clumsy scene and we have no idea where we are in the story or how much time is passing. However - and this saved the film for me - Kerr has never looked lovelier, and Peck is as always a very handsome man. They truly make a beautiful, mature couple, and I only wish they had better material to work with. There is one scene that does work - Scott goes after Shielah while in a drunken state, and to see these two normally refined stars knock each other around is very disturbing and gives some fleeting idea of what goes on in a relationship such as theirs. Other than that, the movie is a wasted opportunity and achieves nowhere near the classic stature of other Wald produced soaps of the 1950 (PEYTON PLACE, THE BEST OF EVERYTHING).
....
output answer:
negative