input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Not only does this movie have a poor plot, bad direction, and terrible acting, its opens up a whole new meaning to racism.

In this film "White" chicks are the sluts, "White" boys are the wana-be gangsters, and successful (yes again) "White" businessmen are revolting toilet shitters.

I just wonder what would happen if I made the exact same movie with the exact same story line and script, only I made it about Caucasians. "He dude, its good to finally see your've stopped dating those black chicks".

Nobody seems to notice it, but watch this film again and you'll vomit at how they have portrayed the new Zealand "white boys". All of a sudden its white folks who are the main cause of gang aggression, and whores out for a quick bang. Only Samoans girls have a heart, there's no such thing as a non-slutty white girl.

It disgusts me that they couldn't make this film without giving the Caucasian community in New Zealand a repulsive profile. If you think I'm overgeneralizing, go watch this film, and see what you make of the "white boys". Just because Samoans choose to call us "white boys" in actual life, doesn't mean its funny. If I said hey black boy I'll loose my teeth.

Don't see this movie. Don't waste your money. Don't be racist.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I wish Spike Lee had chosen a different title for his film. "Summer Of Sam" conveys the impression that the film is about the infamous serial killer, David Berkowitz. It's not. It's a gritty, earthy portrait of NYC street life during the hot summer of '77 when Berkowitz terrorized that city.

The film follows several young fictional characters in an Italian-American neighborhood, and their reactions to the Son of Sam threat. There's Vinny and his wife Dionna; there's Richie and Ruby, and several other characters.

The problem is that these characters are not likable. They are routinely annoying, and at times unbearable. Lee then belabors their high energy, chaotic lives, which are filled with anger, lust, and general turmoil. There are at least two protracted fight scenes between Vinny and his wife, redundant disco dance scenes, countless gabfests ... Over and over I kept wondering: where's the film editor?

Meanwhile, with all that bulk, the film passes up the chance to convey any real sense of fear or dread arising from the Son of Sam menace, which is too much in the background. Lee is more successful at showing a different kind of menace, that arising from neighborhood vigilante groups.

The acting is uniformly good. That, combined with 70's disco music, and lavish attention to costumes and production design, make you really feel like you are in an Italian-American neighborhood in NYC in 1977.

The film's atmospheric authenticity, however, is not nearly enough to offset a rambling, overblown script about the lives of grossly irritating people.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Honestly,the concept behind "Masters of Horror" had something going for it. Big-time horror directors that are now left aside by the industry being given a chance to direct horror again, I was all for it from the start. That is, until I watched some episodes... Oh boy, it's really bad TV. Not only does it seem like the directors are being given very little budgets to direct their skits, but there seems to be guidelines as well, like shooting in HD for example. To make a long story short, it's bad both for artistic and reasons financial reasons. I cannot help but compare to the "Tales From The Crypt", and the M.o.H. episodes really don't stand the comparison. TFTC was good, MOH is bad; according to me here are a few keys to explain it: TFTC was shorter (around 25 minutes for each episode) than MOH (50 minutes per episode), I believe it allowed denser screenplays, with good ideas reoccurring more often, better overview of an episode, less chances to let the plot be confusing or boring. Duration might have been also the reason why the budget was better spent on TFTC: directors got to have REAL film music composers (composers on MOH are if inexistent, very bad), REAL actors (whereas on MOH it's nothing but unknown actor after unknown actor!), REAL directors of photography and, it can help sometimes, REAL film cameras (while MOH is shot on HD cameras with very wrongly chosen lens-pieces), the result of which being that the episodes of TFTC looked and felt "cinematographic" in the sense that there was real actors being casted, ranging from Michael J. Fox to Tim Roth to Kyle McLachlan to Kirk Douglas, but there were also film composers behind it, of the range of Alan Silvestri, great directors of photography like Dean Cundey, high-end screenplay writers, and in that sense each "Tale" was a little movie of its own true kind. Compared to TFTC, the "Masters of Horrors" is quite a lame approach to TV horror. It's very hard to stand looking at it if your standards regarding cinematography are just a little above average, because it looks the same as any ugly TV serial, if not worse. It gets boring and even annoying incredibly fast, within the first 10 minutes usually. The actors are never-heard before wannabes (except for Fairuza Balk, Robert Englund, Angela Bettis and a few, but even there, they are the only famous actors of their episodes). The director base for MoH was good in the beginning, but it's getting worst and worst with every episode: now if even the directors are unknown to the world, what remains? Nothing! And it's funny how they are starting to have complete unknown directors while they haven't even had, say, Stan Winston, Dick Maas, William Lustig, Sam Raimi, Eric Red, Robert Harmon, William Friedkin, Jim Muro, Stuart Gordon, Russell Mulcahy... If even "Masters of Horror" cannot bring dead directors back to life, who will? Maybe a rerun of Tales from the Crypt will.
....
output answer:
negative