input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: This movie is completely ridiculous. Not only is the plot atrocious, but the acting is horrendous. The special effects are asinine and the entire movie is set in a post-apocalyptic desert. Yet, it is by far the most amusing movie ever given permission to be produced. It is 101 minutes of laughs due to the fact that we all know there will be no fuel in the year 3000, or any El Camino's. There are also other aspects which I will not spoil, just because they are what makes the movies so wonderfully moronic. I highly recommend this movie, just because of its utter idiocy. I have no idea who would watch this expecting it to be a high quality feature, but if a good laugh is what you need, watch Exterminators of the Year 3000!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Rather foolish attempt at a Hitchcock-type mystery-thriller, improbably exchanging espionage for archaeology and based on the Robin Cook novel; incidentally, I've recently acquired another adaptation of his work COMA (1978) in honor of the late Richard Widmark. For the record, director Schaffner had just made THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL (1978) a similarly fanciful but much more engrossing suspenser and, unfortunately, SPHINX was a false step from which his so-far impressive career would not recover.

Despite its scope and reasonably decent cast, however, this one proved a critical and commercial flop mainly because the narrative just isn't very thrilling: in fact, it's quite dreary (feeble attempts at horror the archaeologist heroine having to put up with entombment, rotting corpses galore, and even an attack by a flurry of bats notwithstanding). Lesley Anne-Down is the lovely leading lady, stumbling upon a lost treasure it's actually been hidden away by a local sect to prevent it from falling into the hands of foreigners, who have appropriated much of the country's heritage (under the pretext of culture) for far too long. Sir John Gielgud turns up in a thankless bit early on as the antique dealer who puts Down on the way of the loot, and pays for this 'act of treason' with his life.

Typically, it transpires that some characters are the opposite of what they claim to be so that apparent allies (such as Maurice Ronet) are eventually exposed as villains, while an ambiguous figure (Frank Langella, whom I saw at London in early 2007 in a West End performance of "Frost/Nixon", which has now been turned into a film) goes from Down's antagonist to her lover and back again, as he determines to keep the wealth belonging to Egyptian high priest Menephta a national treasure.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Sure this was a remake of a 70's film, but it had the suspense and action of a current film, say Breakdown. He's running, desperate to be with his hospitalized wife, the police are the least concern. The chases were very good, the part with him being

cornered at a rest stop was well done, the end of the movie was a great cliffhanger. This is better than Bullitt, a boring movie with what, a muscle car chase that was filmed badly? Vigo's character knew what he had to do to escape Johnny Law, few movies had the effects-night vision, CB radio-okay I forgot the name of the movie, guy has 76'Caddy souped up, toys with guy he upset. The ending is great, you can't tell if he fakes his suicide or not, a very good did-he-make-it-or-not.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer:
positive