input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Unfortunately I have to agree with the critic written by halopes.

For a short film the cinematography, costumes, sets, sound, editing and everything else is very, very good. This might seem surprising at first but I was told that the technical crew working on this consisted of professionals, so the quality is to be expected. The problem, as usual, resides in the story itself.

Thing is, it's not really a story. To tell a story (or in cinema's case, SHOW a story) you need plot and conflict. You need things that happen to the protagonist: events. These events happen because the protagonist wants something and, for some reason, he can't get it. Tim Watcher has no problems or goals. He's a kind of supernatural entity who observes mankind. That's it. So what we have here is pure exposition. Instead of being shown a story, we're simply learning things about this Tim Watcher individual. Of course, considering the peculiar nature of Tim Watcher and the film's short duration, it's hard to give enough background about him so the movie resorts to Voice-Over Narration. In this case it's used in the worst possible sense which is to give information that otherwise we'd never glean. In fact, if it wasn't for the VO we'd think the character was just a kooky old man going around looking at things. To make it worse the VO also explains what's happening on the screen! The images we're shown are just decoration for the text we're listening to.

I could say that this short film would make a good video for a band or something, but because the images don't stand on their own it's impossible to say that. What's left obviously has value as a measure of the crew's technical capabilities (not incredible, but good) but fails to entertain, amuse, thrill or, at the very least, show a story.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: This movie is of almost generation-defining importance to some of us born in the early post-war years in that (and especially if you were born between 1946 and 1953 and loved spending Saturday afternoons at your neighborhood movie house) you almost certainly saw it. And the memory of seeing it has probably stayed with you. It's style is the stuff of a brief and somehow gloriously exciting moment in our growing up days.

It had a modern, space-age storyboard for the audiences of it's time. The set was any town with a supermarket and a movie theater that would be packed for a Friday midnight show. It has hot rods and rebellious youth, but in the 'why can't they let us have fun' way rather than the disturbed, histrionic rebel-without-a-cause way. All characters were identifiable to us - teens, parents, the old man, the doctor, the nurse, the mechanic, the boy, the puppy, even the cops - were sympathetic to us. We could relate to them all

It had a singularly horrifying monster. It's first victim is heard moaning 'it hurts.....it hurts' and we were convinced and frightened. The menace grows continually throughout the story. There are intense periods of suspense, colourful effects, a fabulous lead in McQueen, and moments of humour, both intended and not. It even had an almost over-the-top sad part to make the more sensitive of us feel like crying.

I saw it in summer, age 9 or so, double billed with 'I Married A Monster From Outer Space', and was so thrilled by the experience of this particular double feature that I went back a couple more times before it left. Everyone I knew saw it. Everyone I knew loved it.
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I saw this film at the Adelaide Film Festival '07 and was thoroughly intrigued for all 106 minutes. I like documentaries, but often find them dragging with about 25 minutes to go. Forbidden Lie$ powered on though, never losing my interest.

The film's subject is Norma Khoury, a Jordanian woman who found fame and fortune in 2001 with the publication of her book Forbidden Love, a biographical story of sorts concerning a Muslim friend of hers who was murdered by her family for having a relationship with a Christian man. A few years later though, a few journalists started poking holes in the story, leading the public to believe it was fraud. The film covers this quickly but thoroughly in the beginning, and from there we spend most of our time in the company of Norma as she tries to convince us that her novel is more than fiction.

Director Anna Broinowski has found a truly fascinating woman to study, and she conducts endless interviews with Khoury as she seeks the truth. As always in life, the truth is not so easy to find. Norma fears for her life, worried about violent backlash over the unsavoury portrait her novel paints of Jordanian Muslims. She refuses to return to Jordan and show us the facts. Broinowski is not deterred however, and slowly puts the pieces together in front of us.

The result is an incredible look inside the mind of a con artist. Naturally, what we find there makes little sense and is extremely difficult to follow, and ultimately we don't know whether to believe Norma or not. She's either a rather unfairly put-upon woman trying to survive, or a fantastic spinster. The web of lies, truths and half-truths she turns through the film is brilliant.

The film uses much interview footage, as well as dramatisations to tell it's story, and Broinowski uses these dramatisations to show us why people like Norma are able to exist: we want to be conned. We go to the cinema every day and allow ourselves to believe what's happening on the screen is real. That might just be me reading into things a bit too much, it didn't come up in the Q&A with Brionowski after the film, but that's what I took away from it.

This is a great Australian film, and must receive an international release, and a swag of awards if you ask me. Certainly the best film I saw at AFF07.

Go see it, if you get the chance.
....
output answer:
positive