input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: My roommate got the No, No, Nanette soundtrack as a dub on a tape and she proceeded to listen to it non-stop. After it finally totally brainwashed me into submission, I found the songs to be irresistible, especially the famous, I want to be happy, but I can't be happy... But of coarse from the soundtrack I had no idea what the film was about. So the other day I saw a copy of it at the video store and I rented what was supposed to be a long lost version of the film. I was thinking that it was going to be amazing, because the soundtrack is so cute. Unfortunately most of the songs that I loved were nowhere to be found in the video I saw. Now I've never seen the 1930 version of the musical but this version was sadly disappointing because there was very little singing and practically no dancing and beside that the sound was really bad through out and you couldn't really understand what people were saying a lot of the time. Really the only highlights of this film were the outrageous 1940's fashion. Nanette wears this crazy hat with two feathers that stick out like rabbit ears and Kansas Kitty has this bizarre feather muff that she keeps on her fore arm and then has herself wrapped in this net scarf. The one dance sequence is a little weird too with Nanette doing this weird ballet stuff with pin-up girl imagery superimposed on top of her. Actually one more bright spot of the film was the artist Guillespe who dreams of being a fine artist but it currently condemned to drawing pin-up girls for money. I like how Guillespe keeps it old school, and disses Nanette when his masterpiece, the piece that was to make his career, is sold by Nanette for a paltry $5250. Doesn't she realize that that piece was his immortality? Silly rabbit/girl with your feather rabbit ears on your hat. When will you learn? Why doesn't he just pencil in a cigarette before the ad men take the Work away?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Vincent Price's follow-up to HOUSE OF WAX (1953), the film which cemented his reputation as a horror icon, similarly revolves around a bitter albeit resourceful showman. Though a remake, the former (shot in Technicolor) remains the superior effort; that said, apart from some resistible comic relief, the obligatory resort to cheap gimmickry (it was another 3-D showcase) and occasional narrative shortcomings (whatever happened to the missing bag which supposedly turned up at some police station containing a severed head?), this offers more than enough Grand Guignol-type thrills and overall camp value (Price hamming it up in a variety of disguises as an inventor of illusions impersonating 'missing' star conjurers who had taken advantage of his genius) to stand on its own two feet. Incidentally, director Brahm's involvement here proves no mere coincidence since the narrative incorporates elements from two horror titles (both starring Laird Cregar) he had previously helmed i.e. THE LODGER (1944) and HANGOVER SQUARE (1945). The young leads are played by Mary Murphy (as Price's ingenue assistant) and Patrick O'Neal (as her police detective boyfriend curiously enough, he would himself take the lead in a similar piece, CHAMBER OF HORRORS [1966], which I have acquired just in time to serve as an encore to this one). An interesting sideline here is the latter's adoption of a novel detection technique, fingerprinting, which is crucial in bringing about Price's downfall (in a predictable but rather awkward fiery climax)though the persistent snooping of his amateur crime novelist landlady has at least as much to do with it in the long run! Watching the star in a made-to-measure role, the film emerges a good deal of fun particularly at a compact 73 minutes.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Even though many people here praises this movie, I have to warn you. It has no logic whatsoever. I think that Basinger does a decent job at acting, but you can't make a thriller if there is a great lack of realism.

This scene paints a good picture for you of the movie : while Basinger is pursued by murderous thugs she decides to sit down and gaze upon a picture she finds from her pocket. The picture is from her daughter and it reads "we love you mommy". Who does something like that ? What the eff? And believe me when I say that it is not nearly as stupid as some other scenes of the movie. Someone stated that this is a "hidden gem". Well, I have to strongly disagree, this movie has stayed hidden for a reason. And it's not a gem. Oh, and please, I don't even want to start commenting about the red toolbox. It hurts my brain :D Usually the lack of logic does not bother me if it is in small amounts, but this movie basically is made possible only because of the lack of logic. But, i still give it a 4 because even though it is embarrassingly flawed in logic, it has certain mood that kept me watching till the end.

So if you choose to watch this, you know you have been warned.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer:
negative