input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: This is a pretty bad movie. The plot is sentimental mush. I suppose the production values are OK, decent photography, unobtrusive direction and all that. Mark Hamill was terrible. I've never cared much for him, and this movie validates that perception. It's no wonder that he never really had any sort of career aside from his "Star Wars" films. I'll just say "Buh-bye, Mark" as he sinks into well-deserved obscurity. On the other hand, a very young Annie Potts utterly stole the show. She showed charm, beauty, and acting chops all in one performance. I remember seeing her in "Texasville" recently and taking note of her beauty. It's interesting seeing her from ten years earlier. Anyway, unless you are interested in Miss Potts, run away from this film screaming for the hills.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: A kid with ideals who tries to change things around him. A boy who is forced to become a man, because of the system. A system who hides the truth, and who is violating the rights of existence. A boy who, inspired by Martin Luther King, stands up, and tells the truth. A family who is falling apart, and fighting against it. A movie you can't hide from. You see things, and you hear things, and you feel things, that you till the day you die will hope have never happened for real. Violence, frustration, abuse of power, parents who can't do anything, and a boy with, I am sorry, balls, a boy who will not accept things, who will not let anything happen to him, a kid with power, and a kid who acts like a pro, like he has never done anything else, he caries this movie to the end, and anyone who wants to see how abuse found place back in the 60'ies.
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Is there a book titled "How to Make a Movie with Every 'Man vs. Nature' Cliche Imaginable"? If not, Ants would make excellent source material for the chapter on killer insects. Ants doesn't have one shred of originality to be found at any point of its 100 minute runtime. I suppose the most surprising thing about Ants is that they actually stretched the film to 100 minutes. The set-up, the characters, the various sub-plots, the death scenes, and the way the ants are presented have been done before any number of times and in most cases, much better. It's amazing that so many of these Insects on a Rampage films were made in the 70s because they're all basically the same movie.

And can someone please tell me what in God's name Myrna Loy is doing in this monkey-turd of a movie? A woman as talented and classy as Loy deserved better than Ants as one of her final movies.
....
output answer:
negative