input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: This is an excellent, heartbreaking movie. It is by far the best I've seen that depicts the current reality in Latin America...kidnappings, corruption, ruthless and greedy police officials and heartless mayhem towards innocent victims. Denzel Washinton gives the most moving performance in his career, in my opinion. Dakota Fanning is an amazing young actress. The relationship between Washington and Fanning is wonderfully written and portrayed, I believed every minute. The cast is brilliant, Christopher Walken, Mickey Rourke are great as always. Walken lights up the screen for me like no other actor. I would have loved to see more of both of them. The authentic locations are remarkable. The camera work is interesting and different. There are many famous Latin actors in the cast, making it all the more interesting for people familiar with Latin American cinema. I highly recommend this movie.
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: 2 stars for Kay Francis -- she's wonderful! And she didn't deserve this horrible tripe that Warner Bros. threw her way!

The two-pronged premise that this movie is based on is ridiculous and unbelievable in the extreme. Kay is a small-town wife and mother who yearns for something bigger: she wants to be an actress. When a big-shot actor comes to town and invites Kay to his hotel to talk about possibilities, Kay tells her husband she's going to the movies. The hubby's biddy of a mother puts a bug in hubby's ear that Kay's not being truthful, and he sets out looking for her. He finds her w/ the actor in the hotel (they are only talking!) and he slugs the guy, who falls over a railing, lands face-first in a pond (lake?), and dies. Now here's the two unbelievable premises upon which the rest of the movie is based:

1) the judge tells the jury that if it's determined that the man died *before* his head went into the water, that they must find the hubby guilty of first degree murder. (Whaaaaa?????? I think slugging a guy in a fit of rage would count for manslaughter or murder 2 at the most, not FIRST DEGREE murder. Give me a break! But the plot required him being found guilty of murder 1 so that he could be sent to prison for life. Whatever.)

2) the hubby's lawyer, after the conviction and sentencing, tells Kay that it's all HER fault. His reasoning is that if she hadn't gone over to the actor's room, then her husband wouldn't have had to go after her and slug the guy and kill him. He tells her that she's the guilty one, not her husband, and she nods and agrees. What. The. Hell?!?!?! The rest of the movie is all about Kay trying to achieve fame and money in order to get her husband released from prison and right the wrong she committed by causing him to kill the actor dude in the first place.

I can't even go on with this review. The movie was just all too painful. Four years earlier, in the pre-code days, you'd never have caught Kay playing such a wimp! In true Kay Francis fashion, though, she did do her best to make us believe that this woman was a believable character. I give her much credit for trying to breathe some life and credibility to this thankless role. This character was a far cry from pre-code Kay roles and real-life spitfire Kay Francis.

Steer way clear of this one! There are much better Kay Francis vehicles out there! (From personal experience, I can highly recommend Mary Stevens, MD and Jewel Robbery; also good are Dr. Monica and One Way Passage. I'm sure there's other great Kay flicks as well, but I'm only mentioning the ones I've seen and can recommend.)
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: A terrible movie containing a bevy of D-list Canadian actors who seem so self-conscious about the fact they are on-camera that their performances are overly melodramatic and quite forgettable.

This film is badly written, badly edited, and badly directed. It is disjointed, incomprehensible and bizarre - but not in a good way. McDowell does a great job with what he is given, but is the only one in this film to do so - he really has a bad story and script to work with. It's not even camp enough to be funny.

I have yet to see Van Pelleske act in a credible manner, and even the sub-characters like Eisen (with his nasal, whiny voice) confirm that we are on a lot in Toronto rather than on a barge off Africa.

Didn't the director see that the 'creature' looks like a jazz dancer in an alien suit? The fight between the blue bolts of lightning and Pelleske's orange wisps of 'magic' (!?! for lack of a better word), is obviously the result of bad actors, with no choreographer, overlaid with completely derivative special effects. Was there even a director on set or in the editing room for this disaster film (not the good kind)?

Learn from the mistakes of others ... don't even waste your time with this one, you'll regret it like I did. I have nothing more to say about this waste of celluloid.
....
output answer:
negative