input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I just caught an episode about Brad, the crack cocaine addict who turned to a drug addicted life on the streets after his bicycle racing career went to shambles as fast as it started. I have to say that the story about his biking career was more heart-breaking than his drug addiction. Here's this young guy who is winning bike races left and right and is invited to train with an Olympic training team for two weeks, and immediately upon arriving he insults Lance Armstrong, one of the greatest athletes who ever lived, and is generally callous and unfriendly to everyone in general. Understandably, he is soon asked to leave. Most of the show is about his struggle with addiction and how he got his life back, but what I wanted to know was what was wrong with him in the first place to make his act like such an ass?

At any rate, I was confused about how the show was put together, since it shows Brad at the height of his addiction. We see footage of him pan-handling and sleeping in gutters and ditches and even smoking crack cocaine. I didn't even know that was legal to show, but why would a camera crew just follow him around and film that? Do they do that in hopes that this guy will turn his life around and give them some material for a good TV episode?

At any rate, it is an enlightening show, because it shows the effects of various addictions and the total control that they can take over people's lives. Sometimes it's hard to watch because you really see how badly the families and friends suffer in the face of the addict's indifference, although I have to admit that at the end it all seems a little too clean-cut. There are times during the episodes when terrible things happen and everything seems lost, but still, and maybe I should warn about spoilers here, everything has a little too much of a happily-ever-after feel at the end, and I have a feeling that that is a very uncommon occurrence in real life. But still, it's a show about people trying to help other people, and you can never complain too much about something like that
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I saw this film awhile back (while working on a trailer for the film's production company) and it was TERRIBLE. Hewitt is mediocre at best, Hopkins phones his performance in (but still blows away Hewitt in their scenes together) and Alec looks bored. Trust me on this: you should avoid this film like the plague if it ever gets released. It seems to go on forever as the tired plot unfolds at a snail's pace. It is relentlessly unfunny, the cinematography is crappy and the direction is pedestrian. Alec Baldwin should go to film school if he plans to direct again. In terms of his acting, his character is totally unlikable, which makes it impossible to root for him. Dan Ackroyd is pretty funny and the surprising makeup of the jury near the film's end is cute, but this film is just plain awful.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I am an avid fan of violent exploitation cinema, who would never attack a film for being violent or disturbing. I consider "Cannibal Holocaust" a masterpiece and will always defend controversial films like "Day Of The Woman" or "Last House on the Left" as genuine classics. Anyone who browses through my other user comments will notice that I am actually very pro-violence/gore when it comes to films. However, I do think that there should be at least some point to the violence. This piece of crap doesn't have any point whatsoever. The first film in the notorious "Guinea Pig" series, "The Devil's Experiment" (1985) is widely controversial, but, as opposed to many other controversial films, this stinker has nothing at all to be recommended for. I must say that, before seeing any of the Guniea-Pig films, I already had a feeling that I would hate this one, knowing what it was about. Due to its status as one of the most controversial films around, however, I decided I had to see it. I am very glad I didn't waste any money on this pile of crap, and I sure wish I hadn't wasted my time with it either.

This thing's story (I don't even want to call it a 'film'): It doesn't have one. Three scumbags torture a woman to death for some excruciating 40 minutes. That's it. There is no artistic value, no 'shocking' story, no suspense; nothing. Simply the disbelief that a film that shows NOTHING except for a woman being tortured for no reason enjoys an enormous cult-following. It IS disturbing, I give it that. Of course it is disturbing to watch a torture video for 40 minutes. What is more disturbing, however, is the fact that many people actually seem to regard this pile of garbage as some kind of masterpiece. I really cannot figure why. The fact that the gore effects look realistic cannot be the reason, I hope. The girl who plays the victim isn't a very good actor, and reacts very calm to all the torture. That makes the film look less realistic, which is, in this single case, a good thing. This is a film that is sickening; not for its gore, but for its redundancy, its existence for the sole purpose of showing 40 minutes of torture.

I strongly oppose any form of censorship. Since this is 100% fake and nobody got hurt during its production, it IS legitimate to make such a film. However, I cannot think of a single reason why anyone would like this, other than the morbid desire to watch suffering and the enjoyment of torture. This film's sequel "Flowers of Flesh and Blood" gained notoriety when actor Charlie Sheen mistook it for an actual snuff film and informed the FBI. Fortuneately, the film turned out to be fake. Overall, "The Devil's Experiment" is a fake torture/snuff film that seems to have the sole purpose of looking as close to a real snuff film as possible.

"The Devil's Experiment" is one of the worst films I have ever had the misfortune of sitting through. Don't torture yourself by giving this piece of crap a try for its controversial status. Do yourself a favor and avoid it. Zero stars out of 10, I wish there was a negative scale in order to appropriately rate this pile of crap.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
....
output answer:
negative