input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: It's just breathtaking in it's awfulness-- you really must see it!

Depending on your perspective, Dylan Walsh is either the savior or the problem here: since he's the only one on screen that can actually get his lines out with something akin to natural cadences and inflection, he either ruins the movie by pointing up everyone else's flaws, or he saves it by providing some context for their awfulness.

I'm inclined to the later view-- thanks to him, it works as high comedy. He's the 7 footer in a game of dwarf basketball, his skill set just doesn't apply in this context, and his discombobulation is delicious.

The real treat though is Ms. Eastwood, whose inability to speak in plain English is so pervasive I actually googled her, expecting to learn that she was a Russian beauty who pronounced her lines phonetically, with no understanding of their meaning. But no: she's just a talent free American who will leave you laughing with every line she drops. Whether she knew what the lines meant must remain an open question.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: The word "1st" in the title has more ominous meaning for the viewers of this film than for its crime victims. At least they don't have to stick around and watch this interminable film reach its own demise.

1st should refer to: 1st draft of a script; 1st takes used in each performance in the final film; 1st edit in post production; etcetera, etcetera.

The movie is not cast too badly, it's just that everything about the film come off as worse than third rate, from the goofy script, to the wooden performances. And while suffering through this cobbled together film, by the 2 hour mark you want to be put out of your misery. At 160 minutes long it is readily apparent that it should have been edited to under 2 hours.

Going into details concerning the lame script and acting serves little purposes. Even in the equally awful, Lake Placid, at least the performances Bill Pullman and Bridget Fonda constructed out of an extremely weak script, were nuanced enough to make you laugh at the movie. In 1st to Die, one ends up grieving only for the time lost in waiting to see what happens after the opening scene of the preparation of the female lead's suicide.

The editing is so bad one is never introduced to one of the main characters, who I think (were never quite told) is a D.A. She just appears in one scene in the middle of a conversation. Obviously the scene where she is introduced to the viewer was dropped on the editor's floor. And no one realized that a character appearing out of nowhere was an unusual film ploy.

In a word, don't waste your time with this one. My wife and I wish we didn't. But at least we created our own diversions by commenting in various places in the film like it was Mystery Science Theater. "Meanwhile, in Cleveland . . . ." !!!!
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: What a terrible movie. The acting was bad, the pacing was bad, the cinematography was bad, the directing was bad, the "special" effects were bad. You expect a certain degree of badness in a slasher, but even the killings were bad.

First of all, the past event that set up the motive for the slaughter went on for 15 or 20 minutes. I thought it would never end. They could have removed 80% of it and explained what happened well enough.

Then, the victims were invited to the "reunion" in an abandoned school which still had all the utilities turned on. One of the victims thought this was a little odd, but they dismissed it and decided to break in anyway.

Finally, the killings were so fake as to be virtually unwatchable.

There is no reason to watch this movie, unless you want to see some breasts, and not very good breasts at that. This movie makes Showgirls virtually indistinguishable from Citizen Kane.
....
output answer:
negative