input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: OK, so I know of this movie because of a friend of mine's in it and I actually visited the set when they were filming, so from a personal stand-point, I was intrigued to finally view this obscure little gem. If you dig at all on info regarding this movie, you'll find it's mired in legal troubles (even over 7 years after being filmed) so, if you are at all like me -- then you'll do whatever it takes to obtain a copy. My source? Ebay. About $15 but I felt ripped because when I got it today in the mail, it was a very rough, grainy copy of a "SCREENER ONLY" release, complete with annoying top mini time-code but alas, I could still enjoy it but not as much as if I had a proper copy, something I suggest you obtain if you want the full impact this film may or may not have on you. From what I have gleaned, it's been released on DVD in Germany & now Spain. With that, good luck & happy searching/bidding...;). The score/sndtrk is worth it alone. Very eclectic and varied (somethinbg rare these days IMHO in film) -- I think that will be my next sndtrk/score to locate, but I digress...

Now, onto the review. The film opens as Billy Zane's character is injecting a nurse in the mental ward he is apparently locked up in. He steals her clothes (even shoes) and quickly moves into a series of holding up a bank/loan shop but after escaping with the loot, well, I guess this is where the "plot" begins -- he inadvertently looses it. After perpetrating several campy over-the-top crimes & dalliances to various A to C-list celebs to locate the money, he finds himself somehow in a cemetery where a funeral -- I think for the dead guy he shoots in the loan office/bank, and -- even with 1950's police cars and cops looking all over for him steadily throughout -- he never gets seen or nabbed. (He sees daily newspapers reporting his "crimes") This I liked, because it gave the thin plot an extension. After all, it's a MOVIE (see: fiction) & director Iris Iliopulos does what I think is everything possible to 1) Bring Wood's vision to fruition and 2) Give it an updated feel, yet have shots of authentic 50's police cars intertwined with, ahh, local L.A..99$ stores -- so well hence my 9 rating. If the period and props were authentic -- I would have given it a 10. Now it wraps it self up kinda weird and I won't spoil it for anyone but let's just say the final ending is somewhat disappointing for it, to me, it had promise, action and comedy -- all up till the end, so...with ALL that said --locate a copy at your own discretion.

Just realize that, as there is no dialouge (except for some narration and singing) this may be up your alley -- maybe not-- but I definitely think it's worth a watch. The actors all do fine performances and it's only the inconsistency in proper period pieces that really made me long for just that correction -- then I would say by all means check this film out for it's not like anything these studios put out these days (or will in the future, too) I am sure.
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: It has only been a week since I saw my first John Waters film (Female Trouble), and I wasn't sure what to expect the second time around.

While the previous film was outrageously over the top, Pecker is actually a funny film that satirizes the art critics in New York to a T. Anyone who cannot imagine what these "Experts" find so appealing about modern art, will enjoy seeing these pretentious snobs get so full of themselves over Pecker, a boy who just found a broken camera and starts shooting his friends and neighbors.

Edward Furlong (Pet Sematary II, Terminator 2: Judgment Day) was surprisingly good as Pecker. There wasn't a lot of meat on any of the roles in this film, but he really shines.

Christina Ricci (Prozac Nation) comes in with another great performance as Pecker's girlfriend. In fact, it was a banner year for Ricci (Buffalo '66, The Opposite of Sex, and Pecker.

Lili Taylor, who had the only good role in The Haunting, was also a significant part of the film and really made it enjoyable.

There are many funny scenes, but I have to say the best was when a crown gathers screaming, "We want bush!" "We want bush!" "We want bush!" I thought it was a Republican convention until I saw the police hauling off the dancer.

I am going to have to look for more of Waters' work, especially Hairspray, now that that is in the news.
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: When they killed off John Amos's character they killed the show. He was the vital part of the info structure. You had a story of an inner city family's struggling to make it the best way they knew how. They were poor, they were black, and they were living proof that if you have Jesus and your family that nothing is too hard. Sure James would lose jobs and JJ would fail in school but the family always managed to find a way.

James was the strong male role model that earned the income and disciplined the children. Florida was the strong lady that would everyone including James when he needed a shoulder to cry on or hug to make it. The kids had personalities and input which made them important as a family unit. Their neighbor Willona was also a key element because she represented not only a friend but some dear enough to be family. Things were bright, gritty, funny, and honest until they changed the course of the program. James dies and JJ took over the show.

Flo was still mom, Thelma was blossoming into a lady and Michael was still the militant midget but JJ was the show. We were expected to believe that the family with no father or prominent bread winner was going to be able to stay in the apartment. I guess James's paycheck didn't do much for the family. They were only threatened with eviction because they said they were moving and not because no one in the house was working. I know that JJ, Flo, Thelma and even Michael eventually got jobs but come on here be for real. James worked so much that you could feel for him but the others weren't realistic at all and that's a shame.

JJ was the comic relief but I felt the show need substance. It's OK to be funny but they had a chance to show a real family and what it took to survive in the real world and they threw it all away on a few laughs. Michael's character almost disappeared while the rest of the cast slipped into the shadows of the JJ Evan's show. I mean really, here was a guy that was failing in school, he kept getting laid off, and he painted for money in about two episodes. James had always been there to encourage his talent but Flo and the rest of the family didn't seem to care.

Why did it take him so long to understand that painting was what he was meant to do? He could have sold painting's on the street or worked for people that print billboards and cards. (He did but something went wrong with that.) Why did he not make it and why did the others give up on their dreams? I'll tell you why, it was because they didn't have a father in their life to care and to cheer them on and their mother stopped being their to support their dreams. The show stopped teaching us about growing, building and learning and started teaching us about gimmicks and catch phrases. They should have kept James. If any show needed a father it was that one.
....
output answer:
negative