input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: So, what's the reason? Is there some sort of vendetta against this AWESOME show or somebody involved therein? Why would the best show I've seen in years be canceled? I'm addicted. I saw this show on randomly last fall, and immediately loved it, and watched it every week. Then it went away, and I tried to Tivo it, but it wasn't being aired. So I forgot about it for awhile, until I found the episodes on ABC's website. Now I want MORE. I agree with everybody else - with the rest of the junk on TV today, it was refreshing to see something as well-rounded and developed as this. I watch Boston Legal for my eccentric-comedic fix, and House for my intellectual-mystery-jackass fix. My wife loves Grey's Anatomy for its "realism", and I do love/hate the show, but it could not be farther from real for me. WAY too much drama. Everything that can go wrong, does. But for once, there's a drama that's REALLY real. Real people, real problems. Sure, there are some extremes like a former gangster turned good, girl running from the mob, etc., but these people (especially in NYC) are really out there, and I relate to each and every one of them. I can't seem to get enough. I just hope that ABC will get their heads out of their bean-counting butts and continue this show. Get some respect for having a QUALITY drama out there. This could be one of the best shows of all time. If somebody will just let it.
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: As a member of the cast, I was a member of the band at all the basketball games, I would like to let the world know after being in the movie, that we were not allowed to see it since it was banned in Oregon. This was due to the producers and the director breaking the contract with the University of Oregon where it was shot. Seems that the U of O sign was shown. While we were shooting, we were allowed to eat several meals with the cast and production staff. Mr Nicholson was quite memorable for being one of the most ill-mannered men I have ever met. Quite a time for a young 20 year old. BUt certainly not what campus life was really like in the late 60's and early 70's despite what Hollywood may think. Trombone player from Oregon
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I have this movie on DVD and must have watched it thirty times by now. I must really love it, right? Well, not really.

I was a surfer earlier in my life, and I loved the sport. To this day, I am fascinated by good surfing. Riding Giants has plenty of that, and thus I am a sucker for the thing. But I definitely have some bones to pick with it. (Peralta, you listening?).

First, the movie has too little faith in its subject matter. The cutting and editing of the waves is such that the majority of them are sort of ruined. Very, very few waves are actually shown ridden from start to finish. Peralta seems addicted to a hyper kinetic, cut-and-pace method. It gets especially bad in the middle section on the spot Mavericks in Northern California. Not a single wave is ridden start to finish. Almost the entire section on Mavericks (one third of the movie) is a jarring montage of clips with an equally jarring soundtrack. I can understand the effect Peralta was trying to achieve with Mavericks, as the place is a truly frightening mix of bone crushing waves in frigid open ocean chop, but he goes way too far. Mavericks is not just a bad acid trip. Waves are actually ridden there, even with great performances. It would have been good to see some of them. If Peralta thinks this is a grand sport (and I am sure he does), then why does he insist on messing with the subject matter so much? At times, the editing reduces the movie to the inscrutable. There is one fast clip in the section on Peahi in Hawaii, which I still cannot understand. Even if I run it on slow motion on DVD, the image is too fast to be decipherable. It must be a couple of frames in length at the max.

Second, have the guys who made this thing ever learned about understatement? It is particularly galling to watch the narrated directors' version on DVD. These guys sound like two over-the-top valley girls. The same sentiment shows up in the main production. Every thing is always so goddamn "amazing" etc. One character in particular is just plain obnoxious -- Sam George, the editor of Surfer Magazine, who is practically peeing in his pants every time he has anything to say. He is a super drag on the movie.

There is a tremendous amount of effort that went into this movie. I mean, just to get the old movie shots they have, and also, all of the interviews. The movie is a great story, and I think it is generally captivating entertainment. Thematically it is well laid out, with the three parts centering around Greg Noll, Jeff Clark, and Laird Hamilton respectively. There are some uses of still photography that are phenomenal. In the directors' narration, they say it is a new type of 3D technology, and it really works. The three principle characters shine, both in their interviews and in the water. As an athlete, Laird Hamilton is a revelation. He rises to the pinnacle of his sport in a way that I have only seen Michael Jordan do in basketball. And too, the story of his meeting his father is a gem. It really touched me.

It is just that the movie could have been so much more. The very last part of the movie, when the credits roll, gives a hint of what it could have been. There are some beautiful panoramic shots of waves with a magnificent soundtrack. (The soundtrack in the rest of the movie is rubbish, though you may like it if you are fan of the modern, frenetic school of rock.) Anyway there's my two cents...
....
output answer:
positive