input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I saw this movie again as an assignment for my management class. Were to mainly comment on the different management styles and ideas on quality(of the product). I did rent this one back in the eighties and I remember it to be good(but not great)movie. I've always liked Michael Keaton's style and delivery. He was a perfect fit for the movie.

I am surprised to see some of the low ratings for this movie. I grant you yes it's no Oscar winner but it does have decent comedic value. It's more of a subtle comedy rather than a all-out comedy farce. I also find some of those that felt this was an inaccurate film on cultural and business differences. I beg to differ. I grant you again that there are a lot of generalities and dramatizations but then again this is Hollywood film not a documentary. From what I've read about differences between Automakers on both sides of the Pacific at that time many of the principle ideas were accurate for the time.

Some of the basic differences were that Japanese workers made to feel as part of the company as a whole. Teamwork was emphasized. They perhaps made the company above all else. Where American workers had more of a management verses labor type of relationship. The individual was more important than the company. I'll probably get some hate email over that comment I'm sure.

Another difference was how quality was viewed and whose responsibility it was to fix. In many Japanese plants defects or problems are examined and fixed at the time it is discovered. Rather as one character in the movie put it "it was the dealers(meaning car dealer) problem".

Many of these things are probably dated but I'm sure some are still around as many US car makers are still struggling to keep up with the Japanese. If one is more interested in the subject of American, European and Japanese automakers I can recommend a book that studies this subject in more detail and was done around the same time period. The book is called "The machine that changed the world" by James Womack, Daniel Jones and Daniel Roos. It's about a study of automakers during and before the time period that this movie covers. Parts are bit dry but I think you'll find that it backs up much the movie also.
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Fascinating yet unsettling look at Edith Bouvier Beale (Big Edie) and her daughter (Little Edie) aunt and first cousin to the late Jacquelyn Kennedy Onasis. They live in a rodent infested, rundown mansion which was considered a health hazard by the city. It becomes quite clear very quickly that these two are well past eccentric. Little Edie seems to be the most off as she acts with the mindset of a ten year old even though she is actually 53. The content is pretty much made up of two things. The first are the conversations were Little Edie lambastes Big Edie for driving away all her potential suitors and ruining her aspiring career as writer, actress, and dancer. These discussions usually become very rhetorical, nonsensical, and often times amusing. The second part consists of long bouts of attempted singing by both parties. Each of course thinks their singing is perfect and it's only the other who sounds bad. In one amazing scene Big Edie actually physically attacks Little Edie with her cane just to get her to stop her warbling. Very captivating yet one gets the feeling that their is some serious exploitation going on here and the subjects are just too far gone to know it. The filmmakers seem to treat this like a freak show at the circus, coming each day to record (and chuckle) at whatever bizarre behavior may come about. Ultimately this is a sad picture as it shows how the world has simply past these two by. Their hopes and dreams as decayed as the mansion they live in. Despite their bickering these two need each other more than ever. For without the other there would be no refuge from the loneliness. Most amazing line comes from Big Edie whose many cats relieve themselves throughout her bedroom. Her response to a complaint about the smell is simply unbelievable.
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: If he wanted to be accurate, he should have chosen some Frisco natives and not a bunch of NY actors who know nothing about the Sucka Free (not Sucker Free). I've lived in SF my entire life, and folks here do not talk or act the way these actors did. Everything was over-dramatized, and the only cat I saw from the Bay was JT the Bigga Figga with his little cameo as a rapper. No shock that he was the only one in the film who really dressed like cats out here (ie his Warriors jersey). Not once did I notice anyone wearing any Giants or 9ers gear; instead he fitted them in some cheesy made-up SF or Oakland jerseys that aren't even sold around here. HP has no bowling alleys, black and Asian gangbangers do NOT wear head or wristbands with the colors of Africa or China's Olympic team, nor does every Chinese gangster wear a Yao Ming jersey and try and sound black while shooting hoops. Further, while there now is a significant yuppie community that has invaded the Mission, all that was shown was some white dude and a self-proclaimed "100% West Coast Boriqua." This is NOT New York! Puerto Ricans here are few and far between, and the Latinos in the Mission are very, very different from the ONE that was shown here, who was without a doubt from NY. Also, HP is not the only black neighborhood in the City. An accurate depiction would have shown the drama between HP sets in their own hood as well as vs. Fillmore, Sunnydale, Lakeview, etc.

This film could've been much better if Lee had done some more homework and had a better storyline to work with.
....
output answer:
negative