I was wondering about this as I read about Sulla. Sulla was a great military leader who fought and won many battles and received the Grass Crown. Being so successful, I would think he would be viewed in a positive light, yet he also fought against Marius, a relative of Julius Caesar, and also stripped Caesar himself of his priesthood and exiled him. In addition to this, he fought alongside Pompey the Great, future enemy of Caesar. Because of this, would Romans have viewed Sulla and Pompey as being bad, and Caesar and Marius as being good? Or would they all have been remembered in a positive light?
I'm not quite sure if my answer is up to the standards of this site, but as a general observation, the late Roman republic was utterly polarized between warring factions, with several civil wars following one another, so one could hardly expect Romans as a whole to have a consensus opinion on Sulla, who after all led one of these factions in one of the civil wars.
To me, this seems like asking what opinion "Americans" have of Robert E. Lee or Jefferson Davis - as the debates this summer have shown, there is still far from a settled consensus on this.