cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This is possibly one of the worst movies I have had the dis-pleasure of watching in my entire life. The plot is ridiculous and the characters are horrible people. I watched this film with 3 friends and we all agreed to turn it off 30 minutes before the end. Ben Kingsley's character is just plain stupid but not funny at all. It is a wonder why an actor of his talent would be involved in such tripe. Tea Leoni does a fine Hillary Clinton impression throughout to portray the very cold and uninteresting female lead who has all the endearing qualities of a broom handle. Throw in a pointless and unexplained sub-plot and a horribly cringe worthy montage, and you end up with a waste of 93 minutes (60 in my case). Avoid this film at all costs!
What's an example of a movie review?

This movie is awful. At first I thought it may appeal to children, due to the cuddly Ewoks, the fury little people from Stars Wars. After sitting through this monstrosity of a movie, I am certain that not even a 4-year-old would find this movie interesting. The special effects are by far the best of this movie and compare well for other 80ies TV movies. The script is bad, the actors, especially Aubree Miller and unbelievably bad and the flick is so predictable that I still can't believe I was able to not touch the forward button on my VCR. However, I came close to switching this mess off more than once.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

What can be said about THIS? Truly one of the most mind-numbing experiences of my life. Your brain will attempt to shut-down as part of a primal impulse of self-preservation. I was left shattered from the experience of watching this 'film' and I took a good two hours to fully recover. This movie now joins Revenge of the Boogeyman and Zombiez as part of the hellish trinity of horror films. I certainly do not mean this distinction in a good way. I mean this in a terrible way. A terrible way.

This film has no redeeming features. Everything is appalling. Artless camera-work endlessly presents us with the ugliest setting imaginable, i.e. lots of corn, lots of mud. The story is beyond stupid. The script iswas there a script? The villain is severely unscary and wears yellow wellington boots. The kids are annoying. The lead man is charisma-free. And it has the audacity to go on for 100 minutes. Utterly without merit on any level, this is akin to torture. Normally such a statement would be an exaggeration meant for comical effect. Not in this case. I'll even say it again  this is torture.

At the end I was in a state of paralysis. This was brief thankfully. But once I recovered I decided I had to watch the 'Making Of' featurette. I had to understand. Maybe there would be a reasonable explanation for this atrocity. Was it all an elaborate joke? I watched the first 2 minutes of the 'Making Of' featurette and discovered that the writer/director was, to put it mildly, somewhat misguided. I also discovered that because I had taken time out to watch the first two minutes of the 'Making Of' featurette of Dark Harvest 2 that I was an idiot. Not a pleasant voyage of self-discovery. Life sucks.

Highly unrecommended.
I really like Kinski he is a great actor. I've seen this movie because I've heard that there are autobiographic aspects in this movie.

The film is full of symbols like a piano sinking in a river or strange shadow-pictures at the walls. Then the narrator always says abstract sentences like: "A kid sells fortune, but her box is empty now." This is really disturbing and wasn't really necessary, because everyone understands what this movie is all about. The movie shows how Kinski's character treated woman, and how he kept them under control. If there are really some aspects of Kinski's life in this story - then he really was an swine. So there is no need to watch this movie, unless if you want to see Kinski naked or if you like sick trash movies to laugh about.

Did this review think positively or negatively of the movie?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Following the collapse of Yesilcam (Turkey's answer to Hollywood) in the mid '90s few but the most prescient of observers could have foreseen such a recent pique in the Turkish film industry, arguably built upon the work of ex-photographer Nuri Bilge Ceylan.

Uzak is the director's third feature and forms something of a trilogy with his two earlier pictures (Kasaba and Clouds of May), following similar themes and techniques. The film finds Mahmoud, a commercial photographer, living alone in a small Istanbul apartment only visited occasionally by his brusque, married lover. Yusuf, his nephew, has left his village home after the closure of a factory and the loss of his job. The younger man stays with Mahmoud while fruitlessly looking for work in the city, drinking in cafés and nervously observing young women he never approaches.

The film's title is translated as "Distant", and the film beautifully illustrates every possible connotation of the word; Yusuf's physical distance from his home, Mahmoud's emotional distance from the world around him and the generational distance between the two men.

Ceylan's films rarely contain heightened dramatics, instead allowing full and rich characters to develop from within the tightly framed, static shots. He acts as director, producer, writer, cinematographer and co-editor and casts friends and family in many of the roles. Such a confined, insulated approach to film-making might be expected to lead to films hard to infiltrate and connect with for most viewers, making Uzak's undoubted humanity all the more impressive.

Ceylan is, however, a better cinematic formalist than dramatist, taking the reigns from such past masters of cinematic language as Ozu and Tarkovsky. After viewing Uzak, I can think of few better suited to the task.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
It kept me on the edge of my seat. True, the story has a few plot holes, but the sheer tension of it, the way the director just keeps challenging the premise is simply fascinating.

José Coronado and Adriana Ozores are two of Spain's best actors (see La vida mancha and Héctor) and here they appear as a happy upper-middle class couple. Beneath it all, the truth is that all of Coronado's life is a lie. He's not an economist, never went to college or does not work in Spain's Central Bank Reserve, as everybody else believes. We get a few insights as to how he kept up appearances or manage to do it, and while not very plausible it is still somehow believable.

The inner-workings of the scam are shown intermittently, but it is credible because Coronado is a source of self-assurance and assertiveness. He not only believes in the scam, he also believes in the film premise, and therefore he carries it.

Sure, it tests belief that a wife would not know the inner workings of a marriage's finances for almost 10 years, but again, since he's supposedly a brilliant economist.

It has been said, in a nationalistic tone, that the movie is not "distinctively Spanish", as if that were a litmus test for good film. True, no castanets or odd cabbies in this one, just a taut thriller. You'll want to know how this story ends once you start watching.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

Good movie, all elements of a good movie was there, story, actors, script, and direction. I was on the edge of my seat the whole time.

No question about it, is a low budget film, but I liked it more than many big budget films.

Andres Bagg plays Martin Sanders, who is dealing with his unfaithful wife. Then a voice in the telephone and then just fear.

Virginia Lustig is beautiful and brings a powerful performance. She is an excellent part to the film.

I liked the increasing ambiguity near the end, even though we know that the main character can be involved, we continued seeing everything from his point of view and asking: Who is the killer?
Just see it! It's a smart movie but too hard to understand the first time. See it more than once. Everything that is seen or heard on the screen is intentionally crafted to evoke a feeling, sensation or tone. The clarity of certain visuals and the crispness of certain sounds are deliberately contrasted with blurred images or pops, crackles, hisses and barely audible sounds. The structure is non-linear and cyclical. Motifs recur as time runs both clockwise and counterclockwise. Expectations regarding "plot" and character" are broken signaling a non-traditional use of film to tell a story that is both contemporary and as old as humanity. This is a part of a review: "USA The Movie is emotionally intense, intellectually intriguing and profoundly disturbing, in surprising and unconventional ways." Dion Dennis, PhD

Did this review think positively or negatively of the movie?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

For one thing, he produced this movie. It has the feel of later movies with international casts that are dubbed. The opening credits tell us it was filmed in Vienna.

Bey was a delight in the Universal adventure movies of the 1940s. He was also superb in a movie I saw maybe ten years ago but have never heard of since: "The Amazing Mr. X." Maybe it was Dr. X. I remember it as a thrilling and frightening movie.

This one is pretty wooden, unfortunately. The plot isn't easy to follow. When I got the hang of it, I was disappointed anyway.

Francis Lederer looks great as a concert pianist. He was a very handsome leading man ten or 15 years earlier. He never really caught on as a major star, though he should have.

This isn't terrible but it's pretty heavy going.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Well, well... Even if you're a fervent admirer of Lang's silent films, this early one - the first part of a two-part unfinished four-part serial(!) - will leave you in doubt about Fritz's narrative skills. (His directorial skills aren't that evident either, but here and there one senses his talent for building up atmosphere.) 

The pic's just pure juvenile nonsense, which wouldn't be half as bad, were it not for the long ponderous stretches in between the childish action scenes.

But the whole affair almost gets by on its amiable innocence.

4 out of 10 Inca treasures
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: It may interest people to know that this film was made without any recourse to Phoolan Devi herself and, when she did finally see parts of it, was so enraged that she announced that the film was not to be shown in India or she would cover herself in petrol and set fire to herself. I do not know whether it was shown at all or not, but given her standing at the time as a rising politician, I doubt it. Since then, I saw a report that she has been ousted from office and charged with further crimes from her Dacoit days, and has gone into hiding as a result.

Her own concerns aside, this is an excellent film, made all the more so by its refreshingly brutal approach; none of the rose-tinted melodrama one might expect from a typical indian film. It should be stressed that concerns about how feminist the film's messages really are and the like are essentially irrelevant: it's a true story. Her misgivings are, it seems, not with what is depicted but with the way in which the film depicts her.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: How can stuff like this still be made? Didn't Seinfeld, Arrested Development, The Office etc etc kill this old-fashioned unfunny crap off? Apparently not...

I'm actually quite a fan of Michael Rappaport and have enjoyed his various cameos and supporting roles (Copland , Friends) but in this he sucks but anyone would struggle with this script.

My wife enjoys it. But she's Brazilian. And if you've ever seen a typical Brazilian sit-com you would understand why she would think this so funny.

Just to demonstrate how predictable the show is and to prove a point with her I guessed what the next 3 or 4 plot developments/lines would be while watching it for a while and was correct almost word for word! I felt very smug. This annoyed my wife as she hates it when I do that (can understand why but I felt good so screw-it!)
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This movie starts at A and never quite reaches B. Its title promises far more than the film delivers. It's superficial and filled with the usual cliches of a story in which a guy questions his sexuality. The people are agreeable, even the obligatory flamboyant type. The lead (Kevin McKidd) overacts insofar as there's a reason for him to act at all. Simon Callow, playing a horny straight, is always worth watching, and he's by far the only reason to stay with the movie. However, the rubbish about his men's group "meditations" or whatever they are grows extremely tiresome in short order. They seem to have been thrown into the movie's mild mix in a misguided effort to vary the setting and non-stop inaction. The same comment applies to a really odd and unconvincing camping trip. Don't worry about pausing the tape so you can get a snack. Let the thing run; you won't miss anything. Hugo Weaving's character is superfluous. He appears in a sequence with one of the lesser leads and doesn't even meet the rest at all. The outcome of that sequence isn't explained, and Hugo's real estate dealings have nothing to do with the story. The movie is a total disappointment at the end, because there is no resolution. The thing simply fades out and we're sent to the closing credits. This is an interlude with no structure.

Did this review think positively or negatively of the movie?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Go to the video store and get the original. I do not understand why Hollywood has that need to take a perfect foreign movie and remake it. "Mostly Martha" or "Bella Martha" has a much better cast. Beginning with the heroine Martina Gedeck, who convinced me much more in the role of the work-obsessed perfectionist than the more famous Catherine Zeta Jones, to the Italian cook and the niece suddenly deprived of her mother and forced to live with an aunt, not fit for child-rearing. 

In many ways, the American version of the movie is a copy of the German original. They just exchanged the actors. However, they also changed the story because it would have been difficult and not very believable to materialize a father for the little girl in an American context. 

I was thinking about that. Maybe the father could have been Puerto Rican, or Cuban, or Mexican. Well, there are so many "guest workers" in the U.S. Take your pick. But I doubt that any of them would have shown up to shoulder the responsibility as the Italian father did in the original. Therefore, the American movie leaves that part out but keeps the Italian cook. And by doing this the whole story changes. In the original "Martha" is so removed from reality that she thinks it is okay to send her niece off with a complete stranger in a foreign country. 

The American "Martha" is softer and therefore the movie is sweeter and does not have that edge the German movie has. 

In the original the "Italian" cook is not so good looking but much more charming , the little girl is more of a brat but much more believable and "Martha" is more representative of a career woman in today's world than the watered down version we are presented in the American version. And the whole opera music in the American version was very annoying. I loved the Italian songs in the original and bought the CD. 

Hollywood recognized that "Mostly Martha" was a great movie. Maybe the distribution companies should have put it in more theaters or it should have been shown in English without subtitles. In any case, the original is so much better. By the way this reminds me of another remake. "Shall we dance" is one of my favorites in the original Japanese version and totally forgettable in the American version.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
They've shown i twice in a very short time now here in Sweden and I am so very tired of it. The bad acting isn't enough... The story itself is so boring and the effects hardly exists. I love the original from 1953 so I recommend you to go and rent that one instead. Because this one is such a bore.

Did this review think positively or negatively of the movie?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This film is a tour de force from Julie Taymor who directs and does the stage design and masks. No-one comes near to matching her imagination on the modern operatic stage. Since making this film in 1992 she has had much success in film-making and in directing musicals. One can only hope that she can be persuaded to return to opera one day. I would love to see a Ring cycle directed by her. The current Rheingold at Covent Garden has giants with over-sized hands just like the characters in this film. The current Butterfly at ENO uses Japanese puppetry. Coincidence maybe, or evidence that Taymor's influence is pervasive.

Taymar uses fantastical costumes, masks, puppets, and origami birds to recreate the story of Oedipus on a stage set on stilts above a lake. Red ribbons are a recurring theme. They are used as an umbilical chord when Oedipus is born, they hang down from Oedipus's eyes after he has blinded himself, in a breathtaking effect they are used to make a crossroads when Oedipus's slaying of his father is reenacted by puppets.

This neo-classical opera-ballet by Stravinsky enjoyed justified obscurity until this film brought it to life. The music is uninspired but inoffensive and Philip Langridge, Jesse Norman and a very young Bryn Terfel make the most of it. The singers are fairly immobile, in accordance with Stravinsky's wishes. Min Tanaka is the dancing Oedipus to Langridge's singing Oedipus. This creates some slight confusion towards the end when dancing Oedipus pokes out the eyes of singing Oedipus.

The libretto is in Latin but do not worry if your high-school Latin is a bit rusty. There is a helpful narrator who introduces and describes each scene in Japanese.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

William H. Macy always gives a good performance. He never looks lazy and never seems like he'd rather be somewhere else. In short, he's what more actors should be like. "A Slight Case of Murder" is directed by Steven Schachter, who went on to do two more great films with Macy (Door to Door, The Wool Cap).

Television movies have long been a dump of overdone acting, poor cinematography, and sub-par scripting. That's why it's so refreshing to see a TV movie that does exactly what it's sort of film was created for. To tell a small story (not a simplistic story) that does not require viewing on the big screen.

"A Slight Case of Murder" is light, entertaining fare, and an great watch.

7.6 out of 10
I believe that this was supposed to be shocking or something.... All that I can say is....POOR GOAT!!! This flick is so poorly done that the parts that "should" shock and revolt you come across as laughable at best. The characters are so lame and 2....wait....1 dimensional, that I applauded each sick death.....all except that POOR GOAT.


What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

1959 was a landmark in the world of film. Several great directors of the classic era were releasing career capping classics that ranked among their best. Just a look at the titles is instructive, Hitchcock's North By Northwest, Billy Wilder's Some Like It Hot, Howard Hawks' Rio Bravo, Douglas Sirk's Imitation of Life. Add a couple from the previous year, Orson Welles' Touch of Evil, Hitch's Vertigo, and Nick Ray's Wind Across the Everglades, and you've got a pretty good summing up of what was possible within the classic Hollywood style.

At the same time, two films appeared that hinted at a whole new way of making films. One was Jean-Luc Godard's Breathless, the other was John Cassavetes Shadows. The two films had certain things in common, largely improvised acting by non stars, handheld cameras, low budgets, and a certain youthful, jazzy swagger. In certain ways, though, they couldn't be farther apart. Godard was still a believer in the director as arbiter of style. He knew more about film than most Hollywood producers, and Breathless was filled with the iconography of the classic crime film. Cassavetes, on the other hand, was an actor, and a refugee from New York's underground theater scene. His first film shows him little impressed with the cinema, and a big believer in actors. Godard's film constantly references it's own artifice, whereas Shadows aims for a certain kind of naturalism.

It doesn't reach it, mainly because naturalism is a myth, particularly in cinema. But it feels powerful, kinetic but lilting like the cool jazz on the score, certainly the main inspiration for the filmmaking style on display here. It ultimately doesn't hold together, mainly because Cassavetes' actors here are amateurish beatniks, where Cassavetes style requires strong, imaginative actors. His later work with Gena Rowlands, Ben Gazarra, and Peter Falk blows this out of the water. Due to the director's technical inexperience, some bits of dialogue had to be redubbed later, which defeats the freshness of the improvisation. Still it's fascinating to watch, both for the great moments (like the scene where Leila Goldoni talks about her dissapointment with losing her virginity) and to watch a groundbreaking artist finding his way.
Arthur Miller has always been known as one of America's great playwrights for works such as "Death of a Salesman" and "The Crucible". "Focus" is one of his lesser known plays brought to the silver screen. However, knowing what a great playwright Arthur Miller is, I doubt that his original play was very much like the movie. The movie comes across as empty and formulaic, with William H. Macy as a non-Jew mistaken for a Jew by anti-Semitic neighbors in WWII Brooklyn. Don't get me wrong: the acting is OK, and I presume that the people behind this movie were probably trying to make a point about racism, but the movie just doesn't work. Macy, Laura Dern and David Paymer just can't create an effective story with the material here.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Minor Spoilers will follow.

This movie is even more odd and unconventional than "songs from the second floor". There is no main character we follow around. There is no "plot" in the conventional way. There is no emphasis on an happy end. There is no crowdpleasing. In other words Roy Andersson is back with a vengeance. Instead of falling back on convention and fixed formula Roy Andersson concentrates his film around an idea. I will not go into what that idea is, but even if you don't "get it" i promise that you will see the greatest visual depth ever put to film. The majestic scenes from "songs" pale in comparison here. A work of visual splendor.

So be kind to your fellow man, because after all "we are the living", and only you and I have the power to change our lives. That is at least what I thought when I saw the final scene in the movie, with the inhumane bomber planes sweeping in over the city in the film to take our lives away. 

And of course don't forget to see this movie when it gets a limited release near you. This is one of those movies that actually have the power to make you a better person, like de Sica's "Bicycle Thieves". A very warm and humanistic film.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Absolutely one of the best aviation movies of all times on so many levels. Hardware junkies will drool over the largest single massing of flyable Spitfires outside of a Battle of Britain reenactment. No less than eight flying Spits are on hand for very accurate ground and air sequences.

Those that marvel over the lore of flying and get misty-eyed reciting High Flight will identify with the central characters' reverence for the freedom of being fast, free and high in their Dark Blue World. Be warned: romantics and even dog lovers are treated to a very emotional ride in this movie. The core message is one that is shared by many war vets, in that their finest hours, their period of life when they felt most alive, was in fact during the war when everything else is sad and gray.

The plot concerns Czech pilots who escape from their country when the Nazis invade and join the RAF Free Czech Squadron. There are a few subplots, all of which are worth careful attention. This is just a plain old excellent movie that even the most ardent anti-hardware romantic will love (keep the Kleenex on hand). Beautiful photography, first-rate acting, accurate details of RAF life during the Battle Of Britain. Easily a candidate for any aviation enthusiast's personal DVD collection.
Determine the sentiment:

Will Smith is perfectly endearing as the "Relationship Doctor," here to heal all your relationship woes.

I expected this to be a standard RomCom with little to amuse. I'm happy to report that I was wrong. Will Smith is delightful and unexpectedly "fresh" in this Andy Tennant vehicle. Surrounded by a great supporting cast, an interesting story, and fed with witty dialog, I was thoroughly engaged.

We found this one cute, quirky, and inspirational without being preachy.

It rates a 7.4/10 from...

the Fiend :.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Just to clarify, Matthew Poncelet wasn't a real person, but a character combination of 2 killers who were BOTH convicted and sentenced to die for a murder of two teenagers.

I read the User Comments and they react as if Matthew was real. The character is based on a mixture of two killers, Elmo Patrick Sonnier and Robert Lee Willie (who murdered separate people) and the murder itself was based on the one Willie committed. The conflict of both Willie having someone else present and both parties swearing the other did the killing is worked into the story as well.

Prejean's approach is unique in that she not only is ministering to the convicts as they wait for their death and aiding them in taking responsibility for their actions, she also reaches out to the victims' families, to help them know that the convict did, indeed feel remorse for what they did-effectively aiding both parties.

Everyone posting here seems to have strong beliefs on the Death Sentence. It's not my place to say it's right or wrong-in theory punishing death with death makes some sort of Karmic sense, however denying a person their freedom for the rest of their days, although costly, makes more sense to me-being stuck in a small room 23/7 (with one hour of exercise)for the rest of their days to be reminded of the cruel thing they did seem a more apt punishment-they are technically alive, but denied living. Say someone killed someone so they could get out of the responsibility the person they killed required (like Susan Smith killing her poor kids by shoving her car into a lake). I find it fittingly ironic that they would not get that "freedom" they craved and would now have to spend the rest of their days imprisoned.

Prejean's point comes through the story very well. She has my respect-she manages to find that balance-she isn't supporting a killer, she is guiding them to accepting what they did. If they didn't feel some kind of remorse, they wouldn't be asking for spiritual guidance.

Ona final note, when Poncelet apologizes to Delacroix parent for killing his son, the parents of the girl who was also murdered mutters something about why he didn't apologize for her death. I think the point was that throughout the movie, Poncelet denies killing both kids. There is doubt in Prejean's mind he did both killings-there is a friend who was sentenced but not to death-my thought is that Poncelet killed the Delacroix boy and the other man murdered the girl-hence Poncelet was taking responsibility for what he did. Had he been responsible for the girl's death, he probably would have apologized for that as well.
Imagine a film the complete opposite of Lawrence of Arabia, instead of having an all male cast, it has an all female cast. Instead of being set in the barren deserts of Arabia, it is set in the bulging metropolis of New York City. And instead of it being one of the greatest films ever made, it is one of the most pointless, boring and forgettable.

The film concerns Mary Haines (Meg Ryan) a perfect wife and mother, the envy of all others in her high society Manhatten social circle. She is painted as a women bearing the weight of the world on her shoulders, despite the fact she needs a live in nanny and housekeeper to cope with her one child. But I don't want to be too hard on her, Mary does all this whilst taking a liassez-faire attitude towards the fashion designing job her father has given her. This idyllic lifestyle cannot last forever though and things start to crash in a very real way.

Mary's husband is cheating on her and her father fires her for not working hard enough. She is quite naturally upset and breaks down a little.

Mary needs to bounce back though, for the sake of her impressionable young daughter and for herself. She does this through rehab, hair straightening and designing her own line of clothes; though amazingly for this kind of film, not a montage. Mary succeeds; her daughter loves her, her mother loves her, her friends love her and her husband decides he loves her now. She decides to take her cheating husband back after realising it was her fault he cheated, as she didn't dote on him enough.

The films one saving grace is that it doesn't go down the "all men are evil" route.

Did this review think positively or negatively of the movie?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is one of those movies where the acting, set location, direction, and effects were so bad you need to rent a copy get 5 or 6 buddies, a keg of beer, sit down and watch it. To borrow from the late Douglas Adams, "Watching this movie will be like having your brains smashed out by a slice of lemon... wrapped around a large gold brick.".

What is wrong? Everything. British actors posing as Americans, there have been many that can pull it off like Bob Hoskins but he isn't in this one. It wasn't even necessary to choose North America as a location why not say it took place in England or something? The director seemed to like taking shots of girls tits and asses more than actually coming up with some kind of character motivation. So at this point you drunken buddies will be saying, "ALL RIGHT! Another T&A shot!". There isn't much dialog so feel free to skip off to the kitchen and make those sandwiches. What did I like about this movie? After my friends passed out, I managed to collect $185 off of them and told them they spent it at the strip bar after we finished watching the awful movie.

Did this review think positively or negatively of the movie?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Wow! What a movie if you want to blow your budget on the title and have it look real bad ask the guys that made this movie on how to do that. They could have spent the money on a good rewrite or something else. Or they could have spent it on beer when they made this movie at least it would have come out better.
Determine the sentiment:

Buyer beware. The Alpha Video release uses a print that defies description. The movie was shot in color but you wouldn't know it for the first 25 minutes or so. The print that is used is so faded and decrepit that it appears almost sepia toned. After 30 minutes some color seeps back into the print but from there to the conclusion the color comes and goes. Keep in mind, even at it's best the color is pale and washed out. It looks like the print was recorded off a television that wasn't getting the best reception. Adding to this travesty is the most plodding delivery of lines that I can recollect. Even the voice over narration is stupor inducing. Every line is delivered in this irritating plodding demeanor. I found myself wishing that they would hurry and get the words out. For this reason I couldn't wait for this movie to end. It's one of those so-bad -it's- good movies but I wish that someone would find a half decent print.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I saw the trailer and read some reviews, and I had low expectations for this movie. I was pleasantly surprised. While the plot is a little off-beat, everybody in the making of this movie pulled off a pleasant flick good for many a laugh. The writing and jokes are far more literate than I have come to expect. Better yet, they are delivered with aplomb by unknown actors doing a good job, all of them.

The main reasons I wanted to see this movie were Justin Long and Lewis Black. Long is from "Ed" and the new Apple computer ads. He was just coming into his own as an actor in "Ed," and he was excellent here. He's a natural in front of the camera. Lewis Black is a social commentator who pulls no punches. He's on "The Daily Show" on Comedy Central about once every two weeks, but he really shines in HBO's "Red, White, and Screwed." I regularly catch him on XM Radio's uncensored comedy channel. Give Black an idea and let him improvise. Whether his rants and lines here are scripted or improvised are no matter. He's priceless delivering his thoughts on middle class angst. One thing about Black's delivery, his hand gestures are not those of a comedian. It just seems like he's having a conversation with you, and I think that makes him unconsciously more effective.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

***POSSIBLE SPOILERS BELOW*** 

What a long and mostly uninteresting movie! Who were these characters? Why didn't I care about them? If I'm going to watch a movie for two hours, I'd like to care about somebody or something. 

We know that Salvatore dreamed of the riches to be found in the new world. Beyond that, though, we learned little about most of his family's hopes, fears, etc., as they embarked on an adventure into the unknown.

And why was Lucy even in this movie? She said little; we knew little about her or what she was doing (was she forced to service men in exchange for being allowed to board the ship?) or what her plans were upon reaching New York. To those who might suggest that she was needed to underscore the point that a single woman, however cultured, could not get into this country alone, I say that that fact is not enough justification to give her so much screen time. That point could have been made in five minutes, with Lucy as a momentary character.

More questions: Why wasn't the twin brother at the boat to meet the family? We heard about the brother, and some closure on that point would have been helpful in giving the movie some cohesiveness. Also, how long was the journey from Italy to New York? Given the conditions on the ship, it makes a difference to the viewer if the voyage took five or 10 or 50 days. (Someone said something about seeing land a "week" at one point, but I think that was when they were already en route.) I needed these types of details to better appreciate what they were going through.

The only scene I really liked was when the boat, filled with passengers, left the dock. 

If you choose to rent this movie, do so with remote in hand; you may want the Fast Forward button handy.

Finally, may I suggest that, with the right voice-over providing helpful information about the times and the circumstances for immigrants--particularly during the slow stretches of endless shots of the countryside, people walking, etc.--this movie might have made an interesting public TV documentary.
I was looking forward to seeing Bruce Willis in this, especially since I remember being mesmerised by the original when I was young.

This movie is a perfect example of how movie companies can take a very good story and dumb it down until it's just another formula ridden hype of the fabled American law enforcement system/army VS, (the Russians.... no sorry the cold war is over, make that WITH the Russians) VS the TERRORISTS, similar to probably 50 other movies.

Furthermore it treats its audience like a bunch of idiots. The choice of weapon is well, plain ridiculous, are we seriously expected to believe that the world's most feared and experienced hit man/terrorist would select that for an assasination?

The whole point of the original story was the tense dual of intellects between the ordinary detective who is given the responsibility and the professional who crafts a ruthless but elegant plan to reach his target and then get away. None of that survived. All we have is the tired old American CIA/FBI/army vs the evil terrorist plot, we've all seen 1000 times before.

But of course the movie company's MBA's realised that a new intellectual angle here would lose them revenue from the short attention span gang, so the answer is ......Bruce Willis, BIG explosions and a crippled plot. They assume the American audience wont be able to relate to a threat to a foreign statesperson (where is France on the map afterall) so it has be an American!

Another example of a movie defiled by the boardroom.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This was so much better than i expected, the film oozed proffesionalism compared to other B-moive of this sort of budget. The script was good if a little formulaic but the acting was surprisingly good from all including Lorenzo and you always expect good standards from Scheider and Busey. Aswell as the good plot and acting the action is good especially the car chases and the crashes are A-class. All in all this is a rise above other B-movie thrillers and doesn't have to rely on constant nudity or a flow of cheesy puns to make up for budget and script defficiencies, its certainly worth a rent.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Next stop on our journey through the calender-slasher scene is... oh yes, "Graduation Day"! All of those seniors, just brimming with possibility and ready to venture out into the real world and become adults. That is, however, IF they can make it TO graduation without having to tangle with the campus lunatic who's running around, gouging the life out of students with his fencing sword... Yeah, it all stems from a the high school track star who drops dead from a blood clot during a race and a year later, her older sister returns home from the Navy for Graduation. The track coach holds the blame and broods in his demoted position in shop-class while the girl's boyfriend still mourns her death a year later... All of these characters are prime candidates for "Serial Slasher of the Year" and you just have to sit through this movie until the end to find out who-done-it. "Graduation Day" is fun, though it isn't spell-bindingly original by any means and there aren't a whole lot of memorable demises, but there is enough going on to keep you mildly entertained. Like Linnea Quigley screwing the music teacher and getting busted with a joint, 30 year-old actors playing teenagers, and of course... Rollerdisco! Gotta love that crap! You can do a lot worse than "Graduation Day", kiddies...
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

After the failure of "Hellraiser III: Hell On Earth," the chapter that served as a kind of 'death blow' to the franchise, another embarrassing cheapo cash-in did not come as a surprise. An abysmal attempt to explain every single mystery of Pinhead and the puzzle box, covering literally centuries of history, in a film that runs UNDER 90 minutes... On display is sub-par to wretched acting, sup-par to wretched B-movie special effects, and a ludicrous and insulting attempt at dark humour, while STILL attempting to keep the whole project completely serious. I'm wondering, how many freaking directors did this thing have? Poor Pinhead has SO MUCH screen time, that every bit of mystery and menace that this iconic character possessed, is completely lost. After an hour of hearing long-winded speeches and dramatic posturing, we simply want to tell the guy to shut up! mildly entertaining in spots, especially in the first segment, this mess begins to look and feel like a cheap, ugly made for TV splatter flick after a while, and ends in the most ridiculous way imaginable: Pinhead, along with his pet Cenobite dog, killing a bunch of idiots... in outer space! I'm sorry, but any true fan of the first two films in the series, that gave this abortion of a film more than 3 stars, should be ashamed. On a side note, the film that follows; "Hellraiser: Inferno" is actually a surprisingly intelligent, and stylishly-made film-noir piece, that brilliantly reinstates 'Pinhead' as a master of illusion and cruelty, and brings back the concept of the inherent evil in human kind, that was the centerpiece of the original film, and the whole point of the story. For any serious horror fan, see Hellraiser I & II, skip the lousy III & this one, and continue with 'Inferno.' You won't miss a thing by skipping this garbage...
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Otto Preminger's "Porgy and Bess" stands, to date, as a great American musical. I believe it is time bring this film out onto VHS and DVD for countless generations to view, admire, and absorb its wonderful music.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The 1994 film production of Heart of Darkness was in no way capable of living up to the outstanding book. The film contained unnecessary scenes that confused the viewer rather than aiding them in understanding what was going on. The director was obviously not experienced, and if he is, then he didn't show it. On top of that, scenes from the book were left out or changed, scenes that were rather important. The movie left me feeling rather bored and was a complete waste of my time. The characters acted as though they had no idea what was going on, and the actors did not portray the emotions that Marlow and the rest revealed in the book. Overall, the movie was terrible and completely lacked the suspense that was otherwise necessary to make it even remotely interesting.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What an excellent movie, made even more so by the fact that my wife and I stumbled onto it so serendipitously, channel surfing on a nice frozen day in North Texas. Kathy Bates is at her usual best leading a cast of very normal and human costar characters thru one of the most wonderful feel good movies we've ever seen. Why this movie wasn't given the attention it deserved on it's release in 2002 is difficult to understand. Why it was head and shoulders above so many of the boring pieces of trash released with greater fanfare and attention is evident in the viewing. It is obvious that we as a general public are being force-fed that which has been deemed "great and wonderful" by the powerful and influential while true gems such as "Unconditional Love" manage to shine thru all those pretenders to really enjoyable cinema. Rent or buy this movie.....you won't regret it!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I get really fed up with sitcoms; you feel you always know what is coming so it ceases to be funny. On the other hand, Hi De Hi, you rarely know what is coming and it's laugh out loud funny. I have just purchased the second set of the series, (series 3 -4)and I am surprised at just how much I am enjoying it all - again. I have nothing but praise for the writers or the actors (or the many unseen crew members) because the entertainment they provide is well worth the wait. The gems that have come from this series and the respect that the actors achieved through it speak for themselves. Croft and Perry created some pure gold some of which shines through Hi De Hi.

Did this review think positively or negatively of the movie?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

Imagine an exploitive remake of The Defiant Ones with a black chick and a white chick attached to each other. Set the story on some Caribbean island where the drug dealers rule and the revolution has arrived. And have the black woman be from Huggy Bear's stable of ladies and the white woman be a watered down Patty Hearst and you've got Black Mama, White Mama.

In those waning days of the drive-in theater this item must have been a big old hit. All the hot buttons of the Seventies are pushed in this one. Even though they both fill out their clothes better and will get a few whistles from the males in the audience no one is ever going to mistake Pam Grier and Margaret Markov for Sidney Poitier and Tony Curtis. All right, Halle Berry and Jamie Lee Curtis.

Margaret and Pam are prisoners where the guards and the warden look lasciviously at the new fish arriving. Margaret is a rich girl from the state who took up 'the revolution', whilst Pam's your basic high priced call girl who's been servicing the local drug kingpin and grew tired of it and tried to leave the island.

Margaret's fellow revolutionaries ambush the bus transporting them from the women's prison to town, but they get lost in the escape. Both have their different agendas, but like Sid and Tony they can't quite agree on whose agenda comes first. Makes for some interesting times as the police, the drug dealers, and the revolutionaries are all looking for these two illfated chain buddies.

Just so you don't get any wrong ideas the head of the revolutionaries and Markov's kanoodling partner is named Ernesto played by Filipino actor Zaldy Zshornack. The whole mess was shot in the Phillipines who were getting their own film industry started.

Nice location photography in the Phillipines is all that Black Mama, White Mam has to recommend it. But if you're a fan of really bad black exploitation flicks, this is one for you.
It is more a subtle story of the fact that in Indian household how most decisions are taken by the man, how no attention is paid to the desires of the lady, for example how even when the husband and wife sleep together it would be a test for the husband whether he can control his desires, not to give the woman pleasure. And in such a type of scenario, women invariably have two choices, either to accept all this and take it into their own life, which is usually the case or not accept this and try to mould things to satisfy themselves, which makes a movie!

Fire is a brilliantly directed story of the second option, which women choose for themselves, no sacrifice, not to serve anybody else, rather a decision for their own good. Somehow the whole idea of justifying lesbianism didn't find an acceptance in the Indian audience but if one looks the whole movie from an angle of self-expression, then the whole debate doesn't even arise.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Ingrid Bergman (Cleo Dulaine) has never been so beautiful. Gary Cooper as "Cleent" so perfectly cast as a laconic Texan who knows this gal is up to no good. When the two lock eyes at the French Market, we know this match will be full of sparks. When they stroll in her garden in her restored French Quarter house and the love theme plays it is a dream for all us romantics.

The costumes are lovely; the set decoration makes you wish the "Quarter" was just that way. And that Saratoga still had that hotel with the wide veranda with all the old biddies gossiping.

From Edna Ferbers novel, the story is of revenge for old wrongs and the fights over who would run the railroads in the early days of that industry.

In the Saratoga scenes, Florence Bates as a grand dame steals every scene.

But it is the scene of Cleo taking on the little lawyer her New Orleans relatives have sent to buy her off that is a Magic Movie Moment. After Cleo has bested him in the negotiations, he looks at her with longing and says "may I say - you are very-beautiful". And Cleo with a happy, wicked smile says "yes, isn't it lucky." You want to shout "YES"!!!

One of my all time favorite romantic films.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive