cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
What's an example of a movie review?

I think that this movie is actually entertaining, although it lacks some features essential for this kinda' films. First of all, when Doug and Chappy start their mission, they take off with F-16B, and during the combat scenes, they are piloting F-16A. The second thing I dislike of this film is the ever-repeating F-16 rolling to its right to escape from missiles...why chaff and flares haven't been shown in any movie yet? Third of all, once you see the F-16 almost empty of ammo, it appears again plenty of missiles... the models used to simulate the destroyed aircraft ain't good either. However, I think that using IAI Kfir as opponent planes was really good, far better than the F-5 shown in Top Gun (but this movie isn't as good as that masterpiece).

A funny movie, I love planes and I've seen it more than 3 times.
While Aeon Flux was mildly entertaining and a slightly better way to spend a Wednesday evening than the pub, i did leave pleased that i had got buy one get one free tickets. knowing nothing about the film as i went in, in fact i didn't even know there was an animated series before i read this site, i was ready for anything, and as some other viewers noted, the trailers showing a well filmed, good looking, and interesting piece of cinema had pulled me in. half way through the film though i was kind of disappointed, it did remind me of the fifth element but i too feel it just lacked the extra bit of depth and left me with the empty feeling. and enough of the pointless and slightly boring gun fights, if you're going to do them, do it with some style, not just loads of explosions and inept guards falling down. personally i'd rather have seen a bit more about the story and the people in the city or got to know more about how the chairman was being undermined, than yet another long and loud gun fight.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I absolutely fell in love with "Living in A Big Way" when I first saw it! Reason #1 is because I LOVE, ADORE, and am a HUGE fan of GENE KELLY. He was such a wonderful dancer, actor, and choreographer. Not to mention his extremely handsome looks and his sensual personality. I love his role in this movie. He was such a gentleman. This movie showcased his wonderful talent for acting. I enjoyed Marie MacDonald as well. It was my first time of ever seeing or knowing anything about her, and this excellent movie made me a fan of her's as well. Actually, the whole cast in this movie was enjoyable and great. The humor between the butler,"Everette Hanover Smythe", and the father, Mr. Morgan; Mrs. Morgan's courtroom humor, and especially grandmother Morgan's immediate attachment to, and concern for "LEO GOGARTY." And GENE'S number "FIDO AND ME" is adorable. The opening dance number with GENE and MARIE is very nice too. I would recommend that anyone see this movie. It will truly remain dear to your heart forever. Or at least it has to mine. And you'll fall in love with GENE all over again. I rate it my #2 favorite GENE KELLY MOVIE, and I've seen and own a quite many of his movies. They're a part of my daily routine! So trust me when I tell you, you'll love this movie! Watch it and enjoy!!

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

positive
PDQ Bach did it better. Much of "Bach"'s speaking part is letters written to various patrons complaining about the amount and speed of his payment. Anna Magdalena's diary, mostly about the death of children and sundry other family matters, is an iota more engaging. The music is disconcerting: 17th century sized chapel orchestras and choirs producing 20th century concert hall sound. The overall production quality reminded me of a junior high slide show. J S Bach was a brilliant man whose music speaks for itself. This film adds nothing. Netflix sent me 2 discs that wouldn't play, so I streamed the movie. Clearly Netflix was trying to tell me something.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I have never seen a more unrealistic movie than this foul piece of dung. The acting was over the top. The direction was tacky and amateurish. The script was just a joke. The story looked penned by a person that has never been around a high school football game, much less a professional game. And why, why did Oliver Stone feel the need to place himself in this movie as an actor? He was terrible, playing the most unrealistic announcer ever. He could not even get hired to do professional wrestling contests. Then you have Jamie Foxx, who throws like a girl. But, he is a tad more athletic than the aged Dennis Quaid. Seriously, Stone wanted to direct this film at 16 year old males with ADD. That is why we hear the loud music, the quick cuts and numerous edits. It just became a bad MTV video. Shame on Al Pacino for doing this crap. Cameron Diaz? Heck, that no-talent takes any role that comes down the pike. When Lawrence Taylor is the best "actor" you got going, well, your movie sucks! And this one does.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Solo is a poor film - that cannot be ignored. The acting for the most part is very wooden (the only exception is Adrien Brody's performance as Solo's creator Bill) and the story is slight enough that you would probably forget it WHILST you where watching the film. That said, such films are more about the action than the plot/acting and, as such, live or die by the action set pieces - that after all is the point of such films - to give 14 year-olds something to smile at whilst the adults watch films of actual substance. And even on this Solo fails to deliver - what little action there is is poorly done, dull and uninspired. After seeing the trailer for this on television I was hoping for something along the lines of Predator with a robot replacing the Predaot. Instead I got a fairly lifeless action film with a poorly constructed attempt at depth by taking on message that robots can feel too. Watch Terminator II or Predator instead.. both classics that this film desperately wants to be except it lacks the inspiration or, to be fair, the budget.
Feels like an impressionistic film; if there is such a thing.

The story is well told, very poetic. the characters well developed and well acted by the interpreters (or interpreted by the actors :)).

The film delights in its own sumptuous emotions at times and works well, unless you hate such emotion in movies - not so in my case.

It's a very humanistic film.

The landscape and even the extraordinary situation of the displaced cook are very poetic in their own right.

Well done.

A good classic for any good film collection.

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

positive
Other reviewers seem to have held this film in high regard. For something made by an eighteen year old film student, I would say bravo, but that is not the case. If you want to watch a good movie about graffitti stick to the documentaries. It is filmed with the same quality as a digital home video. The two main characters are dismal actors and once again that would be okay if this were a student film. The plot follows a lonely artist who skateboards around Portland writing graffitti. He is joined by another and they skate around together creating art. Then comes the unnecessary gay love scene. Then comes the dispute between them that is never actually discussed because this film has about as much dialogue as a charlie chaplin picture. This movie does show the gravity street artists give to their form well, and the music is nice, but overall I wouldn't really call it a film.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

This picture is a bad and blown up rip off of the Michael Pohl short film EXTINCT from 1995. While Michael Pohl's idea was original and perfect for a short film setting, A SOUND OF THUNDER's plot was poorly adapted from Pohl's story and not fit for a full length feature film one would expect from a major Hollywod studio. The tragic flooding situation that ruined the sets in Prague was just one bad link in a long rusty film production chain in this case. For a studio to release such a product... it is a shame. Especially for Warner Brothers, a studio which broke new effects grounds with shows like BABYLON 5 in 1993. On TELEVISION. Visual effects for television shows pioneering CGI in episodic television in the mid nineties were way more sophisticated than what is brought to the screen in this picture. In cases like this, sad as it may be: Can the film.
I have seen previous movies from Cédric Klapisch, and therefore expected a quality movie with psychological depth. Having been an Erasmus student myself and having visited several friends studying abroad, I know very well what it means to spend some time abroad and mix with different cultures at the same time. Yes, it is great fun! Because of that I thought I should not miss this movie. Unfortunately I was disappointed to find that L'Auberge Espagnol fails to satisfy in many ways: the characters are stereotyped, the events are trite and the story is shallow. Although there are quite a few familiar situations, they are irritatingly cliché and do not go beyond the trivial events. This made the movie uninteresting to watch, and gave me a strong "been-there-done-that-don't-you-have-anything-to-add?" feeling. Apart from that, the movie lacks a firm story. It sometimes looks more like a documentary or 'real-life' show than a seriously made movie.

However, I can imagine that if you haven't studied or travelled abroad, this might be fun to watch.

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

negative
Write a positive movie review.

I've been a huge fan of the Cky videos, Jackass, and Viva La Bam for a long time. They've had a great run and I expected my laughter to end, eventually. But, it hasn't yet. This movie kept my mouth open the entire time. I'm still laughing, randomly. I went to the theater with low expectations, thinking it wasn't going to be better than the first. Oh, how incredibly wrong I was.

There were many great moments in the movie. If you're squeamish, don't like randomly placed raw humor, or if you disliked the first movie, you probably won't like this. But, with that said, I almost wet my pants from laughing so hard. It had all kinds of different pranks, masochistic humor, toilet humor, puking, laughing, some great falls and massive damage done to all of the cast. Ryan Dunn even branded Bam's rear end with an image that will be stuck there for a long time. I'm sure you can only imagine how raw this movie is.

No pain, no gain? Right? This movie has already done well, causing theaters all over America to laugh so hard, they'll be wishing it could last longer. I know I did. This movie did not feel short, at all, especially with the credits continuing the footage. But, I still wish it could've gone on forever. Now, let's just wait and see when they release Jackass Number 3! Overall, an excellent film, if you can get past the male nudity and a few sickening images. Keep your kids out of this film. They don't need to see this, at least until they are older. Support the crew and BUY THIS when it comes out on DVD! I know I will.
Thursday is clearly derivative of the 'new wave' of crime films released since Quentin Tarantino took the genre by storm with Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction in the early nineties, but it has enough ideas of it's own to ensure that it remains an interesting little film. Thursday utilises a few characters mostly within a single location. It works because each character is quirky enough in their own right to be memorable, and when put together what you've got is a very amusing little thriller. There is little substance to be found within the plot, but it doesn't matter because nobody goes into this sort of film expecting a life-affirming experience. The plot follows Casey; a former drug dealer who has gone straight and is now living as a successful architect in suburbia with his wife. The pair wants to adopt a child, but things turn awry when Casey receives a visit from his old partner in crime, Nick, who brought with him a case of heroine and a load of money stolen from the cops. Thursday is going to turn out to be a very interesting day for our former criminal...

The first scene sets the film up rather nicely and ensures that we know what to expect. We see a coffee order go wrong, which turns into a murder scene that the culprits promptly cover up when a cop comes in for refreshments. The scene is soaked with dark humour and witty dialogues, and that is carried on throughout the rest of the movie. Thursday is a very funny film, and scenes such as the ones that see the adoption visitor turn up at an awkward time ensure that the film is difficult to dislike. It's true that the film doesn't bring anything new to the table, cinematically or plot-wise, but the fact that it's happy to wallow in its derision ensures that there's more time for the absurd situation to build around the central characters. The acting is decent enough, with the entire cast clearly having fun with this plot. Thomas Jane holds the film together well in the lead role, while amusing portrayals from James LeGros, Paulina Porizkova, Michael Jeter, Glenn Plummer and Mickey Rourke back him up nicely. This film is unlikely to impress the seasoned film fan, but if you just want an amusing little movie with a few enjoyable twists and performances; Thursday is likely to suffice.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Man, are you serious? Did you read the book or watch this movie? Well, if you did, let me warn you, it is bogus. Mark Furhman has been seeking a job since losing his job with the LAPD. You remember him, don't you? He was the guy that lied on the stand and gave the OJ Simpson defense a foothold they were looking for. Well, he has written three books since then. I have read all three of them. No, I am not a fan, they were given to me. HOWEVER, I will tell you one similarity in all three, they grossly distort the importance of Mark Furhman. He shamelessly exaggerates his stature in all three. In "Murder in Spokane", he pretends that he had something to do with catching the killer, when he had nothing to do with it. In all books he takes great delight in running down local law enforcement efforts. Kind of like his efforts were run down in the OJ trial. In this movie, there are plenty of slow motion shots of ladies looking at Furhman and lusting after him. Many other shots have him at the center of attention, when in reality, I am sure the only thing people were thinking at the time was "hey, isn't that the racist that caused OJ to get off?" This was an interesting real life story, but not a good movie over it.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: When I was young, I was a big fan of Chuck Norris. I just begun getting out all his old movies on video so I can see them through adult eyes. I remember that I really liked this one in particular, and thought it was one of his best. Now that I'm a little older, I can say that although it's thoroughly average, I still consider it one of his better films. In an acting stretch for him, Norris plays a cop haunted by his participation in the arrest and capture of a dangerous serial killer movie. Serial Killers are all the rage nowadays, and people would like to think of them as a wholly 90s invention. In contrast, it's good to see where the current infatuation has sprung from, most obviously, action movies (as well as stalk n' slashers) of 70s and 80s. While Norris attempts at both humour and any form of human compassion are ham-fisted and laughable, nobody could kick someone in the head quite like Chuck. Being a big fan of Steve James also, I can recommend this film, ditto for genre legend Billy Drago, as well as seeing Mitch from The Blue Brothers in a supporting role. Not great, but it's better than anything Norris did in the 90s.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Dark Harvest is a very low budget production made by a bunch of rank amateurs which manages to come off as a kind of semi-professional movie. Unfortunately the poor effects, wooden acting and unoriginal story makes this a very mediocre horror slasher at best. By no means is Dark Harvest the worst horror movie i've ever seen, it just isn't anything special and has nothing in it to warrant a second watch or hope for a sequel. You know a director has doubts about their own horror film when a) there is some pointless nudity and b) the movie's so short they add some rather boring outtakes at the end credits that nobody really cares about because the movie wasn't that good! A slightly better movie which i can't help feeling was the inspiration for Dark Harvest is the eighties movie 'Scarecrows' which is an OK movie but still pretty average.

Dark Harvest isn't as bad as some of the other comments say it is but don't think that you will be entertained much either. One thing i also have to comment on is the character of Angela who has a really terrible English accent! What was the point in that?! To maybe give it a certain touch of class? Yeah right! English people do NOT say "WAAHTAAH" when they mean to say "water" and i don't care what part of England they are from! If you can't find a genuine English actress or a non-English actress who can put on a brilliant English accent (not many of them about) then DON'T BOTHER! Sheesh! Final score: 4/10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Just as in Rififi, the most compelling scene in the movie is the perfected silence of the jewel heist. The scene is masterful in its execution, each of the robbers having their own specialized job to perform, each one successfully combining their own unique talent towards the objective, and each one, until a month before, complete strangers.

Many of the scenes play out very slowly. In fact, the opening scene is a long character introduction to both Corey and Vogel, as we see Corey getting released from prison and Vogel escaping capture on his way to prison. The two characters are then methodically brought together through fate at a roadside diner as Vogel hides inside the trunk of Corey's automobile. From this improbable break in, the two strangers agree to become partners to commit a perfected and precise jewel heist.

However, to pull of this heist they must include the help of a third man named Jansen. Jansen is hired as the sure shot gun man. His inclusion into the mix was an interesting and desperate choice. At the time of his hire, Jansen is in a full battle with DT's and spent most of his day on his cot hallucinating over lizards, snakes and spiders. His transition from the disheveled and hallucinatory world of a William S. Burroughs dream into the steady handed and sober sharp shooter is a very quick one and perhaps the only real false moment of the film, but that's just me being extremely picky.

One other mildly false note was that of the police inspector Mattei. At times he appeared to be brilliant in the ways of strong arming the right people or gathering information and waiting out for his escaped prisoner to make his move. Other times he appeared to be 10 years past retirement, especially at the beginning during Vogel's escape through the woods.

I wonder if I got too much hidden meaning from the beginning of the movie. At the start of the movie, as the police car is speeding through the city, the first image we see is that of a red stop light. My first thought was that this may be the 'red circle' and that if I am to find a deeper meaning in the movie, perhaps it is that this car, or rather the people inside of it going through the red light, will be the ones who will 'stop' the jewel heist. Hmmmm? 

Perhaps the red circle refers to the triumvirate thieving ring? Perhaps it was the burning sled? No matter.

It's a long movie, but it doesn't feel that way. The ending is a bit of a disappointment. It seemed too hurried for a movie that felt like such a delicious slow burn. 9/10

Clark Richards
The Italian Job is a real blast to watch. It's a genuinely entertaining film, something you watch just for the sheer enjoyment of it. It's not heavy with drama or emotional hand-wringing, it has no cosmic statements about life, and it's not violent or profane. It's just a fun movie. Between watching the little Mini Coopers fly around the crowded streets of L.A. and the great bits by stereotypical computer geek-turned-crook (played gleefully by Seth Greene), I had a lot of fun watching this film.

Special kudos to the background music. They truly set a masterful tone for such a movie, so subtle yet keeps you on the edge when needed. Apparently a lot of artists contributed to the music, I found it to be the classiest part of the film.

8 out of 10. Not awe-inspiring but a great film to watch at the end of a lousy day at the office.

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

positive
One of master director Alfred Hitchcock's finer films this is the story of an American and his family (James Stewart, Doris Day, and their young son) who are vacationing in north Africa. Stewart is a doctor and Day is a world famous singer. They meet a Frenchman who speaks the native language and helps them out of an incident on a local bus. Later one, the Frenchman whispers something into Stewart's ear after he is attacked and dying. The rest of the film is a puzzle as Stewart tries to save them and solve the mystery. The movie is steeped in mystery and strangeness from the exotic locale to the odd occurrences. You never really know what's going on in this film, why people are appearing, until the end and even then you're not sure. The final scene takes place in Albert Hall and is one of the most famous in film which lasts for 12 minutes with no dialog. Hitchcock had originally made this film in 1934.

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

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

The action was episodic and there was no narrative thread to tie the episodes together and move the story forward. The plot plods along. With few exceptions (e.g., Graham Greene) the acting was uninspired, and pedestrian at best. The actors seemed to have something on their minds, other than the scene they were in. It is boring to observe a man driving a car through the semi- desert country of this movie's setting, whether he drives poorly or well. Such scenes are typical of the level of tension in the video. So there was nothing about this video to engage or draw the observer in, to make him or her care about the characters and the out comes. I am doubly disappointed because I rented this movie based on the reputations of the executive producer (Redford) and the writer of the novel on which it was based (Hillerman). I note that the jewel box reports that funding is provided by PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, as well as Carlton International. I would hope that this video was as disappointing to them as it was to me and my wife, to the point that they will not fund any more disasters coming from the same source.
The Ten Steps has basically a reasonably good premise for a scary short but the execution is simply appalling. The dialogue is terrible and the acting is of the kind so regularly witnessed in Irish short films. Really really embarrassingly bad. The girl has to go down the 10 steps of the cellar to change the blown fuse. She telephones her father who is entertaining his boss at dinner. The mother, an "actress" with very questionable acting skills, answers the phone and in a loud scolding voice tells her not to be ringing as Dad is 'trying to impress his boss'. The actress playing the boss's wife very successfully emulates the mother's poor acting when she tells them that their house is haunted. The rest of the film consists of the father coaxing his daughter down the stairs on the telephone. The Ten Steps employs the stock techniques in camera movement, lighting and music that one would expect in a below average horror film. Poor.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

The Stepford Children, besides being a very good made for TV movie, shows the very disturbing result of indoctrination. It is quite a statement about how being made to act within the confines of what is considered "Good" behavior can destroy whatever it is that makes a person unique and an individual. I think that this is a movie that parents who want to maintain some semblance of the thought that loams within the hearts and minds of youngsters should watch with their children and discuss what the movie is saying. I don't know if that was in any way the intent of this movie but I have always been of the opinion that it is one of the best movie devices against the wish to have children conform to an unrealistic and domineering pretense of what is in the best interest of anyone other than that of the children themselves. I hope to one day see this movie on DVD. I am at the starting gate... waiting.
The German regional-broadcast-station WDR has shown both "The General" and ODC. On Saturday I've seen "The General" and I thought, it wasn't very bad, but not very good too. But yesterday I've seen ODC and I switched it off after about an hour. Although Kevin Spacey was the main actor the movie was totally confusing and seems restless. "The General" told the story straight and ordered, but ODC just wanted to be cool. There is a reference on the Guy Ritchie Movies "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" and "Snatch", but doesn't have the Coolness of these movies.

So, in the end I would rate it 3 of 10!

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Countenance! Antoine Monot, in a copycat impersonation of Kevin Smith's Silent Bob, keeps asking for it, but writer/director Christian Zübert never listens. Zübert just can't say no to a joke, no matter how cheap. The best thing about this movie is its soundtrack. Of course, Joey Burns of Calexico and the divine Jonathan Richman, understated old-school bard of "There's something about Mary" fame, would grace any small-town dropout story. In visual allure, Stefan (Lukas Gregorowicz) looks cool enough riding his tan six-series BMW two-door, wearing aviator shades, going nowhere. True, he *accidentally* sleeps with his wild-eyed bohemian kid sister (Marie Zielcke), but then, who wouldn't? Thumbs up also to how he goes black-and-white on a liberal dose of that mysterious substance they call zero-zero, but if you're looking for a slightly more serious rendering of what intoxication can do to you, I suggest you check out "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas".
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Yet another "gay" film ruined by asinine politics. Luigi's final speech just about sent me running out of the theatre with its bumper-sticker epigrams. Read the comic book it was based on for a much more entertaining experience.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

I saw this film when it premiered in LA. I think I laughed 2 or three times. The rest of the time I was in shock at how ridiculous/poorly shot and poorly written it was. Kirby is in fact the only saving grace in the film. I was disappointed at the performance of Larry Bagby , whom I usually find entertaining. If you enjoy watching your friend's crappy homemade short films that they shot on their mom's 8mm video camera then there's a slight chance you might enjoy this film. Then again part of what makes those movies enjoyable is that it's your buddies playing all the parts. You don't know these people so you'll probably find it as dull and stupid as I did. Dear Mr. Nelson, go back to film school, intern for a while as a PA or a grip or some low level job so you can see how things are properly done in film . Then look for as long as you must to find a Director of Photography who knows what f. stop means, make sure he has ND filter on hand. Then try again. Repeat as many times as needed.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Okay, this movie starts out and it *looks* like it's going to be a cute comedy about a completely obsessed soap opera fan. She has no touch with reality whatsoever outside of the soap (sort of the inverse of the main characters in "Pleasantville") and runs away to Los Angeles to meet a fictional character. Well it is a cute movie... but at the same time, it is ALSO a dark, very violent movie about two hitmen who are out to kill Betty for reasons way to complex to recount here. Either plotline would have been enough on it's own, but "Nurse Betty" contains both stories at once, and the effect is very jarring. I didn't much enjoy it.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is one of the best episodes of Doctor Who EVER. We have the Cybermen, The Cyber conversion units (May scare young children) and of coarse the Doctor doing one of his best acts. Bravo David Tennant. Good scenes as if it was a movie, with thrilling scenes in some streets, an invasion on the Cyberman's base, and leaving the world different to ours, basically a 45 minute movie.

Being Part 2 of Rise of the Cybermen, this would never disappoint. With it having a great build up to the final.

The Doctor plus an evil enemy (Daleks, Cybermen, Master, Sontarans, Davros, Autons, or even Macra) is a battle to the death, just be careful with young children watching this.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
You've seen the same tired, worn out clichéd sit-com stories, characters, stories 1000's of times beforeonly this excels at sucking more than others. First and foremost there isn't a single character in this show that's even remotely likable...in particular Michael Rapaport's. Dave Gold is by far one of the biggest asses ever to grace a television screen ever...repugnant comes to mind. If in real life a father was this unlikable, cruel and just generally unfit to parent...fratricide would be your only option. To call the remaining characters stereotypes, would be too complementary. If these characters ended up on life-support the line to pull the plug would be light years long. How this show finished one complete season, much less 2 is a mystery. FOX cancels "Arrested Development" and keeps this on the air??? You tell me the terrorists aren't winning.

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

negative
Write a negative movie review.

A perennial fixture in the IMDb Bottom 100, upon viewing this it's not hard to see exactly why for it proves to fail utterly miserably in just about every bloody department going!

Take the editing for a start; to call this choppy would be overly complimentary! Indeed, had the makers of this got drunk one night and sliced and diced the film reels with some scissors and children's glue, then the resulting mess could hardly have been any worse than what we actually have here. Added to this, the inane story drags on mercilessly for what seems like a torturous infinity before we finally reach the decidedly lacklustre climax. 

Aside from the ever game Michael Sopkiw, poor performances from most of the rest of the cast don't exactly help matters any either and the actual beastie that is causing all the troubles is somewhat less than convincing to put it mildly. Yay verily, all in all this is a complete pile of crap if ever I've seen one.

Deary, deary me....and to think that Lamberto Bava directed this to....tut, tut indeed. 

Note: This was released in the UK under the alternative title of Devouring Waves, although bereft of most of its gore scenes, which ironically are just about the only reason that this may have been worth watching.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I thought that One Dark Night was great! It deserves a 10! As to a statement made by one user, the dead WERE actually zombies in this movie. A dead person brought back to life IS a zombie, regardless of the method or cause for/of being brought back to life. The "zombies" in this movie are used to frighten the girls, not to feed off of them, like traditional zombies. This movie is a definite star among horror flicks of the 80's. The score and atmosphere are quite eerie, and the audience is kept in suspense throughout the mausoleum scenes. The acting is actually convincing, with genuine expressions of horror at the sight of the undead. Although I enjoy all zombie flicks, this movie is a refreshing change from the typical "flesh-eating zombie" movie.
What's an example of a movie review?

This story has held a special place in my heart for the last thirty-one years. As a boy, I enjoyed stories of mountain men and the wilderness. Books like "Call of the Wild", "White Fang", "The Frontiersman" and "My Side Of the Mountain", influenced me tremendously. I wanted so much to live like a mountain man, but nothing inspired me more to do so, than when I saw this movie on television in 1975. I wanted to be just like "Trapper". However, as I got older I found I was just too domesticated to live like that. Nonetheless, I still romanticize about living that kind of life. I agree with some other reviews of this movie that the storyline has the simplicity that is quite prevalent in "Disneyisque" type movies, but if you can look past the mechanics in which it was made and see the heart of the story, the true themes, then I think you find yourself pleasantly touched. I make it a point to watch this movie once a year. After thirty-one years, I still get a chill running through me when I see torrent of snow rushing down the mountainside and hear the echoing, haunting laugh of the Trapper.

-Good luck old-timer and stay free-

PS If you want to read more about the true story, I found this link on the Mad Trapper of Rat River:

http://www.mysteriesofcanada.com/NWT/madtrapper.htm
This is one of the best lesbian films i have ever seen! This series brought joy and sadness of true love. Being set in the 1800's was an amazing look at lesbian lives and desires of lesbian women. The cast was beyond expectation! Rachael Stirling is an amazing actress, i have never seen her other works but her portrayal of Nan made me connect with her feeling her heartache and pains and love. The one thing i feel most important is connecting with the characters in anything i watch. If anyone has doubts on seeing this film...Think twice! This is a must see series. Well done again to BBC! We need more lesbian films that portrays real love and hurts, like this one. Living in Canada i had this DVD imported and i am so thrilled to have purchased it.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I admit, I was taken in by the provocative stills of Charlotte Lewis from this film, as well as a comment on the IMDb message board devoted to her, calling this picture a "great underrated film". And so I got, with great difficulty, my own copy of "Dial Help".

What a waste.

Nothing but a cheaply-made blood and gore movie with a ridiculous premise which I'm not even going to repeat, with several telegraphed sequences (for instance, when we see Lewis lovingly feeding her fish, we know right away what's going to happen to them later). Not even Lewis, with her beautiful raven hair, large and luminous brown eyes, full and pouty lips, and stunning figure, can save this film. Lewis fans would be better off with "Bare Essentials", "Sketch Artist", or even "Golden Child".
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

I am almost a two decade old human who's been reading comics most of my life. I'm not a huge fan of the Fantastic Four, but I'm fairly familiar with them. In 1994, Roger Corman (B-movie legend) produced the first, I think, feature length Fantastic Four film. The result was such pure schlock that it was never given a release. Still, copies exist, mostly on the net and at conventions. If you're looking for a laugh and can find a copy do yourself a favor and check this thing out.

The film basically retells the FF's origin and an encounter with Doctor Doom and a villain named The Jeweler, essentially the Mole Man with a penchant for petty larceny. As is the case with these comic book movies, everything has to tie into everything, so the FF play a vital role in Dr. Doom's creation, and he and the Jeweler play a vital role in theirs.

First, I'd just like to mention that despite everything that went bad in this movie, I actually sort of liked the guy that played Doom. He doesn't get many decent lines, but when he does he hits them. The armor looks pretty good too.

As for the rest...it's a dirty, dirty mess. Bad plots, bad acting, bad effects, bad everything basically. Boos especially to Jay Underwood, bringing new meaning to the word overacting as Johnny Storm. He's not overacting, he's ultracting.

As for the FF, well they all sort of look right, and Sue's played by a very attractive actress, but they just don't seem like a real team. For one thing they have no reason for Sue and Johnny to go into space. In an early section Ben and Reed go to visit the two, Johnny's like 8 and Sue's about 12. It only stands to make their eventual romantic pairing a helluva lot creepier. The Thing costume looks more reptilian than anything else, not very rocky, and the only time the Human Torch is really a Human Torch he looks like the Silver Surfer tinted red.

I could type for hours, but I think the scene that best sums it up is a climactic encounter featuring the aforementioned not-so-Human Torch. He's racing a laser beam, and he eventually destroys it with a punch. Yes, a punch. A laser beam. With a punch. Then he flies around and goes "Yippeee!" a whole lot, whereupon the camera tilts down and he flies back TOWARD EARTH. Evidently Reed the intellectual forgot to inform Johnny that fire doesn't exist in the vacuum of space. This and many other scenes operate like Looney Toones, if the character doesn't know they are over a cliff, they don't fall.

I laughed, I cried, I was glad it was never released.
After being off the air for a while, Columbo returned with some new made-for-TV mysteries that, while not being as good as the original series, are better than the shows that were done in the later '90s.

"Murder Can Be Hazardous to Your Health" used the then (and I guess now, if you think about it) true crime shows as the situation for a murder. The murder is committed by a very successful, egomaniacal true crime show host, George Hamilton (in a nice bit of casting). His chain-smoking nemesis, who lost the job to him, played by Peter Haskell, attempts to blackmail Hamilton when he discovers a porno video Hamilton made with an underage actress in his salad days. Hamilton uses Haskell's cigarettes to deliver the death blow via poison, giving himself an alibi as well.

Columbo is brought in to find out what happened. You know the rest. Highly entertaining.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I watch a lot of movies. A LOT of movies. Getting a graduate degree in film forces one to watch 2-3 flicks a day for years. It all gets very exhausting. Mostly because I feel I have seen it all. So rare is it when I get surprised by something, mostly I hope to see something as good as I expect it to be.

Death Bed is so unlike anything I have ever experienced I actually had to stop the DVD in order to rant about its genius.

The rhythm of the piece is psychotic. It's structured in a way that forces the viewer to stay outside of the frame. It's not like something like Halloween with all its snappy editing and POV shots; Death bed actually comes across as kind of dreamy. The most pretentious way I can phrase it is: this is Samuel Beckett making a haunted house movie. I mean it's a manic depressive bed that eats people! And fried chicken! Out in the middle of nowhere! And there's bone hands! I can barely articulate my feelings about this film. And yeah, copping to liking this will open you up to ridicule. But things get real same-y after awhile. Its hard to be a cinephile and consistently stay engaged. I can honestly say this is a fully unique film up and down. From what it is to how its put together. We need films like that, movies that shake us out of our complacency. Consider it like existential camp. it's fun and it's stupid, but also brilliant in its weird little way. The worst horror villain of all time? Maybe, but at least it isn't a guy in a mask.

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

positive
I haven't seen this movie since it came out at a drive in theater, and I have been searching for it since. At the time I was 12 and the story excited me; and NOW, the ending eludes me. It was young love that engrossed me the most, not to mention John's vocals and Taupin's lyrics. The story (at the time) hit home to my psyche. I am a lover of sentimental movies and this still hangs in my head after 35 years- it is that good. Place yourself at adolescent age and let your fantasies run. If this movie didn't excite your curiosity, then you were just too old. I look forward to seeing it again (even at my age)! If nostalgia is in your venue, I'm sure this is an interesting movie to see. It's innocence is simply astounding and it's simplicity is so easy and enjoyable.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I wanted to see this movie ever since the previews came out. I don't understand why everyone is so hard on this film. It may not all be technically true to the sport of rugby, but this film is not mainly about the sport. It's about a rugby team that is taught how to be more than the world expects of them. They are taught to become men, and not temporally vain boys. Hollywood is never 100% correct in their productions. They are there to make a product that sells. Something entertaining. The story of Coach Gelwix and what he has taught over the years is simply amazing. He teaches about service, honor, integrity, and moral cleanliness. How many other movies are teaching that to our youth these days? I was proud to see such an amazing story that taught reverence and respect.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
stuey unger was a card playing legend. he was quoted in an interview as saying, "Some day, I suppose it's possible for someone to be a better No Limit Hold'em player than me. I doubt it, but it could happen. But, I swear to you, I don't see how anyone could ever play gin better than me." there's a gin rummy scene in this movie that is so amazing you could have plopped it in 'X-Men' as a showcase for a superhero's mutant power. that's how incredible this man was.

i have a few minor problems with this movie. as dark as this movie was, stuey's real life was darker. poker pro todd brunson said, "During the last World Series of poker, Bob Stupak, Mike Sexton and I had a drink and talked about Stu. Mike told us how he could barely talk, hadn't showered in weeks and how his fingers were burned black by a crack pipe." in the film, michael imperioli looked far too healthy to be stu unger in the final years of his life. when stuey won his last wsop he looked like a skeleton, but let's face it, this production lacked both the time and the "deniro" to make that kind of transformation. my other problem was that i wish there was more poker playing, with actual hands and situations. sure it might have bored the average non poker enthusiast, but it would have been nice for the hardcores. too bad the movie wasn't 6 hours or so longer.

i watched the movie with 3 non poker players and they all thoroughly enjoyed it. just like you don't have to be a former member of the colonial army to enjoy Gibson's "the patriot", you don't have to be a poker player to see this gem. can't wait for the DVD. (8 out of 10)
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Stanwyck and Morgan are perfectly cast in what is, in many ways, a modern equivalent of Dickens' Christmas Carol in its sensibility. The success of the film depends on the casting of Sydney Greenstreet as the Alexander Yardley character. Yardley is the modern equivalent of Dickens' Scrooge in the way he exercizes control over his employees -- until the Christmas spirit overtakes him. The role is a 'walk in the park' for Greenstreet who had been one of the stage's great Falstaffs when he was part of the Lunts' company. Greenstreet had only entered films five years earlier when, at age 61, he was featured in what was to become a film classic, the first and best film John Huston ever directed: 'The Maltese Falcon'. 'Cuddles' Sakall was probably never better in his traditional role as the embodiment of middle European gemutlicheit. The attractive set used throughout most of the film is an eye-pleasing gem.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Police officer Michael (Tomas Arana, "The Church") has his hands full while investigating a serial killer who's been leaving parts of the bodies of the people that he's been murdering at the house of one recently widowed, Tracy (Joanna Pacula). Mike has to find a way to stop the bodies from piling up, while perhaps finding love in the process.

A feeling of the 'giallo' films of yore pervades this film, even though we know who the killer is from the get-go, and the film contains a few good set-pieces (a scene later in the film set in a school for the blind being particularly memorable), but it doesn't make all that much sense when all is said and done either. All in all, not nearly as good as Bava's earlier "Macabre" nor his first two "Demons" films, but enjoyable enough if you can forgive the rather outrageous plot twists towards the end of the film. A pity the Image Entertainment DVD lacked extras of any kind, as I would have been interested in some.

My Grade: C-
What's an example of a movie review?

Even not being a fan of the "Star Trek" movies or universe of shows and books and such, I still find some enjoyment in some of the movies featuring the old cast and in the case of "First Contact" even the new cast a bit. This one though was kind of sad to watch...it seemed to want to be so much, but it failed on so many levels to be one of the worst Star Trek movies. The plot is very far fetched seeming to want to combine three or four stories into one ultimate Trek adventure, but it ends up an unfunny when it tries to be, not tense when it wants to be and not action packed like it tries to be mess of inconsistencies. The whole movie to take a phrase from Spock is illogical. The effects are nothing special as I have seen episodes of Next Generation that are just as good, which is to say it is fine for a television show, but not a major motion picture. The plot is laughable as the gang at first tries to stop Spock's brother then joins him on his quest to find God, yes you read that correctly. The Klingons make a tacked on appearance, which actually will set up the much better Undiscovered Country movie. All in all you know it is bad when the best part of the film is Kirk, Bones and Spock singing row your boat, well Spock was not really singing, but rather questioning the lyrics.