cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
It takes a while to get adjusted to the sound of Sons of The Pioneers , but then you thoroughly enjoy it. If the soundtrack would be played by an orchestra like Max Steiner or Dmitri Tiomkin it would lose its folkloric character. The music conducts the film, everything seems to follow its rhythm. The whole cast is excellent. Ben Johnson and Harry Carey Jr. are the young men guiding the caravan. Ward Bond is the Mormon leader and Joanne Dru is a flirting actress. Ford was able to make of what would be an ordinary western, something totally different and original showing us the music, the dances, and most of all, the people.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Bubbling just beneath the surface of Showtime is a good idea. Actually, it's more like two or three ideas that constantly fight for screentime. This film doesn't just have its cake and eat it too; it has the whole bakery.

Detective Mitch Preston (Robert De Niro) has a drug bust interrupted by the media and a brash, cop-slash-actor named Trey Sellars (Eddie Murphy). When Preston's partner is shot, he angrily shoots the camera out of the hands of a pestering newsman, and the tiff lands him in a new reality cop show produced by Chase Renzi (Rene Russo). In the first of many errors and oddities in the movie, that injured partner is never heard from again or alluded to for the remainder of the film.

De Niro's best gag is his speech to a classroom of small children to open the picture about how TV cops don't act like real cops. Funny thing is, as the movie progresses, his character and Murphy's begin to act more and more like the clichés they supposedly clash so strongly with. In a smarter movie, De Niro's diatribe could have played as ironic comment; here, it only shows to point out how truly lame the movie is. While a spoof of a reality based cop show could be funny, the team of writers and director Tom Dey (Who made the far superior Shanghai Noon a few years ago; see that movie instead) seem to be on unsure footing, and instead of slamming the TV industry, they really let them off light (The harshest thing they seem to be able to say about network execs is they like to play ping pong at work). Russo's character has a glint of fiendish delight in her eye, but her dialogue and actions rarely match the actress' enthusiasm. 

With little on screen to keep my attention, my mind began to wander, and that's dangerous in a movie with this many plot holes. For instance; if Showtime (the name given to the cop show) is such a popular smash, why doesn't anyone seem to recognize De Niro and Murphy when they are on the job? For that matter, if their investigation of smuggler and all around mean guy Vargas is being televised, why the heck hasn't someone mentioned to him that they are on his trail? Then again, given this villain's actions maybe I shouldn't be surprised; this is the same joker who is very angry at an associate for using his new supergun without approval, jeopardizing a deal, and then dispatches him how? By using about ten of the superguns to level his entire house, of course! That's like putting out a fire with a bigger fire. 

Occasionally, Showtime gets laughs, but there simply aren't enough for the film's nearly two hour running time. Even worse, the really smart gags suggest that this movie really could have been on to something, if only they had put in a few more drafts of the script. Murphy mugs and talks as fast as he can with minimal results, and De Niro looks flat out bored through most of this. After a completely unnecessary fistfight between cops and gangsters (That remarkably results in no injuries and no arrests) Russo's character shouts `That's great television!' Perhaps it's great television, but it's far from a great movie.
I never intended to see Venom, but I caught it on cable. It does have good elements. The Louisiana swamp atmosphere for one, something we will unfortunately not see so much of in movies because of Hurricane Katrina. It is based on an interesting concept, a regular man imbued with the spirits of evil. His confrontation with his son could have been interesting, as could much of the movie. But as tends to happen in Hollywood, an interesting idea goes down a familiar direction: 

Kill off all the characters save the good girl, starting with the Black guys. I'm a fan of Agnes Bruckner, but the other characters, the villain's afore-mentioned son, CeCe who must become a voodoo priestess, are more interesting. And for the love of God, just once I would like to see the virgin get killed. We all like the easy girl, why can't she live? In this case it was Bijou Phillips, and we love her.

The ending made no sense considering what had been established about the villain's invincibility. All the carnage and atmosphere, and it leads to nothing.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I'm thinking of some things for this movie: First, really is a very bad movie. This is really "Superbad". The film looked very promising in the trailers but fell flat... Maybe the original idea was good, but between a bad script and bad acting the movie became boring and empty. My advise is don't waste 2 hours of your precious time. You have been warned. This is the first movie I rated 1 star at IMDb.com... Second, none of the characters are likable. You really don't care what happened to them... Third, the villain is very easy to identify. The grandson kills his father, sodomizes the friend's son, get the maid pregnant, smothers his grandfather... Like JT says, "If you like evil with no retribution, this is your movie". Nothing more to say...
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I had heard of John Garfield, but, didn't know him. I loved this movie. I had never heard of it. I just picked it up randomly. John Garfield is a boxer in the movie. He had been in real life also so he knew his part. He was a fugitive throughout the movie. Someone else killed a man. He character was blamed. He is befriended by a family who has questions and is not quite sure what to make of him. All sorts of minor plots ensue. My favorite was the scary swimming scene in a water tower where the water was deep and one Dead End Kid couldn't swim, AND none of them could get out.John's character saves the day. The Dead End Kids were great as his friends and followers. One of them right to the very end. Ann Sheridan played the family's daughter and John's eventual love interest. She was believable, but not lovable in my opinion-the only weak link in the movie.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I was waiting for this movie for a time. In the first day of the air in Turkey, I watched it. It was totally a disappointment for me. I was planning to watch a historical movie, but the one in the screen was a fictional one. First of all, the main character of the movie Cengiz Han, the great conquer was portrayed like a soft, calm, even a loser one. You can not feel the power in the movie. Historically, the war machine he created was conquered ¾ (even more) of the world know in those years. To do that, Cengiz first unite the Asian tribes. However, in the movie, this loser man is in one scene poor-alone man, and in second scene, he is commanding armies. War scenes were incredibly week. In the final battle, the Mongol horseman were using double swords on their sides and cutting the enemy. : ) As a consequences, me and my friends just laugh at that scenes. Mongol army means Mongol archery horseman. You can not see that in the movie. Another ill thing was the use of fantastic elements in the movie. I do not want to go into the scenes which was portrayed Cengiz as a prophet. We can say in the integrity of the movie, it is acceptable. However, the scenes when the old monk saw the future and go to find the wife of Cengiz Khan after Cengiz gave him a mission is really funny. When the monk died in the desert, Cengiz's wife feel this dead and she find the corpse in the continent. We are talking about the Asia Again we laughed. There are a lot of more things to say but, I don't feel that this movie has value to talk more.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: ...and I Bought A Vampire Motorcycle staggers all over that line like a drunk with his shoelaces tied together. Some 'bad' films are quite enjoyable (like Norman J.Warren's Inseminoid), some 'bad' films are just bad (like Kent Bateman's Headless Eyes), but 'bad' films that try and do the post-modernist thing of being knowingly bad should always be approached with extreme caution. A lot of people think Troma's Terror Firmer is a bad-taste masterpiece, for example, but I'm guessing anyone over the age of nineteen will shrug it off as worthless dreck. Then there's John Carpenter's Dark Star. Yes, it's quaint, and certainly a product of its time, but as a film it's only two notches above worthless. This no-budget British black comedy-horror outing tries to achieve a satirical tone, with its endless references to its fellow shoestring splatter flicks (among them Psychomania, Horror Hospital and pretty much anything by Pete Walker), but due to dismal performances by second-string TV actors (the leading lady looks like Amy Winehouse), a script that appears to have been written on the back of a peeled beermat by two 'lads' with no understanding of how film comedy works, Dean Friedman's (intentionally?) dire elevator-rock soundtrack and production values never rising above mediocre, the net result is a film that can only be laughed AT, rather than WITH. If your idea of whoopee is anthropomorphic turds, Chinese takeaways called Fu King and references to long-forgotten TV ads, you'll enjoy this one, but don't expect too much.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Less a thriller than an colorful adventure with suspenseful elements, THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH should not be really be compared with such Hitchcock masterpieces as VERTIGO, REAR WINDOW, or PSYCHO; it is instead more akin to such enjoyable romps as TO CATCH A THIEF and NORTH BY NORTHWEST. Shot largely on location in Morocco and London, the film tells the story of a married couple (James Stewart and Doris Day) whose holiday is interrupted when they innocently run afoul of an assassination plot--and when their young son is kidnapped in order to insure their silence.

James Stewart and Doris Day are quite effective in their roles of the All-American couple, and the characters are given an unusual twist: Stewart, a midwestern doctor, is outgoing but has a touch of "the ugly American abroad" about his personality; Day, who plays a popular stage and recording star who retired upon her marriage, has a suspicious nature. These qualities of personality and background play extremely well into the story.

THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH contains a number of famous scenes; both the scene in which Stewart drugs Day before telling her of the kidnapping and the very complex Albert Hall sequence, involving what seems hundreds of cuts, are very powerful. Less often noticed, although to my mind equally if not more satisfactory, are the more subtle scenes in which Hitchcock combines an edge of suspense along with perverse humor, as when Stewart attempts some detecting at a taxidermist shop and Day belts out "Que Sera, Sera" (written for this film) in a most unsuitable way at an embassy cocktail party.

Although THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH lacks the depth and impact of Hitchcock's greater work, it remains an enjoyable film and one that compares very well with his work as a whole. It's Hitchcock-light, but recommended.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
My friend and I rented this movie for 3.99 at blockbuster. If I'd have known how absolutely horrible this movie was going to be, I wouldn't have paid a cent. I had no warning for this bs. The acting can't even be called acting, the inevitable sex scene is awkward, and you can tell that both girls feel completely uncomfortable doing it, and the male villain... god, who couldn't tell he was going to attack emily And the musical cues... my lord. This movie makes me want to cry. Never rent this. In fact, if you happen to look upon it, gauge out your eyeballs. This movie isn't of God- it's from hell. I'm just gonna take the last couple lines to write blah blah blah shiz cause I really don't want to continue on with this review.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I bought the DVD of this movie because I am a fan of William Devane and I was really disappointed about "A Christmas Visitor". The story of the movie is so boring and slow in the development that you just want to turn off your TV or DVD player after about the half of it. The dialogues are really bad and belong to a daily soap opera but not in a TV movie. William Devane was alright in his part and he was acting quite good, but he did so much better in other movies and projects. Meredith Baxter was horrible and couldn't really bring the warm hearted mother to the viewers. Instead she was playing very cool and wasn't better than a middle-class actress. I absolutely cannot recommend this movie. Spare your time and your money for this one.

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

negative
The gate to Hell has opened up under Moscow. A priest, played by Vincent Gallo, goes to the city to find a friend who has gone missing in the tunnels under the city in an attempt to find the gateway. Wandering around underground he and his colleagues have to deal with the tunnels inhabitants both human and demonic. Good idea with a good cast of second tier actors goes nowhere much like the tunnels that are its setting. I've watched this twice now and I still have no idea why this is suppose to be scary when not a heck of a lot happens other then people talk about the evil and we see shadow forms. Nothing is clear and honestly I didn't see the point of it all other than provide a pay check for those involved (Second billed Val Kilmer is in a couple of fleeting scenes that don't amount to much other than to allow him to be billed as in the film.) The idea is really good, the performances are fine, the script goes nowhere. Take the advice of several of the characters in the film and don't cross the river to see this.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

Family Guy is easily one of the worst shows I've ever forced myself to watch (Not at THE bottom, though - I've seen The Jersey Shore). A popular hit with high school and college kids who mistake immaturity for edginess, this show is unoriginal and stale.

As this has been dubbed a comedy show, let's take a look at its "humor." 1. Random flashbacks/cuts to celebrities or movies or politics or anything that can be cut to for a knee-jerk laugh. It got old after the 5 or so repetitions per episode. Simple solution: Every time you hear "This is worse than/like the time...", plug your ears.

2. Inappropriateness for its own sake. This show is notorious for inserting inappropriate gags that have little to do with the overall plot. Solution: Watch South Park. They did it right.

The bottom line is that Family Guy is not worth your time, and doesn't hold a candle to The Simpsons.
Write a negative movie review.

I don't know where most of you were at, but where I watched the film we didn't have people singing as some have told they experienced, we had people laughing, mostly at the campy plot line, the horrible dance sequences and the singing of the likes of Brosnan. The only people in the audience who seemed to be enthralled with the film were the seventies generation folks who were some how reliving the past with the songs. I was a DJ in the seventies and even went to the ABBA concert at Northlands Coliseum in Edmonton in Sept of 79, so I did appreciate them then and I still do now. But this film should have gone the same way as their marriages and ended in divorce. The sequences were so poorly staged, the dubbing and editing absolutely horrible and this has to be Meryl's worst production. I cannot believe an academy award winner would stoop so low as to do this piece of garbage. So save your money, wait for it to come out on DVD and then maybe spend your money on something better, like cat litter.
This movie had a very unique effect on me: it stalled my realization that this movie REALLY sucks! It is disguised as a "thinker's film" in the likes of Memento and other jewels like that, but at the end, and even after a few minutes, you come to realize that this is nothing but utter pretentious cr4p. Probably written by some collage student with friends to compassionate to tell him that his writing sucks. The whole idea is  I don't even know if it tried to scratch on the supernatural, or they want us to believe that because someone fills your mind (a very weak one, btw) with stupid "riddles", the kind you learn on elementary school recess, you suddenly come to the "one truth" about everything, then you have to kill someone and confess. !!! What? How, what, why, WHY? Is just like saying that to make a cake, just throw a bunch of ingredients, and add water forgot about cooking it? I guess these guys forgot to, not explain, but present the mechanism of WHY was this happening? You have to do that when you present a story which normal, everyday acts (lie solving riddle rhymes) start to have an abnormal effect on people. Acting was horrible, with that girl always trying to look cute at the camera, and the guy from Highlanders, the series, acting up like the though heavy metal record store (yeah, they're all real though s-o-b's). The "menacing" atmosphere, with the "oh-so-clever" riddles (enter the 60's series of Batman and Robin, with guest appearance of The Riddle) and the crazies who claim to have "the knowledge" behind that smirk on their faces just horrible, HORRIBLE.

I'm usually very partial about low budget movies, and tend to root for the underdog by giving them more praise than they may deserve, in lieu of their constrictions, you know, but this is just an ugly excuse for a movie that will keep you wanting to be good for an hour and a half, and at the end you will just lament that you fell for it.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Once again, Doctor Who delivers the goods by the bucket load. It has humour ("You're just making it up as you go along!" "Yup, but I do it brilliantly"), action, monsters (in this case still more kick-ass cybermen), tragedy and scare tactics. In short, just what the doctor ordered (pun intended). The way that the emotions move from one to the other is done so well that there is no feeling of "get on with it". So, chalk up 3 out of the last 4 episodes that have made you laugh, then made you cry, and made you go "eek".

In terms of character development, this is clearly the clincher for Noel Clarke's Mickey (and Ricky). Being one of the Doctor's companions, you know that he will do the right thing, and may even suspect the manner that he does it. However, it is still an emotional wrench when he confirms his future path.

While "The rise of the Cybermen" had more of the sinister build up to terror, "The Age of Steel" is an all out blast. Like "Alien" compared to "Aliens" - both true classics, but in different ways. Can the series keep it up at this level? Let's hope so.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I will commend it in only one respect.. it was innovative. Innovative doesn't mean it's a good film, it means that it can give you an idea of what you can take and implement in your own films.

The simple plot is.. well.. simple. I got to the point where I didn't care if they destroy the building or not. If I had to hear that girl's annoying giggle one more time, I swear I would hurl the DVD out the window. And there's also the protagonist. They try to make him lovable, but he's a freakin pervert! Sniffing the girls bra, sneaking peeks at her when she's naked, putting her bra over his eyes when he sleeps, putting her bra on a blow up sex doll (which she takes her panties off while hes asleep and slips them on his doll.. umm)

What irritates me even moreso is that crappy tinting. In the photo gallery on the DVD, you can see what the film looked liek before they greyscaled it and put in a color tint (digitally too).. The film looked a LOT better without the effect.. so they sacrificed it being a good film just to be artsy... bah. I could understand using gimmicks like that if the film quality was crap..

I think most people who liked this film just liked it because the chick was naked for a good 5 - 10 minutes. This doesn't compare to Delicatessen ( like so many are tryign to do). Delicatessen has characters you can get into and like.. these people here just grunt and giggle.

Lastly, I would also liek to point out that this was also tryign to be like a German Impressionistic film liek the old silents. One of the problems with most foreign, especially artsy, films is that thety focus on making an artsy composition and forget about the 'space' of the scene. It results in the audience not really understanding what;s going on because they don't get a sense of the space of the surroundings.

Anyway, it's rubbish. The short film on the DVD, Surprise, was a heckuva lot better.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Plunkett and Macleane is an entertaining, fast-paced and refreshing film. Refreshing because, unlike most other period films, it does not strive to give the audience a history lesson or preach pompously - indeed, historical accuracy is all but ignored. This film does not take itself too seriously, and seeks to entertain rather than enlighten. Plunkett and Macleane is set in the 18th century, yet director Jake Scott offers a thoroughly 90s take. There's action, sex and swearing aplenty, and in the inevitable ball scene the aristocracy dance to disco beats. Jonny Lee Miller and Robert Carlyle are brilliant as always, and the rest of the cast, especially Alan Cumming as a flirtatious fop, are also highly entertaining. The film is visually spectacular in places, and is a mixture of comedy, action and drama, with a love interest provided by Liv Tyler with a shaky english accent. In short, if you're looking for an entertaining couple of hours, this is the film for you. It won't make you think, but it could well put a smile on your face.

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

positive
A 'Wes Craven presents' movie from 1995, directed by Joe Clayton and starring Lance Henriksen. A group of scientists save a dying man they find by their desert stranded government outpost by injecting him with their experimental virus, of course, one of their colleagues goes overboard and the virus transforms the man into a near unstoppable monster with them trapped inside. Lance Henriksen plays the morally offended researcher who leaves the project before all this, but returns after receiving a call for help to save the man (pre-unstoppable death machine mutation).

Deciding to combine two trips in one he brings his family along with him (they're going on vacation afterwards) and proceeds to give them entry to the top secret government facility, thus putting them right in the middle of the chaos within. In case you can't tell, this one relies on the viewer to work with it a little and put aside some petty (see: major and blatant) details.

Overall though: Watch-able with mild bits of enjoyment. Note: The Outpost is commonly known under the title 'Mind Ripper'
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

Well, where to start describing this celluloid debacle? You already know the big fat NADA passing as a plot, so let's jut point out that this is so PC it's offensive. Hard to believe that Frank Oz, the same guy that gave us laugh riots like Little Shop of Horrors and Bowfinger, made this unfunny mess.

So, this guy doesn't know he's gay till this actor points it out. OK, sure. If anyone ever says I'm gay, I'll know the truth, even if I currently like girls more than George Luca$ likes a dollar.

And how to know the true nature of my sexuality? Well, if I like classic litterature, dancing and Barbra Streisand, I'm gay. If I dress like a blind man in a hurry (with half my shirt hanging out), I'm straight. Oh, sure.

And here's the big cliché of clichés: no matter how you look, there's always a very attractive Hollywood actor who'll adore every bit of grease under your skin, or a top model who'll love your zero IQ, your butt-ugly face and your pointing-out ears. If all those gay common places weren't enough to get me angry, this did. In real world looks matter, folks, and I know for sure.

I see it coming: now you'll say "Relax! It's a comedy! Don't take it so seriously!". If being a comedy gives anything "carte blanche" to suck out loud, I think the world has a serious problem. Wouldn't be much better (and funnier) to make a movie to denegate those old tiresome clichés, instead of magnifying them over and over again?

So, one of the absolutely worst movies I've ever seen. 1 out of 10. If giving this rating has something to do with my sexual tendence, please let me know. I'm interested.
Like a great many twilight zone episodes, one of my favorite parts of this one was the overt social commentary that Serling is making with the story. As was the case with a recent episode "The Howling Man," I was reminded of my long standing suspicion that, for example, if Jesus were to come to earth to bring his followers to Heaven, he would be immediately judged insane and probably thrown into an asylum. Our main character in this episode meets a similar problem when trying to convince the 1860s Americans that he is from the future and the President Lincoln is about to be assassinated. The episode wrongly asserts that this means that some parts of the past can be changed while others can't, but it's a fun time travelling romp nonetheless.

Granted, we don't know for a fact whether history could be changed by time travel, because time travel has never been accomplished and, sadly, never will be. But it seems logical to me that, if you could physically place yourself in a time of the past, you could physically prevent something from happening, as long as you didn't flail around like a lunatic yelling about assassinations.

One of the consistently interesting things about time travel films and TV shows, in my opinion, is the method by which the time travel takes place. There is really no method at all here, our main character is having a conversation about time travel at a posh gentlemen's club and then walks outside and into a dissolve from the early 1960s to the mid 1860s, but no matter. The twilight zone has thus far not struck me for its complex sets or high production values.

Russell Johnson plays the part of Peter Corrigan, the time traveller, and upon discovering that he has been somehow transported back to the exact day of Lincoln's assassination, he manages to get himself thrown in prison, but luckily for him John Wilkes Booth, for some reason, just happened to be hanging out at the police station and overheard the frantic Corrigan desperately trying to describe the very assassination that Booth was planning for that night.

Booth requests custody of Corrigan for some psychiatric experimentation, and the police officer sees nothing wrong with relinquishing custody to this guy. He had a business card, after all, how bad could he be?

The show seems to suggest that you can change people's lives by slightly altering events in the past through time travel, and while I'm not willing to accept that time travel would include such limitations, it's still a fun episode that really makes you think, which is one of my favorite qualities of the good twilight zone shows...
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: If you make a suspense movie it is kind of important that the "villain" not be more sympathetic than the "victim". And this fails miserably. It was so terrible and frustrating to watch that I was actually moved to register and comment. OK, so the husband is rich and cocky. There are worse vices, and the cabana boy and wife display plenty. The husband is a jerk because he - um, didn't approve of the cabana boy physically assaulting that woman - the witch one which had absolutely nothing to do with the plot BTW. The cabana boy threatens the husband and repeatedly attempts to seduce the wife. He then forces himself on her - which the woman finds so hot she stops thinking rape and starts thinking she wants him. Uh huh. The misogynistic, inferiority complex thoughts the director displays are just revolting. It is one thing when a fine film like American Psycho deliberately tries to get us to empathise with the villain but in Survival Island I felt like I was watching a movie about Ted Bundy but the director failed to make him unlikeable and instead made us hate his victims. What was he thinking???
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I have been wanting to see this since my French teacher recommend it to me over forty years ago. Perhaps the long wait was worth it, since the Criterion Collection DVD restoration is impressive.

In its outline this movie follows the time-worn script: a quartet of men diligently plot a difficult heist of a bank vault, the heist takes place, a small seemingly insignificant event leads to the ultimate demise of all. Even though the heist footage is transfixing, it occurs rather early and is ultimately not at the core of the film. This film separates itself from the typical heist movie by giving us insights into the personalities of the characters and their motivations - its plays as much as a drama as it does a thriller. Relationships play a big role and a kidnapping is tacked on, giving us two movies for the price of one.

John Servais plays the idea man Tony le Stéphanois (always referred to as "le Stéphanois") with such world-weariness that he could have just stepped out of a Camus novel. Tony has just recently gotten out of jail and resists re-entering the life of crime until he has a highly unpleasant interaction with his ex-lover (who has taken up with another man) where, as punishment, he physically whips her with a belt. Thankfully that scene occurs off camera, but you are not likely to forget it. After that sobering event, since there seems little hope of reviving that relationship, Tony meets with two of his old partners in crime, Jo and Mario, and decides to join them in one last big heist. They enlist the services of Cesar, an Italian safe cracker - played by director Dassin himself - and we are off to the heist.

The heist goes off without a hitch. But Cesar's womanizing bent is a personality trait that turns out to be fatal for all concerned. However, we can understand his attraction to the nightclub singer he has fallen for, since there is a brilliant set piece where she performs a sexy and cinematically inspired nightclub act - it has to be one of the most memorable scenes from any noir film.

It is established early on that Tony has a close relationship with Jo and his family; in fact Jo's son refers to him as uncle. I think it is partly to help Jo's family that Tony agrees to the heist. The ending scenes, where Tony saves the life of Jo's kidnapped son, partially redeems his more brutal and amoral actions. But only partially.
Write a positive movie review.

I don't understand this movies distinctly average rating!?

I really really enjoyed it, i even stayed up till early morning to finish watching it on late night t.v

There are three excellent characters here, excellent characters. Danny DeVito played a gem, quite a feat considering he was directing as well. His down trodden laughable at times character was brilliantly written and was surreal in a absolutely believable way. There ARE people like that, Owen was just on the line without crossing it.

Billy Crystal's comic syle and sense of timing was PERFECT for his role. His frustration/comedy was interesting and captivating and what's more... you could understand his feelings. To really feel like you know a character is hard to achieve from the writers point of view, to find the right actor to pull it off is an art in itself and both were achieved here thrice over.

Thirdly, who else could have played Momma? There is no one that can play this part so well. There is a style there unlike any other, something you love to watch, i found myself waiting for her to appear on screen... and not because the rest was bad, oh no, but because Momma's character was, again, so on the line without crossing it that it was excellent to watch.

And what's more? A happy ending with new found friendships, no one getting hurt and everyone getting what they wanted in life... WITHOUT a big hunk of cheese tied on the end.

Brilliant script, brilliant idea, perfect cast, great film.
One of the perks of my job is that when things are slow, I can watch the movie in our downstairs theater (I work in a little 2-screen theater) in the cry room and still keep an eye on the concession stand. I have seen Italian Job probably 20 times, and I'm still not tired of it. The atmosphere reminds me of Ocean's Eleven, although the acting isn't as good. Mark Wahlberg is ok, Charlize Theron appeals to the guys, but Seth Green is AWESOME in this movie. I thought Edward Norton did a very good job playing a dirtbag, although a lot of people disagree. I also enjoyed Mos Def as the explosives expert that's afraid of dogs. I highly recommend this movie, and will continue to watch it whenever I can!

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

positive
The fact that this cruddy series could elicit dozens of comments (much less hundreds of 'votes') speaks volumes as to the decline of Western (or at least American) civilization.

Read Proust, you morons!! Or at least Dave Barry or Calvin and Hobbes anthologies.

Chuck Norris. Wrap your brains around the fact that in order to rate or write about this series you'd have to have spent minutes..nay, HOURS...viewing this poor sod treading the boards and spewing lines with less emotional impact than the gal who used to call off the correct time on your local service.

PLEASE DON'T WATCH THIS SHOW!! SPARE YOUR FEW REMAINING BRAIN CELLS!

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

negative
If one wants to have a character in a movie have a disturbing sexual encounter that would shame that character in later life the only thing left that an audience would see as shameful was bestiality and now it has been done. Judging by some of the other comments even that did not succeed that well. I cannot remember one funny scene though I have to admit, I had to turn it off before it was finished. I did watch a part of the director's commentary and it appears he was as surprised as anyone that the movie was doing well. If you want to get the same feeling you get from this movie but only cheaper, stick your head in a pile of manure and breath deeply.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Recognizing the picture of the diner on the cover of the DVD made me realize that this was a local movie. The word Detroit in the title furthered my suspecions and I did some looking up of things and yes, a local movie it was.

So I picked it up. Someone I knew actually knew some of the producers/director (dont remember which) and said the producers/directors got people to PAY to be in this movie.

Brilliant! What a great idea. The movie makers get some capital to do the movie with, thanks to their cast and crew. Then the investors (cast, crew, others) get some of the profits, I'm imagining.

Profits!

Um anyways. This film totally underwhelmed me. The special effects were special as in special children who ride the small buses to school. The acting was very amusing, not intentionally however. There's a great line where a guy says "well? this bone aint gonna smoke itself!" as a pickup line. Unfortunately that is the only fun part of the whole film. The story? Well, I sort of followed it about 3/5 of the way in, then everything stopped making sense and as we were sitting there watching it, it suddenly ended. I mean as in,..no resolution of anything..like they ran out of time. "Sorry folks, out of time, goodnight!"

We sat there baffled and booing, and threw in another film. Then about 20 minutes later a neighbor of mine showed up..with one of the guys from the movie! We threw it back in and he (the actor) gave us a running commentary, which was awesome because he totally ripped on the movie!

What more could you ask for??

The most absurd scene for me was a motorbike chase scene were it was so dark that it could have literally been a guy running past with a flashlight and not a motorbike at all. That and the jaw droppingly in your face sudden ending is enough to make you howl. In pain! The zombies looked less like zombies than my coworkers do. And I dont work at the morgue either.

So, I recommend seeing this if you can get someone from the movie to come over and give you a running commentary as to all the things that went on behind the scenes and make sure this person hates the movie because that just adds to the fun.

Otherwise, give this one a pass. Rent something like Feeders if you want a jaw droppingly bad in a funny way movie...
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Well, I have to disagree with Leonard Maltin on this animated short. He loves it and claimed it was hilarious. I enjoyed it but didn't see any humor. He doesn't even like hockey or know anything about it, and still loved the story. Living right across the border from Canada, I have watched hockey for 50 years both there and in Buffalo....but I didn't think much of this cartoon. Oh, it was interesting and I know what would happen if you wore a Toronto jersey up in the Quebec area - disaster! That especially holds true in the glory years of Les Canadians. However, that doesn't make the story funny. 

Back in the 1950s, everyone in the Quebec provinces idolized the Montreal Canadians and their star player, Maurice Richard, and everyone wanted to be like him. When his mother orders a new sweater, it has the Toronto Maple Leafs emblem on it, so the kid doesn't want to be caught dead wearing it.. When he finally does and heads to the local rink, he gets ostracized from the rest of his hockey buddies. What's so funny about that? I could see the same thing happening to a kid in Boston who is Red Sox die-hard and his mom gets him Yankees shirt! Horrors! You couldn't wear it, and vice-versa.

Maybe to someone who doesn't follow sports at all, like Maltin, this situation seems odd and humorous to him...but it's a fact of life or any bit-time sports fan and his favorite team. It was an interesting story, and totally believable, but nothing that made me laugh.

The art was fun to look at throughout, almost like looking at a long series of crayon paintings done by a talented school kid. The French Canadian accent was good, too. This movie was part of the DVD "Leonard Maltin's Animation Favorites From The National Film Board Of Canada.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I wanted to like this movie. I really, really did. I was so excited when I saw the preview, which scared the hell out of me. But when I saw the actual film, I was disappointed. The acting is stilted, and the attempts at comedy are woefully out of place and forced. And I'm sorry, but a boy being chased by a turd in a bedpan is not funny or scary, it's just stupid. I grew up on the Bell Witch legend, so I know quite a bit about it. A lot of facts in the movie are right on target, but this film should have been much better. The entire birthday party scene, for example, lasts about fifteen minutes, adds nothing to the plot or the story, and should have been left on the cutting room floor. A more heavy-handed editor might have been able to get a decent film out of this mess.

Please understand, I'm not in any way, shape or form involved with the other Bell Witch movie, and I'm not trying to "attack" this IMDb listing. I'm just telling it like it is.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
After going to sleep out of sheer loneliness, Lestat wakes from a 100-year sleep to the sounds of a new music he wants to be a part of and the band "The Vampire Lestat" is born. His longing to end his loneliness and his "living in the light" attitude along with his music, anger his fellow vampires and awaken an evil that has been slumbering for thousands of years.

This film is not for those looking for a true book-to-film adaptation. Those who have read the books and expect to see it on the screen are in for a huge disappointment. This film will appeal to those who really enjoyed the "Interview With the Vampire" film.

There are a few plot holes and incongruencies, but as a whole, this film was satisfying. Stuart Townsend portrays Lestat with a sensuality and sexiness lacking in the previous film. The relationships portrayed in the film were very sexy and sizzling.

As a film, the story compels you and draws you in. Casting is wonderful. Loved this story and film. If you like simmering sensuality and sexual tension you'll love this film!

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

positive
This movie wasn't the best... but it did have some good actors in it. Isiaiah Washington was pretty good as a homeless guy, Guy Torrey was good as his handicapped brother, Ice-T was humorous as the landlord and surprisingly...the actress Tami Roman was good as the Judge in the movie. I didn't even know it was her and I am a die hard Real World fan. She was totally believable. Hopefully this movie won't hinder these actors development. I know that Isiaiah has left this movie far behind with the success of Grey's Anatomy, Ice-T with his regular role on NYPD Special Unit and Tami Roman has landed a recurring role on Sex Love and Secrets (UPN's new soap opera). I wish the same for the other actors because one bad movie DOESN'T a bad actor make.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is truly a funny movie. His dance scene done with the tape is one of the funniest scenes I can recall. I thought the "I am gay" scene at the high school graduation ceremony a bit surrealistic, though it was funny. While watching it for the third time, I started to pick up on a little small segments that I had missed. One was when Matt Dillon's girl friend, a classic ditz, tried to use a dial phone which she had never used before. Kevin Klein made this film successful along Tom Selleck. This was also the first time I could appreciate Debbie Reynolds; she proved that she can be funny. She confirmed this in the TV series 'Will and Grace.' One discovery that I found after the third viewing is Lauren Ambrose of '6 Feet Under' fame. She sticks out with her red bangs, but it is obvious that this is one of her first films. Bob Newhart is also very funny at the high school principle.

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

positive
Well, I generally like Iranian movies, and after having seen "10" by Kiarostami the night before, I was expecting a great movie. I was very disappointed. This is by far, the worst Iranian film, and one of the most boring Asian movies I have ever seen. If you have never seen a Kiarostami movie before, watch "Ten" instead. If you want some good Iranian movies, you may also try "Sib", aka "The Apple". This movie is divided in 5 parts, and only the fourth, featuring some funny ducks, is worth watching. If this is the first Iranian movie you see, you probably won't want to see any more. I don't blame you, but you will miss some great movies.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

As much as I love the story of David Copperfield, I cannot claim to have enjoyed this movie. It was probably the second worst movie I have ever seen. One problem I see is that the magnitude of the novel asks for a miniseries of several hours, rather than a regular movie. It is just impossible to capture a significant amount of the events that take place in the story in two hours. I dis not enjoy the brooding flashback format. It was disjointed and would be impossible for someone who did not already know the story to fully grasp. Also, I don't think the filmmakers interpreted Copperfield's personality correctly. The idea of him strolling around on a beach moaning about his life seems inconsistent with the proactive, forward-thinking nature Dickens gave him in the novel. Agnes also bothered me. She came across as a ditsy household decoration, rather than a strong woman. Dora was perfect, however. This movie was fraught with problems, and I wait eagerly for someone to make a decent screen version.
First off, let it be known that I came into this movie not for the music; actually I find it repugnant. Really, I was interested in the psychology of the punk subculture. On this point, the documentary did fairly well. One disagreeable aspect was the numerous scenes in which songs are played and the hyped-up band and belligerent crowd are shown running amok. If you've seen the first such scene, you've seen them all. This superfluity is party made up for by printing lyrics for some of the songs. With these, the audience is able to somewhat connect mentally with the band. The lyrics are of far more interest than the jumble of sounds projecting from the speakers. I don't know why all the lyrics were not printed. Scenes without lyrics slow (ironic eh?, given the many references to the speed of the music) the flow of the movie. Also insightful were the interviews with fans and bands, though there is a letdown when the latter band's interviews prove to be not nearly as enthralling or humorous as the first two. Overall, a good movie that I'm glad I saw. I'll check out the follow-ups if I ever get a chance.

Favorite quote: He tried to hide the fact that he couldn't play by rubbing peanut butter over himself and breaking glass. 

Broad punk generalization: Though their disgracefulness, lack of vocabulary and hygiene, and drug-induced obliviousness is often hilarious, in the end it is understood that punks are just pathetic juveniles who rebel just for the sake of rebellion as seen through sophomoric lyrics and naive attempts to philosophize and politicize (disregarding Black Flag, who are slightly less misguided than their peers).
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Chris Ricci sleepwalks her way through most of this, but then quickly takes on an air of boredom and disdain - much as I did when watching it. Without her this would be no more than a cheap kids' movie, but at least she does add an air of quality. There are few, if any, more visually striking and charismatic young actresses in the business.

There's not much wrong with it as long as you accept it for what it is - a cheap Disney re-make aimed at very undemanding children. I could watch Ricci all day so I'm probably oblivious to many of the movie's shortcomings, but unless you too are a Ricci fan, a cat-lover, or very small child, I doubt you will find this very entertaining.

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

negative