cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Nana Patekar once again proves that he is the best actor working in Bombay without a doubt. His recent movies involved shouting his lines that does not bode well for the theater trained thespian. One wonders why he is always not given his accolades during awards season.

"Shakti-The Power" was one of his flicks that was an utter disapointment along with Kohram (a missed oppurtunity to create screen magic with Amitabh Bachchan).

But Patekar exudes a cool calm in this film playing a cop on a sort of social justice journey. Ridding the streets of Bombay of underworld dons in fake encounters, Patekars character takes control of the screen (and the viewers attention) and never lets go. The editing is tightly paced and there are no annoying songs to distract from the story.

Along the same lines as the modern day cult classic "Company", the movie is well acted, directed and should have a long shelf life on DVD.

The final ten minutes that see Nana and the main villain talk at his offshore haven are bound to be part of Hindi cinema classics. Won't be dissapointed with this cops and robbers flick.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is one for the Golden Turkey book. It's another of those "putting on a show" flicks. The dialogue is turgid. The music is terrible. The costumes may be the worst ever. And the Nick Castle choreography is hilariously dreadful. Check it out, oh ye who love bad flicks. Only Perry Como is tolerable.

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

negative
Taut, topical political thriller, taking square aim at the controversial US policy of rendition, another appalling Orwell-ian phrase (collateral damage, anyone?) for the illegal interrogation even torture of terrorist suspects by-passing due legal process. The inhuman interrogation is overseen by the Egyptian Chief of Police, himself the target of a fundamentalist suicide - bomb plot, thus entwining the two main plot-lines of the movie. Both work very well, the bombing set-piece graphic and chilling in its realism, with its denouement revealed in a stylish Tarantino-type flashback and the torture scenes on an innocent man also unflinchingly portrayed in all their gory detail. The film scores telling points about the use of torture as a credible means of intelligence - gathering in the war against terrorists and against the unpoliced faceless bureaucracy (here personified by a suitable cold-steeled Meryl Streep, as the CIA boss who casually gives the order for rendition) which can ruin innocent lives. Never mind Kafka's fiction, think more the recent killing of the innocent Brazilian in London in 2005, with the Head of the Metropolitan police still in his job and no-one tried for the poor man's murder. The acting is excellent throughout - the two key roles of the innocent man and terrorist bomber are realistically and tellingly played by the unfamiliar actors Omar Metwally and Moa Khouas. Similarly Yigal Naor as the intimidating Chief of Police and Zineb Ouhach as his idealistic lovelorn daughter ring true with their performances, their lack of familiarity (at least to me) adding to their characters' credibility. Of the bigger Hollywood names present, Gyllenhaal's stature grows with succeeding films, here playing the initially detached but later conscience - stricken and anguished Government man who does the right thing in the end. Witherspoon plays her distraught wife part mainly in one key but is believable all the same, while David Fabrizio and Alan Arkin convincingly show up self-serving senators and their lackeys who'll only go so far to help you until their career prospects are jeopardised. There are a few weaknesses plot-wise; there's little dramatic need to create the "suspense" surrounding El-Ibrahimi's escape and Streep's character is perhaps too obvious a bogey-man/woman. Worst of all is the meaningless inclusion of Gyllenhaal's on-the-spot girlfriend, around merely for decoration and a brief gratuitous love-scene. On the whole though, an engrossing thought - provoking cinematic experience.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

LCDR Tom Dodge, despite having a reputation among submariners as a renegade and maverick (*note to reader: Maverick does not mean "Tom Cruise". Maverick means "non-conformist".), is actually an intelligence operative for the Vice Admiral of his submarine fleet. The Vice-Admiral is concerned about our old friends the Russians hosting yard sales with their old diesel fleets. Countries like Lybia, North Korea or Iraq would love to get their hands on this baby and slip a nuclear warhead into Norfolk Harbour or Mayport, Florida. And this was 6-7 years before 9/11.

The Admiral assigns Dodge to assume command of a moth-balled WWII diesel sub and mount an exercise against the surface fleet and the USS ORLANDO, a top of the line fast attack sub. Dodge takes command and in no time whips up the bad news bears.. err I mean his lovable group of oddball submariners into warriors. Despite having "welcome aboard" tattooed on his penis, he is a competent and fair commander, he does not choose favorites and he delegates authority in a responsible manner. The US NAVY could not have come up with a finer piece of recruitment propaganda than this handsomely made under-appreciated gem from the creator of "Police Academy".
Although it's definitely an enjoyable way to spend a couple of hours and it's always worth a watch, this film never quite meets the targets that it should for two reasons. Firstly, after the first forty-five minutes or so it focuses heavily on Helen and Johnny, who are far less interesting characters than most of the others - Janet, Jennifer, George and Miss Scattergoods are all much more enticing. Although at first this works, since in life we don't always know everything about everyone else, and because the point is being made that perhaps Helen is slightly self-involved, it quickly wears thin and we want to see more of the other characters.

Secondly, the film seems to lose its way in terms of plot in the second half. The letter itself holds far less significance than it does in the first half and, again, although this works well in some ways, it seems odd to leave so much of the potential displayed in the first half behind.

Overall, this film is sweet and good-natured, with some genuinely hilarious moments - for example, Janet explaining condiments to an avid audience. The lazy but quietly desperate atmosphere that Helen feels is heavy and the sense of living in a small seaside town is accurately portrayed, but the film isn't quite as intelligent as it's trying to be. It just misses being both a light romantic comedy and being a clever portrait of life. However, it's still good and if you get the chance, it's definitely worth seeing.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Watch it with an open mind, it is very different, nothing's cutesy about this. Very well done realistic tale of Tarzan. The animatronics chimpazees are well done for '84, Christopher Lambert was brilliant imitating chimpazee language and behavior. I wouldn't be surprised if he took lessons from Jane Goodall.
Write a negative movie review.

I didn't hate this movie as much as some on my all time black list, but I consider it a total wast of film. Jeremy Irons, Iron Jeremy, Ron Jeremy. Think about it. Scene one is very good, all the rest are crap.
Write a negative movie review.

This movie was included in the Six Wives of Henry VIII BBC miniseries DVD. I loved those six movies. They were well-acted, well-scripted, and historically accurate. I did actually read Gregory's book and liked it well enough despite it's HUGE historical inaccuracies (I mean the whole fake homosexual angle with George Boleyn in particular), but this movie didn't even mention that. That angle was one of the pivotal points of the book. 

Above all this movie just leaves me asking "WHY?" Why do we see, as someone else aptly put, "The Real World: Tudor England"? Why are the camera angles so bad in general? 

Why is the script so bad? I mean, I know it was improv, but come on! The actors at time stutter and stammer over their lines and it's obvious that they're making them up as they go along.

Why are the sex scenes so awkward? The way they were done in the book made them at least somewhat interesting. In the movie they're just bad, verging on being absolutely hilarious. At one point, the actress playing Mary Boleyn was having sex with the actor playing Henry VIII. He's thrusting away and she's got this look on her face that says "Hm....I need to go to the store. Is he done yet? Maybe if he finishes I can go pick up some cheese real quick..." It's just bad.

Why does Catherine of Aragon play such a small role in this movie? Her refusal to get a divorce was one of the leading causes for the scandal that rocked Christiandom. She's the reason why Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn couldn't get immediately married. Why is she not present here? Over all, this movie is just bad.
This has to be the most boring movie I ever sat through. It is dreary and drab, has no excitement, the acting by Hulce is terrible as Hulce cannot pull off the proper accent required for this film. The story is stupid and I sure wouldn't recommend this crap for anyone unless you want to die of boredom.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This is a entertaingly bad b-movie. Actually it really is much better quality than a lot of b movies. It had a consistent script, decent direction, cinematogrpahy, and I have seen worse acting. The zombies were great, clearly these were Romero zombies, and was really a interesting zombie story. Obviously not Oscar material, and if your not into zombie movies, or b-movies you probably wont enjoy this, but if you are you'll like this movie.

The main clint eastwood knockoff western character guy is pretty good, although they never really clearly explain how he can heal himself from gunshots and zombie bites. But if he has more than a line of dialogue that where his bad acting is really evident.

It was a good ending to, at least I thought so. Romero should be flattered if he ever saw this.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I loved this movie. It's a lot of laughs. The acting is good and the writing is really sharp. I'd rather see a hundred movies like this than THREE LORD OF THE RINGS repeating and repeating themselves.

It's a low budget affair and seems to be shot on DV but looks good and Jay Mohr and Julianne Nicholson are great together. Why do you have a ten line minimum? I'm not a critic, just a patron.

I doubt very much that Quentin Tarantino could write a picture this funny without filling it with masturbatory gratuitous violence. This movie should be seen on more screens than just one. I laughed from beginning to end. >
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
As much as 'The Beginning' showed that we're still going to get "classic" x-files, Drive showed that the X-Files was going to explore new territory. They start by giving us a unique teaser to Drive, with the news camera footage. It was an interesting transition from the the TV to the real events. I would've liked it even better if they had kept that news footage camera for the entire teaser and not cut to the inside of the car. Upon viewing this episode live back in 1998 I was thinking, "Am I on the right channel?" That first autopsy by Scully flooded me with big words that I don't understand. I think she learned her lesson to ALWAYS wear a mask before performing an autopsy. Silly Scully! What is the deal with the lighting in the autopsy lab? It's as dark as a tomb in there! How are they supposed to see what they're doing in there? Assistant Director Kersh gets his first lines in this episode. I have no love lost for that man. He is the third recurring character in a row that is introduced that you love to hate, the first two being Diana Fowley and Jeffrey Spender. I guess the producers felt that there was too much love going on for Mulder, Scully and Skinner. So they needed to add some characters to give our favorite agents some grief and incite our ire as fans. I love the quarantine suits worn by Scully and her team with the cool helmet light bulbs. Boy. It's really smoky or foggy in DRY northern Nevada at night. Can we say the word "effect"? Drive is a cool episode, but looking at route 36 on my U.S. atlas, there's no way Mulder could've maintained a speed of 70-100 MPH on that road. If he had been on I-80, the freeway, maybe. But no way on a state road with that many curves. All of the filming inside the car looked very authentic. Excellent job by Rob Bowman. It looks nothing like the old days of the obvious blue screen or clip of passing scenery outside a car window on a stage. This was a fun episode, but some of the inaccuracies keep it from being a great episode. It keeps you on the edge of your seat, so hold on for a fast ride!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: After watching the series premiere of Talk Show with Spike Feresten I took a moment to really think wow there are actually good shows on after 12 besides SNL and I was also sad to see that it was only 30 minutes long. His great writing skills helped this show overcome a series lack of money and helping hands. Electronic Lincoln was hilarious and I really think this will be a good Dark Horse Talk Show.

I was very happy with the way he handled it and gave Andy Richtor some good lines to work with. As you would have suspected it was a little shaky but for that kind of time slot it was very good.

Overall if you are not someone on weed or even if you are and you don't have something more important to do than watch this great piece and have a fun time doing it.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

I read a few reviews of the movie and got the impression that it was not as good as the previous Karate Kid installments. Although my favorite is still Karate Kid II, I felt this fourth installment of the movie series was consistent with the others and had some important lessons to share. Unlike the previous versions, the karate student is a female teenager who takes a somewhat different learning path, rather than a male teenager. Maggi finds this a little more challenging, but rises to the occasion. The plot twists are believable and predictable. I found that the bad guys are a little one dimensional, but this weakness is present in all the installments in varying degrees. The camera work is impressive and pans across some beautiful scenery from time to time. The Zen monastery is both austere and charming. The Zen monks add some humor and lightness to the narrative flow. I liked the "Zen Bowling" scenes which are a humorous counterpoint to the more serious Zen archery scene earlier on. The quality level of the movie is like a good TV series. The music chosen for the background is very good, especially with the Little River Band playing "Listen to Your Heart". The lessons in the movie are valuable and worthwhile to learn. They feel faithful to the spirit of karate and take care not to over-glorify the fighting part. All in all, I enjoyed it.
After receiving a DVD of this with a Sunday newspaper, I hoped that it was not the usual duff films that are given away because no one would ever buy them. I was wrong. Sheens acting is on par with that of a ten year old in a school pantomime production and the same goes for the majority of the cast. Neill is satisfactory, but plays a Russian and isn't helped by his hybrid Northern Irish/New Zealand accent, and nor are the rest of the KGB characters, all of whom sound like they're in a Cambridge Footlights reunion. In fact, the only people with genuine accents are extras who supply an odd word here and there, helpfully letting us know at least where the hell everything is going on in what is otherwise a complete mash. The "espionage" factor is unimpressive for the most part and primarily consists of Sheen faffing about in various ridiculous disguises whilst trying to blend into the background, quickly becoming not only boring but laughable. The plot has potential but is completely murdered by the rest of the confusing production elements. This could have been so much better.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I must, in light of the encomia of praise for this flick from viewers, assume once again the role of the turd in the punchbowl, as Lowell Weicker used to say, I am scratching my head at the sheer number of laudatory comments. "The African Queen" this ain't. The period flavor is wonderful, yes. The acting is fine, but no actor no matter how great can bring life to the seemingly endless stream of perfectly tedious and insignificant party and dinner table conversation here, and I care not how much of it is taken from Joyce's text. Imagine spending an hour and a half as a fly on the wall at a Christmas dinner of a not particularly interesting group of people (it's not clear to me that it's a family, as one person suggested), having to listen to their mundane table talk, and you have the essential experience of this movie. Absolutely nothing happens. And nothing important is said, but it is said at interminable length. As I said, the popularity of this movie is a mystery to me. Speaking of mysteries, watch a good one rather than this.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This movie will likely be too sentimental for many viewers, especially contemporary audiences. Nevertheless I enjoyed this film thanks mostly to the down-to-earth charm of William Holden, one of my favorite stars, and the dazzling beauty of Jennifer Jones. There are some truly heartwarming scenes between the pair and the talent of these two actors rescues what in lesser hands could've been trite lines. The cinematography of Hong Kong from the period of filming is another highlight of this movie. All in all, a better than average romantic drama, 7/10.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is strictly for Pryor fans. Just because he was a great, funny guy doesn't mean this is more than a B-Movie. The script is awful, it just meanders around constantly ridiculing crime and prisoners of war. It balances between comedy and melodrama and keeps falling on its face doing justice to neither. 

First there are 30 minutes of rather unrealistic, uninspired Vietnam prisoner of war time  the guy is playing basketball at one point... How more can you pander to your audience?... That prison time is boring, unconvincing and already can easily put one to sleep. 

Back in the U.S. the guy for no real reason at all is considered a "war hero". Yet he is of course quickly forgotten by the public and seems to be stumbling into all kinds of wacky mishaps. Or are they really? We will soon find out. Yawn. There are annoying clichés: his sick mother, his little daughter he never meets, a high end whore falling in love with the hero etc. It is very odd how this movie constantly switches from tragedy to slapstick in one instant. Doesn't work at all. 

Overall this in fact is just a bad comedy and does a disservice to prisoners of war. Just because this guy was a great stand-up comedian, played in a few good movies and died of MS is no reason not to be annoyed by this silly, unconvincing, unfunny comedy. But if you like Richard Pryor you will probably be thrilled by him reading 3 hours of Dadaist poetry.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

I always loved that scratchy voiced guy in all those westerns. He was the sidekick (Jingles) in the Wild Bill Hickock show back in the fifties. In this he has the perfect vehicle for his wonderful bragging character. He is harmless and no one believes him, but he is non-flustered and goes on anyway. When you have a guy like this, there's no challenging because the details aren't there to quibble with. Of course, in this episode, he is taken on board a space ship by a group of aliens who have no sense of humor and believe everything they hear. They don't have the word lie in their vocabularies. As it turns out, he is so insufferable that they can't handle him; and then, of course, there is the secret weapon. See this just to watch Andy.
Remember that this came out before Gulf War I, which gave us Werner Herzog's "Lessons of Darkness".

Le Dernier Combat is not "Sci Fi". It's more like Judgment. I've watched it at least a dozen times. It really is a fitting companion to Herzog's "Lessons of Darkness": "And in that time, men will seek death, but they will not find it, for death will flee from them."

That someday, alas, may be today, in Iraq. 

But, back to Le Dernier Combat, make sure to watch thru the very last second of the film. I wouldn't call it a "surprise ending", but it is something you'll miss if you just assume the end won't be anything more than what you will already have seen.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Okay, I know that's cliché. Taken on its surface, this is a bad film- perhaps in a league with "Plan 9 From Outer Space". The dialog is suspect (but the Singlish is quite enjoyable...), the plot is not quite believable, Gavin's character overacts excessively. While watching the movie, somethings happen that truly make you wonder... Handsome and Kim making out on a tank, Gwen eating a banana in a bath, just about everything Gavin says and does ("psssssssssssssssycho!!"). These things taken separately are perhaps flaws. Taken together, however, they are merely quirks. Watching this movie with an open-mind (especially if you're not familiar with Singaporean culture), and with an open-minded group of friends is guaranteed to deliver a lot of laughs and a memorable time. You can't go into this movie expecting a masterpiece, or even expecting to take anything serious at all. If you can take this film for what it is - an underdog film about underdogs, filled to the brim with its own quirks - then you should have a good time watching this one! I've already seen it three times and I wouldn't hesitate to watch it three more times!!
That's right. Ohwon (the painter and the main character) is an exceptional person. What strikes me most is the message this film might address to all of you people there. And the message is sad. It says that, it's very difficult to do anything that's amazing or maybe even genius without having to obey the governments, establishment and other VIPs of this world. And even if you try, you might not be able to bear it. It is about the battle of a single person with a system. With many systems.

A great film of this wonderful Korean director. Please see it if you do have an opportunity.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I tend to like Historical (period) films and get new ideas for costumes for my historical group, and a friend recommended this one to me. I like Johnny Lee Miller as an actor so I figured it was worth it, and I was definitely rewarded!! His portrayal as a member of the English noble class was by far more accurate than I've seen in the past. The comedy aspect of it left my sides hurting, the costumes weren't awful, and historically, I didn't wince too much. I also noticed the fact that England didn't have a proper sewage system until much later, but anyone who dose not go deep into the minutae of England's past won't notice nor care. Absolutely worth seeing. I highly recommend this movie.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

This may contain ***SPOILERS***

Where to start on this particular empty wasteland? Well it would have been nice if they actually had a plot. Acting talent, decent dialog, suspense, humor, hey even gratuitous sex would have helped this flick. Unfortunately there was only a lot of gore, (even that wasn't done well), shooting automatic weapons and missing.

There seemed to be no reason to attach the basic premise, a Native American cursed to protect the bodies of the tribe he murdered, with his being tracked down by a Federal Special Ops team who dressed in civvies(?). Most of the time involved violating one of the basic rules of conduct in a Horror movie, separating from the group so you can be picked off one by one. You'd think this team would know better, especially because they are actually the third team sent to investigate, the other two teams disappearing without a trace. When they finally realize they're being picked off they make one of several stands and fire their weapons only to hit the trees a whole lot. Tree shot scene repeats endlessly in this movie to save money.

When they're not shooting trees they're tracking this spirit who leaves no trail, (who knows how they're tracking it), and spouting a lot of macho BS. By the way, did I mention that most of this team are women? Interesting listening to them talk tough. Not very entertaining, but interesting.

All in all, You can find better movies in the bargain bin at Kmart.
Determine the sentiment:

For those who are like me and are used to watch and enjoy high budget Hollywood films, on huge screens with a surround audio, this film seems to be so distant. However it surprised me how close can it be to any human while I watch it. It is so natural that you feel like nobody wrote a scenario or nobody directed it. You are the director and you are writing the scenario while you watch it. For me, the time I spend on watching a film is the only time which I go to another world. This film is the first sample for me which shows that it is not always a must to watch millions of dollars of budgeted films, surround audio capabilities to go to another world. This films sends you to another world (or maybe makes you return back to yourself) without millions of dollars of budget, or technical capabilities. I felt like that I'm reading L'etranger from Camus.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Duckman was a show that used to be on during the last hour or so before it was time to sleep about ten or so years ago. It was a contrast to a lot of the kid-type of animation I was watching at the time; I was still a minor junkie for Disney and Looney Tunes stuff, and most Saturday morning cartoons were still on the run-off of the peak from the days of Ninja Turtles and Batman. But also around this time I began to recognize that the more raunchy, mature, surreal, obscene, and (though I didn't know the term at the time) satirical cartoon shows were more creative than the stuff I was used to. Around the time of Beavis and Butt-head, Ren and Stimpy, and even The Maxx were hitting TV sets via MTV, USA put out two shows- one of them was Weird Science, and the other was Duckman. I've always remembered a few key bits from the show, and some of the lines are very quotable to those who haven't forgotten it completely. Luckily, I found a tape recently with about six episodes I taped long ago, and the jokes stayed very fresh. And the delivery of the jokes are rapid-fire a lot of the time in the better episodes. 

In the voice department, the choices in talent are top notch for the story-lines, which are usually just an excuse for crude, fascinating parodies of pop-culture, politics, movies and TV shows, music, detective mysteries, and the dysfunctional family unit. Jason Alexander is a wonderful choice for Duckman, and his performance is a comedic 180 from his days on Seinfeld (even if there might be some similar characteristics here and there). Also, the voices of Gregg Berger as the unmistakably monotoned and deadpan Cornfed, Dweezil Zappa as the hilariously inept Ajax, and Nancy Travis as the sex-starved, obnoxious Sister-in-Law Bernice, all contribute in a full amount. Along with some great writing - even when a joke isn't sure-fire, the wit behind it compensates - the animation style, while a far cry from some of the refurbished, computer-enhanced product of today, is inventive and often abstract. It has that home-made, gritty quality that Beavis and Butt-head or South Park would later have. And, like those shows, if you're a little kid, I mean little as in younger than I was watching the show, you may not understand most of the jokes (i.e. there are enough stripper and VD references to fill two shows sometimes). But it's inventive to catch if it's on TV late at night, and it functions rather well in that time slot. One can only hope for a DVD box set. 

So, to no one who's barely or even never heard of this program, here's a general note: think of this show as if Dashiell Hammett met up with Walt Disney and decided to go to slum part of Vegas with a free mini-bar and make a collaboration in the vein of Luis Bunuel and The Simpsons combined. Not to mention, it's by the group that did Rugrats.(strong) A
If you suffer from insomnia then Radiant would be the best way to send you into a 7-year coma. The film is so preposterously overwrought and mundane that it's hard to imagine that director Steve Mahone could overlook such obvious dullness.

The story has an exiled Doctor (who we never get to see) move out into the desert to create a vaccine that will cure all diseases by filling the hosts full of antibodies that can combat any infection (yes, just like that episode of Futurama). The vaccines don't work and the human guinea pigs become infected with a virus that kills within 48 hours.

Not wanting to be caught by the Government guys in masks the group head into the desert for cover, hoping that the sunshine will kill the virus. All of this is narrated by Michael, the only one of the quartet immune to the infection. And it's the most boring narration ever. They could have cast someone with an interesting voice but instead we get someone with less vocal personality than Clive Owen.

On top of this the editor insists on fade-cutting more than half the movie, giving it a weird dream-like feel and increasing the audiences desire to go to sleep. It's no surprise that half of the audience walked out of this, I was not one of them for some reason. But I bloody well should have.

The ending is supposed to be shocking and clever and foreboding. But it's plain and simply not. A relief yes, but not dramatic in the slightest.

The utter cheapness of this production and muffled sound that renders a lot of the dialogue unintelligible cripples what could have been an interesting sci-fi story if it had better actors, cooler locations and a sense of urgency. As it is, Radiant is a snoozefest.

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

negative
Write a positive movie review.

I must have been around ten years old when my uncle took me and my brother to see this martial arts movie at the " DRIVE IN " at the circle drive in in Long Beach. The Title was " HAMMER OF GOD " from which i can never forget for some reason, but what i do remember are the different scenes that have left an imprint on my mind forever.

My brother always reminds me of the movie although it has been forever it seems since we seen the movie. From time to time throwout the years i would look for it at the rental stores and from time to time i would check on the web and for some reason it appears like it is never available or no one knows what movie I'm talking about.

If i only knew if and were it was available i would love to purchase that movie. If anyone is aware of its availability please inform me.
...the last time I laughed this much. It's a testament to the talent of Rowan Atkinson that he has managed to create a comic character with several layers and a clearly defined personality - without hardly ever speaking a word. The whole success of the program rests on Atkinson's shoulders, but he carries it with ease. Despite the fact that the show only ran for one season, anyone even vaguely in touch with pop culture recognizes the rubber-faced social 'tard, so great is the talent and effort put into the performance. At times exasperating, at times lovable, Mr Bean is an innocent, unlucky chap who also happens to be evil incarnate. The brilliance of this character cannot be put into words, you have to see for yourself.

The show gets almost too depressing at times, like in the infamous New Year's Eve sketch, or when Bean celebrates his birthday by going alone to a restaurant, offering himself a congratulatory card signed by himself, and being served a stake he doesn't quite fancy. Still, there are times when you can't help but feel impressed by the inventive methods by which Bean gets himself out of trouble, like when he disposes of said stake in numerous clever-ish ways, or when he changes into swimming trunks without taking his trousers off first! Whatever your reaction to Bean and his unorthodox lifestyle, you're bound to throw fits of laughter while watching. 

Finally, I'd like to point out that although "Bean" is classified as a program for children, it is just as enjoyable for any grown-up with a sense of humour. Because the more "adult" jokes will go over the heads of the little ones and the intelligent slapstick (yes, there is such a thing) is funny no matter what age you are, "Bean" is the truest definition of a family show. This is justly a classic and it always brightens up my day.

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

positive
I saw this black and white comedy noir yesterday at the London film Festival. Structurally, it has been compared to Pulp Fiction but it is perhaps closer to the structure of Amores Perros and the slacker mood of Kevin Smith's Clerks. Four stories intersect at a French motorway diner. The first vignette has Franck (Edouard Baer) bungling a hold up at the diner. The waitress, Suzie (Anna Mouglalis) takes pity and tell him her story. The second has two incompetent kidnappers, Leon (Bouli Lanners) and Paul (Serge Lariviere) take a teenage girl from her rich family. Unfortunately for them, she is suicidal and her family don't appear to want her back. The third is a dialogue between two ageing rock stars who bump into each other at the diner (Alain Bashung and Arno playing themselves). The final part is about four ex-criminals who smuggle their old partner out of hospital to visit their old hideout which has since been turned into  the diner. An 'epilogue' returns to Franck and Suzie to complete their story (not really an epilogue, more a conclusion).

The structure does not really work. The stories are not sufficiently intertwined as in Pulp Fiction. Nor is the diner crucial to the action to at least two of the stories in the way the car crash was crucial in the four stories of Amores Perros. The quality of the individual stories varies. The hideout story is a cute idea, with a couple of good gags, but does not come off; and the rock star reunion is pointless and dull. On the other hand, the kidnap story is hilarious, although its connection to the diner is tenuous. The most balanced and successful story is the Franck and Suzie one.

This film isn't entirely successful but has moments of interest and hilarity. I look forward to seeing more of Writer/director's Samuel Benchetrit's work.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: As a flying and war movie buff, this ranks at he bottom of my list. It is historically completely inaccurate and the cast sounds and acts like they just stepped out of a high-school play. The acting, script, direction, production standards and casting are all garbage. The only saving grace is some of the flying sequences. If the people they portray were fictitious, I might rate it a 2, but if there is one thing that annoys me more than anything else in movies, it is pretending that this is history and that the great people they are trying to be, actually did this! Its almost as if they tried to write in as many notable WW1 personalities as possible.There are many good WW1 flying films and this is NOT one of them.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Lil Pimp is the story of a little boy who becomes a pimp. The animation and voice acting were perfect for this type of film.

I laughed out loud for the first 20 minutes or so of this movie; mostly at the concept. After that, the joke wore thin. As a 15-20 minute animated short, Lil Pimp would have been a classic. Instead, this movie consists entirely of one joke that lasts far too long.

Weathers, voiced by Ludicrous, does have several crude and funny one-liners. Unfortunately, that is all the boy's pet rat is good for as he contributes nothing else to the story. Eventually, I grew as bored with his remarks as I did the rest of this movie.

I am a big fan of South Park, and other animation aimed at adults. I also play several online pimp games, so I am partial to stories about pimps. The transition from little boy to lil pimp was brilliant; but after that, both the story and dialog became redundant and predictable.

I give this movie a five. It is worth watching for the great concept and voice acting. Just do not expect much else or you will be quite disappointed.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Lady and the Tramp II is very colourfully animated, and the songs, especially that of the Junkyard Dogs, are quite good. However, the family seems even too idyllic, and I can't help understanding that Scamp is discontented when everything is forbidden. However, I also pity Angel who never has had a loving family until she meets Jim dear and Darling.

In any case, it's clear that the original Lady and the Tramp is better than this sequel.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Wild Rebels is fun in a bad way, but also frustrating due to the actual good, or at least workable, elements in the story. It deals with a race car driver (Steve Alaimo) who gets mixed up in a group of bikers called Satan's Angels, who hang around a lot until they decide to rob a bank. Meanwhile Alaimo also gets recruited by the cops to report back to them what the Angels are up to and where they'll rob next. It's not even that the film is really too 'dated', though it does of course carry the significantly crude and stupid music in the film (from the band on stage in one scene, to Alaimo "performing" if you could call that drek that, to the regular generic score). 

It's just that there's not more care taken by the filmmaker into putting a little more logic, direction, and better actors for the parts. As it is I didn't have a major disliking towards the film, as I did with the Hellcats, but it almost left me a little indifferent to it all, too. What could come through as being unpredictable only comes through with stupid things like the name of the Florida town ('Citrusville' ho-ho). So it's not completely un-worthy then of its Mystery Science Theater 3000 status as of late. The commentary is good on the movie, even if once or twice I almost wanted to hear what the characters on screen were saying in case it might have some worth. Wild Rebels might be more of a good time if you've got a six-pack and low expectations, but as it is I wouldn't watch it again.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Okay,. so I went into this loving RuPaul. I still love him/her but think a little less. This is one gross movie that shows a lot of male genitalia. THis is a spoof of the 1970s black exploitation films and is purposefully done badly. The only fun part about it for me is that all of the voices have been looped with those of drag queens, even the voices of real women. This is over an the top, nonstop, laugh your rear end off it is so stupid, badly made movie. I would never watch this again but I do appreciate what the film makers were trying to do. There is no rating on this but it would be R or even NC-17. RuPaul has done much better work.
Write a negative movie review.

I am deeply disturbed by some posts I am reading on the message boards for this movie, people saying it is actually a good movie! Just because this movie is Uwe Boll's best to date does not make it a good movie at all, no way in hell! Far Cry is a clichéd mess full of bad acting, poor direction, and an uninspired story with a shoddy script. This is Boll's first pure action movie, and news flash people, action movies aren't too hard to make because for a basic action flick all you need is explosions and gun battles scattered around a flimsy plot, and hey, Mr. Boll succeeds in doing that. House of the Dead, Alone in the Dark, and Bloodrayne, all horror games adapted into movies by Boll are far worse than this (they have no redeeming qualities). Far Cry boasts two things which make it his best yet: two good leads and a couple of well-done action sequences. Til Schweiger is quite good as Jack Carver, and Emmanuelle Vaugier is a strong female lead. The usually great Udo Kier is passable as the clichéd villain and the supporting cast are pretty damn bad. Towards the end of the film there is a surprisingly tense chase sequence which came as a shock considering Boll was behind the camera.

Unfortunately the rest of the movie has an incredibly cheap feel to it, with bad CGI, lame one-liners and clichés around every corner. Oh, and the worst lead up to a sex scene I think I have ever scene. Not only have the two only known each other for six hours, but all it takes is for him to say he kept warm while in the army by spooning his fellow soldiers. He already got her to take his clothes off by merely telling her to. Then he took his off and climbed into bed because he was afraid of hypothermia.

Anyway, to summarise, this is a bad movie. It is mindless action movie that can kill 80 minutes if you are totally bored. One could probably do worse than popping this in and watching it, but I'd personally say watch a classic action film like Die Hard or Predator and stay away from this derivative mess.

1½/5
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

So one day I was in the video store looking for a movie. I came across this and rented it because it was a film I hadn't seen or even heard of.

Now I like slasher movies in general, but this is just abysmal, not even good for laughs. Besides being ultra ultra cheap and containing all slasher film cliches and terrible acting it has the most incompetent and inept direction I have ever come across. Now sometimes the aforementioned traits can be present in a film and some enjoyment can still be had, but not here. Painful example of home-made horror.
The guy mentioned to sue for the 1.5 hours wasted of his life, i cant disagree on that one. The movie started as some kind of class project cam thing, and ended up in a dark room. whenever the girls where fully nude there magically appeared light all over, I know i dint write the script or having anything to say about it. But this one is like a bad remake copy of saw with a bad ending. To think of a man who actually wrote this story, sick. This is really a shocking movie cant say ist horror cause its not. Its mere the brutality and the violence that made me sick. It really is frustrating to watch a movie without ending, its like bang, in your face. the movie is done now you can go home. 

cons -cam -lighting (althrue i think is was supposed to) -overdone -sickening

cons -real in your face -acting was good in my opinion -it sucks you in

Overall The movie is NOT my taste of movie the witer wanted us to know that these things happen, and the man wrote his own little fantasy. If you ever saw the movies saw ? they all had a moment of comfort in it something to hold on to. This one ? does not. Maybe its just me, that im too soft but this movie made me tremble, and the story is real short, sick man kills girls slowly. But the actors sucked you in this movie every blow every scream you could almost feel it.

And to be honest, i was to quick to judge about this one, its a terrible movie ? no its not. its an overdone example of reality, this is a real as it could get. But don't watch this movie if you expect great mystery or a real plot, or even some kind of story. man gets girls in a dark room and kills em one by one, thats really it.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
It is a rare and fine spectacle, an allegory of death and transfiguration that is neither preachy nor mawkish. A work of mature and courageous insight, Northfork avoids arthouse distinction by refusing to belong to a kind. Unlike the most memorable and accomplished film to impose an obvious comparison, Wim Wenders' 1987 Wings of Desire (Der Himmel über Berlin), it sustains an ambivalence in a narrative spectrum spanning from the mundane to the supernatural. This story of earthly and celestial eminent domains in the American West withholds the fairytale literalness that marked its German predecessor in the ad hoc genre of angels shedding their wings with obsequious sentimentalism. Its celestial transcendence, be it inspired by doleful faith or impelled by a fever dream, never parts ways with crud and rot. This firm grounding redounds to great credit for writers and directors Mark and Michael Polish.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

Since growing up in Czechoslovakia I was following history of RAF pilots and crews in WWII Great Britain, their stories and tragic ending either in the combat or in communist prisons and camps. This is without any doubt more than dark chapter in our history, although the fact that those brave men we're able to go through all this and recover afterward is amazing. To all people who want to see great movie...this is the one! During recent visit of Czech Republic I saw this movie three times in three days (they we're just playing it for three days...otherwise I will go to see it even few more times!!! It's worth of it!) I hope you will enjoy it, although it requires a little more thinking and knowledge of background information behind the story, pretty much same way that the movie "Kolya" was. It's not a simple movie because of it's deep story, and the way its told will most likely make you crying...it did to me three times in row... Zdenek Sverak did as always a great script, his son Jan made a great movie and the cast? Without doubt all of them did great job, I was amazed by Ondrej Vetchy, by great role played by Oldrich Kaiser and all other actors which made this movie simply GREAT!!! If this is not an Oscar nomination I think that I will be on strike in Holywood.
Determine the sentiment:

What are the movies? I mean.. what are movies made for? Shootings? Killings? NO. They are made for life stories and this is what this movie does. It presents how the life has changed between two ages. The father and a son, the father being in a need of a job and asking the son for help.

Although there is another generation, there are some characteristics which remain including the caress for the family.

The main subject is, in my opinion the love of the son to the father and vice-versa.

The movie is consisted of ONLY one dialog but that dialog is more than I could ever wanted. This movie is a pure art! Once again, after "Marfa si Banii", Cristi Puiu delivers us another beautiful movie. Well done !
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

A boy who adores Maurice Richard of the Montreal Canadiens receives, much to his horror, a Toronto Maple Leafs sweater in the mail. I recently watched this in a class in which few of the students were interested in hockey, but nearly everyone knew about Maurice Richard and the Toronto/Montreal rivalry. Highly entertaining, amusing, and accurate.