cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
I can't see how a film of this quality only gets an average of 5.7 from IMDb voters. It's a classic Australian production that resembles recent efforts such as LOVE AND OTHER CATASTROPHES, THE SUGAR FACTORY, OCCASIONAL COARSE LANGUAGE, RUSSIAN DOLL, SAMPLE PEOPLE, THE SECRET LIFE OF US, LA SPAGNOLA, STRANGE PLANET, FRESH AIR, DUST OFF THE WINGS, DOING TIME FOR PATSY CLINE, etc..., as a 19-year-old uni student (Newton, in perhaps his best role yet, on par with CHANGI at least) with a bored, over-religious mother gets the shock of his life when she decides to enrol in the same course as him - and before you go thinking ANOTHER GOOFY MOVIE, it's not, there's some real substance here. Sure, it's a simplistic view of life in general and arts students in particular (but then they are rather simplistic under all that philosophical mumbo-jumbo aren't they?), and maybe the study of Sinead Cusack's character is a little muddled at times, but the film is bright, funny, and has some important messages. The principle cast is terrific: Cusack and Newton are wonderful, and Rose Byrne (see her also in THE GODDESS OF 1967) is so underrated it's not funny. She's a beautiful, fresh, confident actor who deserves every accolade she receives. I gave MY MOTHER FRANK 8/10.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Why is Guy working for Buddy? Probably because Ari was not around in 1995. Why does Dawn want to be with Guy? For access to Buddy. Why does she stay with Guy? I am not sure.

There are bunch of things about this movie that I am not sure about. But, Kevin Spacey is an excellent, verbal tsunami as Buddy Ackerman  and totally believable because he is a great actor.

Frank Whaley's Guy is certainly out of his element working for Buddy  he wants to write and make meaningful movies, not be a gofer that is verbally abused for getting Equal instead of Sweet & Low. 

Michelle Forbes' Dawn, who also wants to make meaningful movies, seems way out of Guy's league.

The ending leaves a lot to be desired.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Having grown up a Mormon and grappled with the church's bigotry towards Blacks (they were not allowed to hold the church's priesthood when I was a member) -- I wasn't aware of the organizations policy of excommunicating gay men and women until after I left the church in 1966 -- (I was 20.) I was stunned when I learned that friends who were gay were excommunicated even after serving on missions. LATTER DAYS exposes the Mormon's persecution of gay members. The film is LONG overdue. It does an excellent job of showing how the two lead males come to terms with one another, while managing to grow up and develop more fully as individuals. LATTER DAYS has great heart, wonderful original music and an added touch of class from Jacqueline Bisset. The film brilliantly tells the story of an individual who leaves behind the confines of organized religion and reclaims his very soul.

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

positive
Well, I'm not about to add to the diatribe that's been 'preached' about this film.

All I can add is that at NO time does it even pretend to be a 'historic' picture. Unlike 'Braveheart', 'Titanic' or 'The Patriot' all of which have very credible and serious historical amendments, purely for theatric effect (possible the worst of excuses). 

Has everyone taken a sense of humor bypass? 

All I can add is a paraphrase from the good Captain Macleane - 'It looked

fantastic and we have a bloody good laugh'.

- One last point. What astonishes me is that there are comments relating to the 'modern music' in a historic setting. I wonder if the same people made the same judgment about Moulin Rouge. I suggest not.

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

positive
This film is a masterpiece to put it simply. Especially the double exposure made by the cameraman Julius Jaenzon. It is skillfully made even with the standards we are used to today seventy eight years later. Viktor Sjöström, the director, also plays the main character, David Holm. On the night of new years eve he is killed in a fight, and the legend says that the first one who dies on the new year, will have to work as a soul-collector in the form of a transparent ghost. There is a new soul-collector to be appointed every year.

The scene in which the alcoholic, David Holm, rises up from his dead body (like the soul is leaving his earthly body) in the churchyard (where the fight took place) is a real award for a filmloving eye. Also when the present soul-collector arrives with his horse and carriage is a beautiful but also a scary scene. David Holm recognizes this soul-collector as a drinkingfriend from earlier life. It is now his turn to take over. Just like Scrooge in Dickens story "A christmas tale", David is shown what his life and doings has led to for the people around him.

The film is about the danger of abusing drugs, in this case alcohol. It is based upon a book by Nobel prize winner Selma Lagerlöf. Viktor Sjöström filmed a few more of her books, but this is the one with the best outcome, maybe because this book is the most filmic of them.



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

positive
Good attempt at tackling the unconventional topic of May-December romances. However, the treatment is totally unrealistic. Sure, sixty-year old men can and do fall for younger women, but they're usually adult women with whom they share common interests and values and viewpoints ... not neurotic, immature near-underage girls. Of course there are exceptions, and they come close to being called pedophiles! Sorry RGV, but it's not credible that a sane and accomplished sexagenarian would throw away a comfortable family life and become a joke to his peers ... all for an 18-yr old that doesn't have a practical thought in her head and that behaves like an unstable escapee from a mental institution. You don't have to have a PhD in Psychology to see that Amitabh's character is seduced by sex, and that the young woman has unresolved abandonment and daddy issues.

As for the recurring scene of Vijay perched on the edge of a cliff, contemplating suicide, that's about as close as he comes to having anything in common with Jiah, by behaving like a smitten teenage boy.

On a positive note: the actors did a good job, and cinematography good.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I have always loved The Muppets. Though most children's entertainment then wasn't that likable, The Muppet's was. The Muppet's are very, very funny. They are probably the most likable children's characters ever. 

Not only did The Muppets have their own show. They also have starred in many films. from The Muppet's Christmas carol to The Muppet's treasure Island. The first Muppet's movie, The Muppet movie, was also, like the show and the other films, excellent.

The Muppet movie is about how they all got started. Kermit the frog used to live in a swamp. Until one day a movie executive tells him that there are auditions for frogs in Hollywood. So Kermit takes off for Hollywood. Along the way he runs into lots of people such as Fozzie Bear, Gonzo the great, and Miss Piggy. Also, an evil man is trying to capture Kermit.

All of the Muppet films are highly enjoyable. I mean they are all very funny. This film has many film appearances. Such as Steve Martin, Mel Brooks, Elliot Gould, Carol Kane, Richard Pryor, and Orson Welles. The Muppet films are all very enjoyable. I hear that Jason Segel is going to star in one soon. I can't wait to see it.

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

positive
The director, Ramin Niami, delivers the goods with Somewhere in the City. This hilarious farce, I believe, is in the tradition of a Mel Brooks comedy. Niami pokes fun at New York society by creating the believable, eccentric, and tragic characters of one tenement apartment building bringing them to life from the very opening one shots that introduce them. Peter Stormare's performance as a gay Shakespearean actor is absolutely award worthy and the film in general does a good job at showing the hopelessness and laugh-ability of self-centered ambition. Sandra Bernhard is cast perfectly as the straight, self-obsessed therapist. I really enjoyed Sandra's performance immensely especially since I haven't really been a very big fan until now. Bai Ling, Ornella Muti, and Bulle Ogier round out an international ensemble par excellence. I loved the scene with Robert John Burke and his gang of idiot criminals who couldn't plan a robbery if their lives depended on it. With a cameo appearance by Mayor Ed Koch and a solid performance by Paul Anthony Stewart, the revolutionary momma's boy, Somewhere in the City entertains without missing a beat.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Enjoy the opening credits. They're the best thing about this second-rate but inoffensive time-killer which features passable performances from the likes of Eric Roberts and Martin Kove. The main part, however, goes to newcomer Tommy Lee Thomas who looks a bit diminutive for this kind of action but who, nevertheless, occasionally manages to project a banty-rooster kind of belligerence. The first time we see him he's bare-chested, sweaty, and engaged in that favorite "beefcake" activity -- chopping wood. After this he has seven more scenes without his shirt including one in which he's hanged by his wrists and zapped with electricity a la Mel Gibson in "Lethal Weapon." He could use a better script, however, since the manner in which he exposes the truth about corruption and violence inside the prison is never very convincing. There's also talk about millions of dollars which apparently is tied in with this investigation but which is never explained. There are a few pluses, though. Sending "John Woodrow" undercover as "John Wilson" is an amusing play on a presidential name, and co-star Jody (Ross) Nolan shows promise as an inmate who, early in the proceedings, is shown hanged by his wrists and getting punched by a burly guard. One final note: the movie's low budget is painfully responsible for the lack of "extras." Despite the impressive size of the prison, it only seems to hold about 12 inmates! (Note: the cast credits at the end aren't too helpful. For the record, the burly, bald-headed guard who uses Jody Nolan as a punching bag is played by Bill Fishback, and the young, fair-haired guard who administers electric shocks to Tommy Lee Thomas is played by Marc Chenail.)
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The Beat was an exciting movie about a couple of young punks trying to survive in 1980's New York. This involves fighting with the other street gang that they directly share a high school class with, trying to stay in school, as well as going to local shows that involve bands that look like the Dead Kennedy's and have the name Skulls for their band name. Rex (played by David Jacobson) Plays an autistic kid who starts to get a long with all of these kinds, and starts to show them that poetry is really beautiful, and if applied to what these kids do in life can really make things work out for the better! Billy Kane (Played by William McNamara) and Kate Kane (played by Kara Glover) are brother and sister. Although they roll with this crowd of thugs, these kids are not the same type of people as this group. They care for Rex and they care for others, and really show an enlightened side of themselves. While his sister sleeps with the head of the Gang, she is also falling in love with Rex, trying to show him that she is not a slut. But in the end, the teachers at the school finally get to him and want to put him in a mental institution, he finally feels it is time to end his life, while Animals of Sound played without him. But they like to think that he is not dead, he is just living his life to the fullest, riding sharks and being happy living in the ocean. This movie, was one of those movies where I was glad that I watched it. While it was extremely entertaining, it also had a big message to it. Something a long the lines that these kids had no direction, no future, no figure heads to look up to, but because a troubled kid came along they all realized that there was way more important things to life then fighting the local black kids, or being destructive to everything. Rex showed them the beauty in angry music. Rex showed them the beauty in Rats, Disease and Murder. Rex showed they the beauty in almost everything, while some of those things have no beauty involved, they still were able to see that when used in poems, these poems speak to people. Rex played an important part in this move, who changed everyones heart from depression, to see that there is hope for them, and thats why he started to show them; The Beat.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Robert McKimson's 'Acrobatty Bunny' is one of the director's finest shorts. Although the circus-based setting may evoke hideous memories of McKimson's dreadful 'Big Top Bunny', 'Acrobatty Bunny' is in fact nowhere near as dull as that travesty. Pitting Bugs Bunny against a ferocious lion, 'Acrobatty Bunny' is fresh and funny from the outset, not to mention extremely attractive to look at. There's a classic scene in which Bugs takes a strangled elevator ride out of his hole only to emerge directly into the jaws of the lion. In a brilliant Disney parody, he hollers "Pinocchio" down the lion's throat! This brilliant opening is a sign of things to come. There are some expertly choreographed antics in and around the lion's cage to begin with, followed by a hilariously grotesque and irritating rendition of 'Laugh Clown Laugh' which, as a child, I used to impersonate regularly! All this culminates in a short acrobatic sequence which gives the cartoon its name. I've never been fond of the circus as a setting for cartoons and find it usually makes for a dull and predictable set of gags but 'Acrobatty Bunny' breaks from the mould and the result is an exhilaratingly funny short which stands amongst McKimson's best.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Typical Steven Seagal fare: that is, it's crap. The plot relies on a series of incredibly improbable coincidences; there's a hefty dose of conspiracy theory which would be much more palatable if we didn't know that Seagal takes it all literally; and once again, bad-movie multi-millionaire Seagal tells us all about the evils of The Rich.

Seagal's survival relies, as usual, on the fact that Bad Guys never fire their guns from out of arm's reach, and always like to give a little "I'm gonna kill you" speech before blowing a man's head off.

Watch this one right after the even-worse *Fire Down Below* and note how the carpet in Keenen Ivory Wayans's apartment is more flammable than a big puddle of gasoline.

Oh, and watch in the final fight scene for the Incredible Disappearing Forehead Wound, which is probably the most entertaining thing in the film.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

For many year I saw this movie as a real movie of ninjas but after study more about this culture I can only think this is just another karate film. A black shinobi and some weapons doesn't make a ninja, it's much more than that. The ninja are the most dangerous warrior of the japan because they are trained in every aspect of life to survive to anything, killing whatever try to stop them. This movie is not a about a ninja warrior just about a clown trying to be something he cannot even understand.
This is a VERY underrated movie to say the least. As has been pointed out in previous posts, this movie has a somewhat loose and highly implausible script but you find yourself saying "Who cares?" while shooting milk (or insert beverage of your choice here) through your nose. It was indeed due to a rare mix of actors in sync. While Kelsey Grammar is obviously a gifted actor (reference 'Frasier', this movie) the supporting actors/actress play their roles quite well. I found in interesting how they threw in the part about Duane Martin blowing the shot in the 'big game' for Navy's basketball team; if any of you is a basketball fan you'll remember Martin from 'White Men Can't Jump' and 'Above the Rim' and you'll know that Martin had a short stint in the NBA with the Knicks. Nice how they threw in believable character attributes such as this. Rob Schneider's anal-retentive character was the perfect offset to Grammar's calm demeanor. Lauren Holly played the gutsy-sexpot-with-a-brain well enough to make you want her to succeed. This is a movie that will make you laugh even if you've seen it many times before...the comic bits in this movie definitely last. I still find myself laughing 12 years later.

"Is that one of my chickens?" "Uhhh...no. This a parrot....from the Caribbean." "Well don't let it fly away...that's supper." "Arrrrr.....arr."

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

positive
This is without doubt the worst movie i have ever seen. And believe me, I have seen a lot of movies. The unbelievable twist the movie makes - going from an extremely bad "Alien lifeforms inhabit earth" movie with sickening bad acting, to a film that tries to spread an Archchristian "Judgement day is at hand, seek Jesus or though shall burn for all eternity in the fiery debts of hell" message - left me stunned after being tormented for 85 minutes. Even religious Christians must be ashamed or furious by watching their beliefs being posted like this. I didn't know what to do with myself when I watched the horrible acting that could have been performed by 7-year-olds. Simply disgusting. I am not a Christian nor very religious. But if I had been, I would no longer be afraid of Hell. Rich Christiano has shown be something much, much worse.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

UP AT THE VILLA (2000) **1/2

WARNING: YOU MAY FIND SOME SPOILERS AHEAD

It's hard to know what is the point in UP AT THE VILLA, a gorgeous but shallow period piece, one of those made with the only objective of earning Oscar nominations for best costume design and art-set direction (one for cinematography and another for score are also welcome). It has the same basic idea of thousands of period pieces produced every year: a good-looking, intelligent woman trying to find love in a strange place to her. She has many difficulties but ultimately finds her happiness in the arms of a man that is not the one that she had an accomplishment with. In this case, our lady is in Florence, some time before World War II. She is an English widow engaged to a rich-but-old man (whom, obviously, she doesn't love). One day she meets another man, who has not a good reputation but for whom she falls in love. Of course there is her friend who will help her for better or worse and a third man- who commits suicide here, in the lady's room, setting up a risky situation for her. Guess how the story ends...?

UP AT THE VILLA is not a bad film. I was always quite interested in the story, but never got excited. The problem is not the slow pacing, but the screenplay. Adapted from a novel, it needs something more spicy, exciting, twists and suspense. Every time you think the story will get warm, it gets cooler again. If you think there is a conspiracy involving the mean police chief of Florence, well, there is, but it doesn't change almost anything in the story. It just keeps going and going, till the predictable ending.

As I said, UP AT THE VILLA is not bad. If it is a bit bland, it never gets sappy and too sentimental. The acting is half and half, but surely convinces. Kristin Scott Thomas made some really bad choices after THE ENGLISH PATIENT (the saaaaaaappy romantic drama THE HORSE WHISPERER and the dull/irritating RANDOM HEARTS). UP AT THE VILLA is undoubtly better than those pieces and Kristin is also better, but she can do more than that. Sean Penn is good as always, even if his character is a big dude. Anne Bancroft is a terrific actress (THE GRADUATE, my God!), and here she doesn't let her character become ridiculous. Now, the supporting actors are pretty bad (Jeremy Davies is sooooooooooo irritating!).

The directing is good, but not audacious. It was interesting to know that the director is the same of ANGELS AND INSECTS (also starring Kristin Scott Thomas), another so-so period drama, but more audacious than this. What matters here are the visuals. Florence is wonderful, the costumes are great, the scenery, the music...

In the end, UP AT THE VILLA is an average romantic drama, but of course it could have been much better. It is watchable and interesting, but don't expect a suspense film- it is not! This film kind of fails because it wants to have some mystery, something to behold... However, there is not much to say mainly because of the shallow screenplay. Now, about the Oscar nominations, don't worry- it will probably get them.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I was looking forward to watching this movie, and it does contain very interesting perspectives from Iraqis all over the country, not just in major areas.

However, as the film went on, and as it seemed to become increasingly more one-sided, I started wondering who had edited the film. To get several hundreds of hours down to just 80 minutes, obviously decisions had to be made.

I would have really enjoyed a film that showed how everyday Iraqis felt on all sides of the issues, but with the newspaper headlines in contrast to what people were saying, and with everyone in the movie having the same opinion at the end, I thought it was obvious that the editing was done with a pre-conceived bias.

It could have been such a great film.

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

negative
In what attempts to be a positive story, Dolph Lundgren leads a group of mercenaries to take over a tropical island that looks a lot like paradise so that the men who hired his team can mine it for...bird droppings. Actually, the nitrogen gas that exudes from the muck on this island is what they are after.

There was only one good thing about this movie -- the island location in which it was filmed was beautiful. Otherwise, the story drowns itself leaving the actors with nothing to work with. Result: A lot of violence, a lot of language, lots of blood, and a few shots of women topless. If you want pointless violence (sorry, the storyline can't even give the violence a point, though it tries) then this is the movie for you.

Parents: be warned that this movie is full of violence and blood, driving the R rating.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I guess only a selected number of audience members really had any interest in watching how a male hustler in New York operates but I'd be willing to bet that even these brave souls were turned off by the irritating patchwork technique and deliberately muffled sound recording on display here; the fact that these inherent 'defects' were a direct result of the film's low-budget/underground/experimental nature is, I'd say, beside the point. Anyway, for those so inclined, the film features extensive male nudity and Joe Dallesandro, understandably, became an underground  and gay  icon! 

The episodic structure showing the day-to-day routine of the hustler protagonist offers a couple of mildly interesting scenes: his meeting with (and eventually posing for) an eccentric elderly artist; the one where Dallesandro expresses his views on his unusual line of work and delineates his particular modus operandi to a couple of prospective 'colleagues' including perhaps the unlikeliest of hustlers  a bespectacled nerd! Perhaps mercifully, the film ran for only 89 minutes against the IMDb's claim that its complete length is 105 (but the latter could well be a mistake)! 

I had watched a few other of Warhol's 'movies' and this one is decidedly not as satisfying as the most tolerable example I've run into yet, BAD (1977), and only slightly better than the likes of MY HUSTLER (1965) which were mostly a strain to sit through. The fact that this was only the first part of a trilogy did not augur well but, as the saying goes, you gotta to do what you gotta do and the other two 'chapters' had to follow in quick succession... 

Despite my generally negative reaction to it, FLESH is nevertheless still valuable as a 1960s time capsule and as a prototype of the Underground scene of that era, both cinematically and in real life. For the record, an image of Dallesandro from this film adorns the sleeve of The Smiths' self-titled 1984 debut album and transsexual Candy Darling (who appears here rather unremarkably) was immortalized in "Candy Says", the opening track of The Velvet Underground's eponymous 1969 album. Although the latter band is my all-time favorite, and one of the reasons for this is that, through their sheerly unique and ground-breaking music, they described a lifestyle so utterly different from my own, this is truly a case where I'd much rather experience something aurally instead of visually!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

OK, this doesn't compare to the explosive tempo of the first part's opening sequence; nor to its visual shock value; nor, for that matter, to the melancholic suspense of the second installment. No, it's surprisingly and refreshingly different (apart, of course, from the two main actors). The tongue-in-cheek futuristic scenario drives the characters towards each other across genres and languages with an almost gravitational force. The moment of impact-conclusion is your choice of: a)Shakespearean metaphor of life and humanity in a cartoon costume; b)sublimation of violence into homo-erotics; c)humorous detonation of an impossible buildup. Everything up to then is even less unequivocal.

Highly recommended to indiscriminate movie buffs who don't mind following foie gras with a hot dog; caution to those with more refined palates.
Write a negative movie review.

Even with it's low budget this movie could have been worth watching if there was a story to tell here. It started out pretty good, and fairly engaging and believable. The actors and characters were interesting although there wasn't much character development. My favorite scene was when they were all eating their rations. Some seemed to hate it, and some seemed to think it wasn't too bad. The story starts out very airtight. And then... 

And then it dipped into a little horror which is usually a death sentence for most sci fi. Suddenly no scientific basis for any of the goings on. No real believable end game for the villain? No real explanation of what's going on. Generally if a movie has to use the F word for every other word it usually spirals down from there too. I still get offended believe it or not. I often wonder what inspires people to make bad sci fi? Isn't there a universe of fantastically good stories out there? Don't people feel like they are wasting their time and everyone else's when they put out stuff like this. Why do we get so much mediocre sci fi like this? No female actors/characters either? None at all? This had the makings to be another "Predator" but alas fell far far short. 

My final comment - poor editing and finally too low a budget to build a real campfire? What gives? 

My advice for any low budget sci fi movie production companies out there. Make sure you got a good story before you start, and edit out bad special effects - it's better we see nothing than something that looks fake or ridiculously fuzzy.
Determine the sentiment:

There is no denying that this is a bad movie. The acting isn't great, likewise the script, acting and direction. Still, I cannot wait until its 2/23/99 video release from Anchor Bay. Everyone knows there are several bad movies out there that have a tremendous appeal to them. This one tops my list.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

James Bridges' "The China Syndrome" is a first rate thriller; a model for those who want to make a genuinely terrifying thriller but don't know how.

Most thrillers end with the standard shoot-em-up and chase that ends with the villain getting what he/she deserves. But Bridges understands that such a standard finale isn't the case in some scenarios. "The China Syndrome" is thrilling in a way no one would expect. It has the type of ending that's so unexpected, but yet so logical.

The film stars three (then) current Oscar winners: Jack Lemmon (Best Actor 1973 for "Save the Tiger"), Jane Fonda (Best Actress 1971 and 1978 for "Klute" and "Coming Home" respectively) and Michael Douglas (Best Picture 1975 for producing "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest". This isn't your standard "spot the star" flick that became so popular in the 70s. The acting is so solid and strong that we forget who's playing the roles and believe that the characters are real people. That's a testament to the collective ablities of all three actors. They may be stars, but they're actors first.

There is no music score in the film. Asides from a few background songs from jukeboxes or TV shows, there is nothing. Bridges doesn't allow any directorial style to come through on screen. He is simply presenting the material straightforward. With a strong dramatic story like this, we don't need a score to distract us. It kind of strikes me as a predecessor to the Dogma 95 filmseries started by Lars Von Trier in 1997. It focuses on the characters and story rather than style.

The story is about a nuclear power plant located in Southern California. **SPOILER** An accident appears to have happened and basically the film is about Lemmon,Fonda and Douglas try to expose the truth. In a way this is not a spoiler, since the trailer, TV spots, video boxes and reviews all give this away. But from this seemingly simple premise, a surprisingly complex morality play springs and the suspense comes from human nature and the actions of people rather than a villain framing another guy (although this is an element in the film). That's what makes "The China Syndrome" so good.

**** out of 4 stars
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

If you really loved GWTW, you will find quite disappointing the story. Those who may think this is just about a romantic story and the south, will be probably satisfied with this decent TV production (altought I consider an important miscast the choice for Scarlett). But, let me say that considering the novel, nothing good could came out of this.

I've read GWTW more than 20 times and I can really appreciate the adaptation Mrs. Mitchell did for the film. It took me some time to understand how good the ending was: Scarlett knew for sure she was going to recover Rhett, since she always got what she wanted. But there was no kiss in the end.

Then Alexandra Ripley came to "fix" this by showing us exactly how perfect and mighty Scarlett could be, and of course, describing in detail how exactly she gets Rhett back even when she had an important affair with someone else (nothing could have been further from Mrs. Mitchell mind, I am sure).

The story between these points is in my opinion just a long and boring ride made up to tie ends, showing off costumes and scenarios just to give us an obvious and totally unnecessary ending.

If Margaret Mitchell could came to live again, she would die one more time at the very moment she'd find out what Scarlett became after GWTW.

Sure it's not fair to compare this to the original but this is not GWTW fault. Isn't it? Is it any good if I don't compare it to the original? Maybe. Sorry to say I don't really care.

I would expect little more compromise to continue someone else's (suberb) work, otherwise don't even try.
I'm glad I didn't pay to see 'The Wog Boy'.

I sat there hopefully waiting for something original and/or funny to happen.

It reminded me very much of those predictable English comedies of the 1970s.

I won't bother with a synopsis of the plot, I suggest you do something else for 90 minutes


Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I recently purchased this on DVD as I hadn't heard of it and like robert carlyle.

Obviously this movie is not going to have Hollywood blockbuster special effects,in saying that though the special effects were decent enough,and the acting was fine also.

I found the movie to be enjoyable and do not regret buying it at all,at almost 2 hours long it is just the right length for this type of movie.

Do not expect thrilling explosive action from beginning to end though,it is a fairly well balanced movie with a decent enough storyline!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Oh, there are many worse Wayne movies. This movie is edited poorly but it has a campy element that makes watching it enjoyable. The villain is an Anglo actor who sports ridiculous Mexican clothes and affects an over-the-top Mexican accent which is hilarious. The girl is dressed like a Jean Harlow wannabe, this is 1934 after all. At least the location shots are beautiful and enjoyable.

Watch it and laugh. Don't expect a serious western, but rather a lightweight and superficial story with poor acting but occasional flashes of camp humor. Wayne is almost ludicrously young and handsome and one can see his acting ability blossomed years after this regrettable venture.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is a new Barbie movie. The graphics were really good. They made the movie seem partially realistic. I used to do ballet and this movie made me want to continue it. This movie was kind of like a Cinderella movie but a little bit different. A father of 12 princesses gets very sick. His cousin poisons him and wants the throne. The girls find a secret magical land thanks to their dead mother's stories. Its up to them to save their father and society. With the help of their handsome prince. It was a funny movie and me and my friend had fun watching it. We enjoyed it a lot and also enjoyed the Indian talking parrot. The music was very nice and made the movie even greater. It had a great classical orchestra. The voices were great and the characters were adorably sweet and cute. I liked it so enjoy the movie its great for the family. All in all I'd watch it again.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I saw this movie in Santa Monica on Aug. 23 and it has stayed with me. I want to thank the filmmakers for digging into the details of Harry's enigmatic, eccentric, life. And also for showing the flaws and failings of Nilsson the man. Thanks for showing the good and bad, the ups and downs, and for uncovering that amazing BBC footage. The film is also a great showcase of a vast amount of Nilsson's music, really well placed throughout the film. I recommend this movie to anyone who likes good documentaries, especially if you are interested in Harry Nilsson or the music scene of the early 70's. Some reviewer at the Ain't It Cool website wrote that this was the best movie movie they saw at the Santa Barbara Film Festival, and I believe it. The film is informative, funny, sad, touching, and full of awesome music. It succeeds on all levels. Really, really good.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Fred "The Hammer" Williamson delivers another cheaply made movie. He might have set a new standard for himself. Look for the painfully obvious special effects mortar cannon that is visible in the street during a chase scene. You don't see it just once, you see it several times. Look for the out of focus shot in one scene and the camera operator try to fix it as the scene rolls on. Watch this with a group of people and make your own Mystery Science Theater!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Ben (a fine Charles Bateman), his young daughter K.T. (a cute Geri Reischl), and his new girlfriend Nicky (the extremely attractive Ahna Capri) are on their way to a birthday party for K.T. They unexpectedly get waylaid in a remote Southern town where no-one is able to leave, and with the exception of Ben, K.T., and Nicky, no-one can get in either. To top that off, children are disappearing and adults are being murdered at an alarming rate. Ben helps some of the locals - Sheriff Pete (L.Q. Jones), Tobey (Alvy Moore), and Jack (Charles Robinson), the local priest, try to solve the mystery.

This early 70's devil-themed horror movie actually predates "The Exorcist", and combines a "Bad Day at Black Rock" type plot of a rural town with a great big skeleton in its closet with horror elements, for interesting results. It actually sent a few chills down my spine this viewing, as it inexorably moves along its ominous path. The moody and solemn atmosphere is established quickly and holds for the duration; the ever-growing sense of panic gives it a real kick. Some memorable set pieces include the bizarre opening of a toy tank turning into a real one and squashing a car flat, not to mention Nickys' twisted nightmare, vividly and stylishly realized by director Bernard McEveety and crew. Jaime Mendoza-Navas' music is subtly sinister and gives it that extra sense of eeriness.

The steadfast and professional cast does some fine work, especially the ever engaging Strother Martin as the affable Doc Duncan, and producers / actors L.Q. Jones and Alvy Moore.

Just the fact that the whole plot is right under the noses of our heroes makes it that much more scary. Jack the priest starts leading them in the right direction, but will they be in time to put a stop to things? It's an enjoyable little chiller worth re-visiting; just speaking for myself, I was able to appreciate it a lot more after giving it a second chance. I can say now that yes, it is indeed under-rated, telling a good story in an interesting, unconventional, and effective way.

8/10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Charles Chaplin's 'Shoulder Arms' of 1918 was his longest film to date, though, at just over 45 minutes in length, it was not quite a feature film. With World War One just drawing to a close, many popular entertainers of the time were doing their part to inspire their native troops, and Chaplin was no exception. And so the lovable Tramp went to war! The film begins with the Tramp in training, and the character is hilariously inept at even the simplest military drills, including marching and gun-slinging, much to the disgust of his drill sergeant. The Tramp then finds himself in the trenches, faced with a more formidable foe, though the Germans eventually turn out of be infinitely more incompetent than even he. The uproarious moment when the Tramp declares that he single-handedly captured thirteen German soldiers by "surrounding them" had me in stitches.

There are plenty of other great moments in this film. Chaplin awaking to find his sleeping barracks underwater and being unable to literally find his own feet is hilarious, as is his ingenious use of a tube from a record player to sleep beneath the surface.

However, the most memorable scenes in the film undoubtedly involve Chaplin skulking behind enemy lines disguised as a tree. The reactions of the bumbling German soldiers, unknowingly just metres from a sworn enemy, as they are single-handedly disabled one-by-one are highly amusing, especially when one soldier grapples an axe with the intention of cutting down a tree for firewood.

This is a very enjoyable film, and one of the best of Chaplin's pre-1920 efforts. Highly recommended.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Chop Shop, the second feature from Ramin Bahrani, is a rare breed. It is an American film that tells a story not usually found in American cinema, the story of the of a minority living in poverty. It is a work of simple beauty. Shot on location in Queens, New York in the shadows of Shea Stadium, Chop Shop is neo-realism to the core. Featuring a cast of non-actors, it has more in common with Vittorio De Sica's classic Bicycle Thieves than anything made in the United States. There is no score or soundtrack, all the music and sounds are diagetic. Watching it feels like watching a great foreign film, it takes us to another world because it is so uncommon to see. However this other world is not post-World War II Rome or Istanbul or New Delhi, it is contemporary New York City.

Bahrani tells the story of Alejandro (Alejandro Polanco), better known as Ale. He is a 12-year-old Latin-American kid with no parents or family unit to watch after him. He lives in a tiny room upstairs in the auto shop that he also works at. He shares the same bed with his teenage sister Isamar (Isamar Gonzales). Neither of them have made it passed second grade. Ale, though young, is tough and mature. He acts as the head of the small family. He hooks his sister up with a job, and he himself does anything he can to make a buck when not working at the chop shop. He sells bootleg DVDs on the streets and candy in subways. He searches for scrap auto parts and sells them to the many auto shops lining the street where he lives.

Alejandro is heartbroken when he learns his sister is working nights as a prostitute. He himself becomes progressively disinterested in abiding by the law. He begins to steal, first car parts and later wallets. Like Antonio, the desperate protagonist in Bicycle Thieves, we cannot blame Ale for becoming a thief. It is merely survival. Ale and Isamar save up in hopes of buying a food vending van for $4,500. They see the van as their way out, and there is much optimism. However, as is usually the case in neo-realism, we know this will only lead to disappointment.

Polanco's riveting performance is what gives legitimacy to Chop Shop's realism. Here is a 12-year-old character that needs to be believably independent and vulnerably naive. Whether he is directing cars to the shop, selling movies and Snickers bars or playing with his sister in their scanty room, it is authentic.

Chop Shop is a sobering reminder that not all American children grow up in a land of opportunity. Ale's lifestyle is what many in middle-class white America consider 'third world'. They act cognizant the poverty and deprivation in foreign lands while sipping their coffee and reading the New York Times on Sunday morning, but make themselves blind to it on their own streets. Once you watch Chop Shop, you will think differently of the kids peddling candy on the subway.

more reviews at www.mediasickness.com

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

positive
The mere presence of Sam Waterston as an Indian, is enough to put this movie in the must-see category. He is both beautiful and very subtle, with no lines whatsoever. He is tender with his kidnappee, and yet we can see he is among the proudest of all young Indian Men. Martin Sheen is just a dumb cluck who decides to challenge Waterston (White Bull) for a gorgeous white horse. Other sub-plots are really unnecessary. I don't understand the part played by Caroline Langrishe, as the poor girl who White Bull kidnaps...I don't know how she keeps her hands off this beautiful Indian man! It's a lot of fun, though; especially if you're a Waterston fan. Man, he looks GOOD in this one!!! Harvey Keitel's role isn't even worth mentioning, to tell the truth! But, rent it and enjoy! Actually, I do believe that if the music score was better, it would've been a more dramatic film...the music is so bad, it's distracting. Still - there's Mr. Waterston!

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

positive
This movie has made me a rugby -- and Coach Larry Gelwix -- fan. The story's characters slipped and fell before they begin to grow as they struggled through incredibly strong conflicts. Those were understandable and completely believable. Like life, there were no easy answers for the problems facing them all. Superb actors and an excellent script brought this true story to life. I wish there were more movies like this one. These days, I watch almost exclusively, worthwhile true stories because they are typically far more interesting than fiction. Additionally, this one is inspirational and it teaches us to not to give up on anyone too quickly.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

2/3 of this movie is recycled footage of the previous movies, a fact that's sadly obvious even to someone like myself who hasn't seen the original movies. And somehow it feels like a rip-off even though I haven't seen the stuff before. It's like that episode of every TV show where the characters sit around a photo album or something and you just see recycled footage of other episodes. I've seen some producers do extended montages of recycled footage, but never anything beyond 5 minutes or so. This movie is mostly stuff that had already been seen by audiences, so you could mount a case that it's one of the biggest rip-offs ever foisted on the motion picture public.

I got to see it in the theater, in a 16mm print, which is good enough I suppose considering how rare this kind of material must be on film these days. I give the movie some credit for semi-convincing Gothic atmosphere and for unintentional humor, but that's about it. The Aztec mummy monster looks good, even has some mobility in his face which is better than most movie monsters of the period. But the robot is pitiful, although it's interesting that they made the human face totally visible. It's a "robot human" or something of the sort as they somewhat explain in the movie. I think that's considered an android. So technically in hard sci-fi terms this movie should be called "Android vs. the Aztec Mummy", but I doubt anyone was too worried about technicalities here anymore than they were worried about quality. In fact the movie is so sloppily put together that it makes television look good. Even the dubbing from Mexican into English is lazy and weak -- for example at one point the hero says "I might as well begin at the beginning...." what the heck kind of translation is that? Couldn't they at least have him say "start at the beginning" so that it doesn't sound repetitive? A high school newspaper editor could have fixed the screenplay of this movie. It's the epitome of utilitarian film-making, just absolutely nothing is in this movie that doesn't need to be there for the basic commercial purpose of the film. They put no more effort into making it than they had to, and considering the extensive recycled footage I would doubt that they actually spent more than a week making this movie.

I will now cease posting about it on the principle that I don't want to expend more energy in the process of commenting than the creators of the movie actually expended while making it.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This script was mildly original when it was written in 1935, but the poor performances and the inconsistent quality level make it impossible to recommend. Some of the vignettes are absolutely terrible and the dialogue is never natural. A few of the plot twists were creative, but I was very surprised to see it so highly rated here at the IMDB. A few scenes are worthwhile, it's as a film that if fails completely to entertain. If you like this sort of montage, run don't walk and get "Tales of Manhattan" (1942) a marvelous film that follows the life and times of a topcoat.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative