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

A man kicks a dog 2' in the air.

A woman kicks a cow out of her bed.

A man kicks a violin down the sidewalk.

A woman sucks on a statue's toe for 15 seconds.

A man kicks a blind man in the stomach.

Jesus rapes a young girl.

There you have it. I just saved you an hour of your life. Surely there are those to whom this "shocking vanguard of cinematic expression" would appeal. But I found it no different from the puerile, disconnected videos I used to shoot with my friends in the 9th grade. Except we never had a real cow.

Having heard endless sermons from beard-stroking art connaisseurs of how this is such an important film, I thought it would be worth my time. Make no mistake, this is crap. If I hear one more person call Buñuel the "father of cinematic Surrealism", I think I'm going to punch someone. If anything, he issued a major step backward from the Surrealist beginnings pioneered by his seniors Fritz Lang (Metropolis), F.W. Murnau (Faust) and Robert Weine (Caligari) 10 years earlier. This made a joke out of the whole thing, as if Buñuel didn't have the confidence to truly embrace the art sans sarcasm, sans l'absurdité. It would take Buñuel another 40 years before he would refine his style into something admirable. Skip the early stuff and hop straight to 1970 if you want to be more impressed by his work.

I'm sure he would agree. In 1977, Buñuel himself stated that he would happily burn all the prints of his old movies. In this case I would be happy to pour the lighter fluid.
Determine the sentiment:

Jean-Hugh Anglade is excellent as the teenaged boy who wants to be a whore to please the man he loves, but the rest of this film is so bad--acting, writing, cinematography, and everything else--that Anglade's performance is wasted. Sad to see so fine an actor in such a garbage flick.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Notwithstanding that "The House of Adam" is meant to be a mainstream gay movie; that Anthony (John Shaw), who is gay curious and a major cutie-hunk and Adam (Jared Cadwell) who is openly gay, and a close second in looks; that there is a whole minute of wonderful, convincing, and naked lovemaking (sorry, no frontal) between Anthony and Adam 41 minutes into the movie (that alone may be sufficient for many of us) --- notwithstanding all that (to which I give a thumbs up), "The House of Adam" is a horrible movie by most any other movie making standard. A big thumbs down.

Shaw's and Cadwell's acting abilities are either sophomoric or else truly suffer from the bad script, direction, and editing, or rather the lack thereof. Their lovemaking scene is nevertheless convincing, and may have more to do with their really being into each other, considering the rest of their scripting and acting.

Writer-director Jorge Amer's (Bonus Feature) self-congratulation as to his movie making skills is off the wall.

So, the script and lack thereof is a thumbs down. Overall, the acting is thumbs down with just the slightest exception for Shaw and Cadwell. Alexis Karriker as Nina might have been the best except for the limitations expressed above. Far and away the absolute worst, and insufferable, acting was by Thomas Michael Kappier as Albert Ross, Anthony's father having not even of elementary school acting quality. He truly represents a colossal casting failure.

The actors playing the new cabin owners are worthy of truly bad acting nominations as well.

If only the production, editing and post production were as good as the trailer, this movie would have been quite something else. The trailer presents well put together clips of scenes that drew me into renting the movie in the first place. That, and the hope that this gay-centered movie, was supposedly prominently played and touted at gay film festivals.

Overall, the movie is a big thumbs down.

Is it worth buying/renting and watching it? Only if you have an irresistible yen to see the naked love making scene, and a few minutes of semi-convincing dialogue between Anthony and Adam. Or if you truly just enjoy watching bad movies.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Starring Tomas Milian and Manny Perez  'Washington Heights' is a low budget drama set in a Latino neighborhood in NYC.

A young comic-book artist (Manny Perez) wants to escape his Latino neighborhood. When his father is crippled by a robber's gunshot, the young man is forced to run the family bodega.

The movie was shot in a budget (low resolution video and poor audio) with low profile actors.

The plot flowed well for 85 minutes but the last 5 minutes were just terrible. We don't know for sure if Perez and his girlfriend remained together and if Angel ended-up in jail for the shooting.

4/10

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

negative
solid documentary about edgey kids who first surf then skate in the face of the american dream. sadly some of the youngest and most gifted succumb to the lure of drugs while others become slaves to the crass marketing of their go for broke instincts. few come out on top. but the die is cast and fruit of it all is the new national pastime, skateboarding (the New York Times notes that "it was once considered a snub to authority. Now, however, skateboarding has its own summer camps, video games, magazines [actually it always had these] and corporate sponsors.") commercialism co-opts another kid birthed cultural node.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I rented this movie with very low expectations, but was pleasantly surprised. This movie is extremely good stuff. And one would never guess it was low budget.

EIGHTEEN, directed by 'Richard Bell' centers around an 18 year old named Pip, played by the superb 'Paul Anthony' who leaves his home because of the circumstances surrounding the way his older brother died. He is overcome with guilt by this event and falls into a hard life of a runaway teen on drugs and alcohol. On his 18th birthday, his father tracks Pip down and gives him a tape left for him by his grandfather, of which he was to listen to on his 18th birthday.

The way the whole film is told is with two simultaneous stories unfolding at the same time. The present life of Pip and the past life of his grandfather during WW11 of which Pip listens to on the tape.

The three outstanding performances in this movie are the ones from 'Paul Anthony' as Pip and 'Brenden Fletcher' playing Jason, the young 18 year WW11 soldier, his grandfather. Also, the role of the WW11 wounded medic 'Macauley' played by 'Mark Hildreth.' All putting in fine performances.

A couple of concerns and scenes that didn't sit too well with me...the priest, Father Chris played by 'Alan Cumming' who is gay and in broad daylight pick's up the local street hustler the whole neighborhood knows about. And then we have the local store clerk named Jeff, a sweetheart played by the attractive 'David Beaszely' who just wants to be loved, and for some unknown reason is attracted to the very unattractive and sleaze ball street hustler, Clerk, who sleeps with just about anyone and in all likelihood is a walking toxic time bomb. On top of all that he's not a very likable person. This part just didn't ring true.

The parts I really like the most was the flashbacks to the War. They were so well acted and very touching. There is a scene at the end where the one soldier is dying and the other soldier, 'Jason' is there for him to comfort and show him love as he lays badly injured and dying. This is such a wonderful and touching scene it left me in tears. Beautifully acted.

I highly recommend this movie. It is one of love, redemption and the power of the human spirit to survive.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This joins the endless line of corny, predictable 50's sci-fi shlock out there. As usual, it's pretty bad. There isn't much of a plot that I could detect and the over-exaggeration of the leads only adds to the unintentional laughs. The title is misleading also. Catching this on MST3K is probably the only way for it to be viewed, and it's better left that way.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I was living in Barstow Ca. in 1968 when the movie The Killers Three arrived at the local theater. The trailer was enough to get me to pay my hard earned money to see this movie. I was really expecting a Bonnie And Clyde movie and I got Dick Clark playing a shy nerdy guy while Robert Walker and Diane Varsi played an poor attempt of reinacting Bonnie and Clyde. Needless to say it never went over well. Maybe this is why it never made it to video. Even as a kid I was left some what ripped off as I left the theater. After all the best parts where in the trailer of the movie. The movie was dull and pretty much pointless. By the way, Dick Clark gets killed so it wasn't a total let down.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

Simply the best and most realistic movie about World War II I've ever seen. Not only because the German soldiers talk German and Russian soldiers talk Russian (no English in a German or Russian dialect)also because of the realistic decor in which the movie was shot. The acting is outstanding. No Hollywood-sentiment at all even no love story...Stalingrad was supposed to be one of the most horrific battles during the war, and in such context there's no place for sentiment or romantic scenes. What you get is a movie which will make you thrill to the bone and which have one of the best unhappy endings a movie could have.
The filmmakers apparently had enough money to be able to afford decent makeup effects, but not enough for a creature that would move around and attack convincingly. We never get a chance to see the "monster" move from one place to another - whenever that happens (supposedly), the camera focuses on the "terrified" reactions of the humans that are nearby. And when a man is attacked by it, he simply seems to be holding an inanimate object against himself so that it won't fall to the ground. This is still not the worst "Alien" rip-off around (the two "Xtro" films are even worse, for example); it's actually sufficiently entertaining if you've got 68 (!!) minutes to spare. (*1/2)
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Absolutely horrible movie. Not a bad plot concept, but executed horribly. Cliché storyline; bad script. So schlocky it doesn't even qualify for campy. This is the kind of movie that gives sci-fi a bad name.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Okay people, I have to agree with almost everyone else's reviews here. The characters. Are. Stupid. They're ALL stereotypical, and yet have nice clothes and are always skinny.

Don't even get me started on Jamie Lynn's role as ZOEY. Zoey is a pretty, popular, tan, blonde young teen who everyone just LOVES! She has a "rebellious", great, personality that everyone agrees with no matter how dumb or extreme it is. Most annoying of all: her voice is so darn bubbly and obnoxious. "OMG!"

Take for example the first episode. The moment she steps onto the huge PCA campus, everyone seems to love her. The boys want to ask her out, the girls want to be her friend, etc. Thinking she's all that, the episode plays out with Zoey always being the center of attention; she is the so-called best player of the unofficial girls basketball team, confident, and has everyone pity her when she weakly gets hit in the face. Oh boo-hoo.

My favorite character by far is this whole series is a girl that appears much later into the show, Lauren or something, who is the ONLY person ever introduced in the show to hate Zoey.

And Zoey doesn't even seem to be very loyal to her friends sometimes. In one episodes she even calls her friend a freak without EVER apologizing and doesn't show the least bit regret in doing so.

Zoey is ALWAYS the best:

-Desiging professional T-shirts and backpacks (which become a big hit)

-coming up with VERY elaborate schemes BY HERSELF to teach a single person a lesson. 

-Flawless grades 

-Taking the blame for stuff that wasn't even related to her just so everyone else could be happy.

-Coming up with a commercial that was so good it was put on TV. The list goes on and on...

Ugh. She has no acting talent. She's always the perfect person. She acts snotty and rebellious and preppy and...UGH! Can't stand her.

Not only that, but everyone in the show always has great clothes. EVEN THE NERD! Her wardrobe is better than mine, and mine is pretty freaking decent.

No one cares if everyone at PCA loves you, Zoey, and would do anything for you, even if it meant giving their right arm.

BUT regardless of these cardboard characters, the plots are creative. Not everyday things. They're interesting and amusing. The humor is usually good-natured and fun, but the characters are so paper flat that it's hard to enjoy it.

This show would be really good if Dan Schnieder put a bit more time thinking of the type of characters he wanted, because they are so typical, so boring that's it's lame and stupid.

Point: No one's the least bit overweight, everyone has stylish clothes, Zoey is the definition of Mary-sue, the story lines are well-thought out, and the humor is laughable. But again, I want to emphasize that the characters taint the show. Watch the show if you must, but don't say I didn't warn you if your eyes start to bleed.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The Lone Ranger & Tonto set out to bring to justice a band of hooded raiders who have killed three Indians for what appears at first to be no apparent reason..that is until the Lone Ranger discovers from a conversation with the Indian Chief Tomache that each man possessed a medallion. The five medallions given by Tomache to his friends as gifts we later learn when combined will provide the mastermind behind the hooded raiders with a map to a legendary lost city of gold. Can the Lone Ranger protect the remaining two individuals in possession of the medallions before the hooded raiders get their hands on it? Is there really a lost city of gold somewhere upon native land? 

Watching this, I kept knowing what was going to happen beforehand and everything seemed really familiar until eventually I realized I had seen this exact same movie when I was but a little kid..suddenly the memories flooded back and I remembered having quite a fun time as a child enjoying this one with a bunch of my friends. As an adult though, the plot is somewhat predictable but you know this, while not quite in the same league as the 1956 film, remains a lot of fun to watch. Clayton Moore is perfect as the Lone Ranger and Jay Silverwheels as Tonto steals a lot of this movie as he's probably in more action scenes than even the Lone Ranger. There's some very familiar faces on hand here including Douglas Kennedy as Ross Brady, headman of the Hooded Raiders gang, Charles Watts as a bigoted Sheriff, and Ralph Moody as a kindly Padre.

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

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

OK, yes its bad, yes its complete fluff, yes it makes dobbin the mule look like an Oscar winner but look at it like i did i was 13, special effects were pretty much non exsistant in 90% of films, back in the good Ole days when films needed a story line.. OK so even the storyline is a bit dodgy.. but wow did i get into this film as a kid in the 80s. cheesy rock, bad special effects, but airplanes an aerial fights and it had queens one vision on the soundtrack.. see even the worst things have a silver lining.. all in all if you want a bad film to show a 12 year old who hates computer effects (if there is such a film) this is the ideal choice
Determine the sentiment:

I was very moved by the gentle power of this movie and by the mood it created. I think it should have gotten a great deal more credit than it did. I agree that Michelle Pfeiffer should have been nominated, but I think all the performances were outstanding, and that Michelle Pfeiffer and Jessica Lange portrayed the deep affinity and conflicts of sisters with great emotional depth and sensitivity. Although I didn't read the book, I found the modern concept of King Lear very cool. I certainly will never look at the play quite the same way again!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The Priest, into profound love and suffering showed not the result of love, but the process of love and salvation has high-souled beauty of human(or vampire?). http://plaza.rakuten.co.jp/confuoco/diary/200911290000/

And the love of Femme fatale is not notorious, but lovely in taking the responsible death as a vampire. She did not keep falling deep into the paradise lost, but decided to leave human alone. Fragile, but lovely Femme fatale! This movie made me think about suffering between human and vampire, that far beyond priest, and salvation. Also I thought about love. Adam was not so responsible for Eve's but this Adam(priest), sacrificial and responsible to pick Eve up from the Paradise Lost, vampire's world. Another Symphonic Poem of Adam & Eve, Paradise Lost.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Larry Bishop directs, writes, and leads this soft core porn, plot less biker movie about nothing to do with anything. To call this one of the worst movies of 2008 is being kind to the garbage that I spent money on while in theaters. Its one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I felt sorry for the girls mostly, who probably think they're in the making of a feature film, when in all reality they're making a porno. They walk on the set for four days, say some sexual lines to disgusting old men -- thirty years older than them -- then take off their cloths, and run around naked for the four days they're on set. I can only assume this was Larry Bishops only way to get laid. You see shot after shot directly on a girls asses. Shot after shot of Bishop walking up to some random chick and grabbing her most intimate parts, as if he were shaking her hand. How this crap was even funded is beyond me. Why Tarantino has his name on it is beyond me, but he's been slowly fading away since 1994, so I can't say I was surprised.

After 15 minutes, you get that awful feeling that only horrible (and I mean horrible) movies give you. When you see it in theaters, the pain you feel is amplified. After 15 minutes, I wanted to cry for being so stupid, and wasting, not only my time, but my hard earned ten dollars. There isn't one redeeming quality, or one moment in the movie that creates any kind of reaction or shows any kind of inclination that these people had any idea of what they are doing. If you don't see naked women all that often, then I guess this movie would be for you. If you're eleven-years-old, you will probably like it. You can't even laugh at it, because every idiot making it was laughing about the crap they were making. The acting is awful, the writing is awful, the production is awful, and the directing is awful. It's not even worth your time renting it to see the car crash. Stay away, stay very far away. You shouldn't even be reading these reviews. I shouldn't even be writing one.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Madonna has been rocking the boat for over 20 years, and with that comes a lot of experience -obviously- and a lot of knowledge. She was never the one to think about yesterday, au contraire, she seemed to know what is going to be popular tomorrow. She bravely takes all the new trends, technologies, and incorporates them into her own acts. Her world tours have never been 'average'. When Madonna performs, she gives 120% - everything is bigger, better, theatrical and meaningful. She takes inspirations from East, West, and makes then unique. Everything is given a deeper meaning, and The Confessions Tour is not different. From the very beginning, you find yourself sitting on the edge of the chair. She starts with bang, then she does brave circus poses on a horse high up in the sky, she does everything she can to entertain you. She remakes her own songs, giving them a modern feel. She sings on a disco cross, she almost comes in the middle of the stage, and with her amazing dance crew that know no dimensions of fear, the show is absolutely more than you bargained for. It's a spectacle, an audio-visual orgasm that cannot be put in words. Lucky are the ones who actually experienced seeing Madonna on stage. Pushing fifty, she is still in an incredible form. Recent Sticky and Sweet Tour is even more ground-breaking, which proves nothing else, that Madonna was, is, and ever be the one and the only queen of pop.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Hollywood will stop at nothing to make money on a film even if they have to keep dragging out stereotypes and putting them in the most impossible and stupid situations. This effort is a clear example of that and I really do believe in my heart that a film like this is racially irresponsible. Story is about a divorced lawyer named Peter Sanderson (Steve Martin) who has been chatting with a lady on his computer and when he finally meets her she turns out to be the opposite of what he was expecting. Charlene Morton (Queen Latifah) is a stocky black woman who has no intentions of dating Peter but instead wants him to look at her case where she was convicted of robbery. He wants her to leave for good but she keeps popping up at inappropriate times and to save his job he reluctantly agrees to look at the facts involving her case.

*****SPOILER ALERT*****

Peter has his kids staying with him and Charlene turns out to be helpful in raising them but suddenly a news bulletin announces that an escaped convict named Charlene Morton has broken out of prison. Peter tells her to leave when the FBI comes snooping around but he figures out that she is in fact innocent when her old boyfriend shows up and threatens him.

This film is directed by Adam Shankman who keeps things moving at a nice pace and it is a good looking film technically speaking but the script is just so improbable and every character is a stereotype to the point that a 1970 film called "The Landlord" is clearly more in tune with race relations than this mess. I have always been a big fan of Martin and I think he's one of the most talented persons around but he loves to work constantly and at times just seems to pick any script handed to him. On the other hand, I've always had a problem with Latifah and the way she barges into the life of Martin is so over the top that she instantly becomes ingratiating. Basic premise that Hollywood loves to use is the hip black person showing uptight whitey to loosen up and then pass on some street logic that will help them with their lives. That's basically what the story is here but of course they have to let Martin dress black and overact like a retarded Eminem because Hollywood knows that this is what viewers want. Well, I was pretty much insulted by everything in this film and it's not because I don't have a sense of humor but unfortunately (For Hollywood, anyway) I use logic and common sense when I watch a film. Yes, I enjoyed Eugene Levy's talking jive but are we really suppose to believe that he would be instantly attracted to Latifah? I guess weirder things have happened and how many times does a main actor get shot only to be saved by something in their pocket? Wouldn't a cell phone shatter if struck by a bullet? Even if your the most die hard Martin and Latifah fan I wouldn't recommend this. I know I've said this before but this isn't an attempt to make a good film, it's an excuse to try and make money!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This movie is just great... It starts out real slow and boring but as the movie progresses.....well the fun keeps on coming. The power of the movie is perhaps in it's subtle references to a lot (and I mean a lot) of other movies. For me the best part was perhaps the Bruce Lee/Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon scene. How the two actors switches from French to Chinese or whatever Asian language it was, it was awesome. Then the jokes with the names, they are hilarious but perhaps you won't understand all of them when your an American (no offense). Overall a great movie
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I consider Saboteur as Hitchcock's first "American" film, because the story takes place completely in U.S.

There are brilliant scenes in this film. Statue of Liberty Scene, Barry Kane jumping into the water from the bridge, Water fall scene are amazing. Its not Hitchcock's fault that he didn't get the actors he wanted. Hitchcock originally wanted Gary Cooper for the leading roles in Foreign Correspondent and Saboteur. But Gary Cooper wasn't interested in doing a thriller. Another reason why Hitchcock didn't get big stars was because he wasn't one of top directors. Although Rebecca was a huge success, still most of film's success went to Producer David O. Selznick. For Example, David O. Selznick got Best Picture Oscar for Rebecca. And Hitchcock didn't get a Best Director Oscar for Rebecca. Hitchcock started getting some attention after Foreign Correspondent (1940). But Universal gave him a low-budget for Saboteur (1942). Hitchcock tried to get Joel McCrea for this film, because he was willing to work with Hitchcock again with a low salary. He enjoyed working with Hitchcock in Foreign Correspondent (1940). But he was unavailable. So the role went to Robert Cummings. Hitchcock called Robert Cummings "a competent performer." I thought he did his best. He was a less known actor who was willing to play a role when many big actors refused to play the leading male role.

As for leading female role, Hitchcock wanted Margaret Sullavan or Barbara Stanwyck for the leading role. They weren't interested either. So Universal decided to give the role to Priscilla Lane. I read in a book that this was one of her favorite films.

I also liked the scene at Blind Man's house. That is my favorite scene. If we listen closer to the dialogue in scenes that happen in Uncle Philip's house, then we will see how intense it is. Uncle Philip (Blind Man) was studying Barry Kane's character the moment he entered his house. The moment Barry entered his house, he heard Barry's handcuffs. Through conversation, he realized that Barry Kane isn't a criminal at all. We also see his hearing ability through those scenes. For Example, Barry hears the sound of a car says "Is that a car coming?" Uncle Philip says "2 cars I think." Uncle Philip was right. We see 2 cars in the next scene. Priscilla Lane did a fine job playing her role. She was no big star. But I thought her performance was really good. Another brilliant scene in Uncle Philip's house is the scene where he asks Priscilla Lane (Patricia Martin) "Are you frightened, Pat? Is that what makes you so cruel?" I thought Otto Krueger played the villain brilliantly. Hitchcock wanted Harry Carey for the villain. But he refused. Harry Carey is famous for his role Mr. President in "Mr. Smith goes to Washington." I want to mention more about this film. But I think my post is getting too long.

Every Hitchcock film is special in its own way. I am sure Hitchcock fans will like this film. I rate 10 out of 10.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

The quality you're likely to remember after viewing The Big Knife is how claustrophobic it is. It's pacing is sacrificed to a uniform texture of dialog. It's talky in the extreme. Modern viewers will feel every point has been made (and then some) but the movie will still not move on, or do the viewer a favor and change the scenery. It's very inert. At the 45 min mark I was sure I had watched two very slow hours. My beleaguered response was, "Good God, where is this going?" It feels like Odets was paid by the word...

This is a good place to note the decline of drama from it's high point in the 40s through the conceit-laden projects of the 50s and 60s until actual filmic merit was rediscovered in the 70s, only to vanish again. Here we get show-offy, conventional, emotional outbursts from Steiger, Lupino et al. and camera moves pre-arranged to meet over-practiced blocking. This is due to the rise of the Method; the regrettable trend of sacrificing every other merit of film, to grant actors their most selfish wishes. "Great acting," ho-hum, has killed thought in movies.

Jack Palance's forehead & pompadour retract and thrust forward every time he reacts to something. It's disturbing.

This is awfully boring stuff.
What's an example of a movie review?

Stan Laurel regarded PUTTING PANTS ON PHILIP as the first true' L&H film. THE SECOND HUNDRED YEARS was the first 'official' L&H film, but this was the one where Stan completely resigned himself not only to performing (he had signed on with the Hal Roach Studios as a director and 'gag-man', before certain situations - among them Oliver Hardy's accident with a leg of lamb leading to Stan having to replace him; and the extra money that performing would provide for himself and his new wife, Lois - brought about his historic return to performing, as well as writing, directing, editing and involvement in other areas of production), but also realised the fact that he was part of a team that worked well together. This, therefore, is an historic and very important film in the history of comedy.

It is also a surprisingly funny little silent film; rather different from what Laurel & Hardy would become known for and from what they are more immediately associated with today. The characters of 'Stan & Ollie do not appear - Scottish Stan Laurel plays the nephew of Oliver Hardy, a respectable man about town who is reluctant to be seen with this strange-looking fellow with a kilt and the habit of chasing pretty girls. There are some very funny moments in this well-made, charming little movie, and the performances of these two Kings of Comedy are spot-on - watch Stan's little 'scissor-kick' and smile that says, "Well waddaya know?" when he sees girls, or the hair-ruffling scene at the airport, for instance. Hilarious.

Watch this film if you can, with backing music from The Beau Hunks Orchestra (available on the VVL video releases) which enhances the 1920s feel and is very, very pleasant to listen to. It's a brilliant and underrated little film, which is why I said it was 'surprisingly' funny.
James Marsh's The King is a film that mystifies me. I can't think what its meant to be for. It's a story about a young man called Elvis played by Gael Garcia Bernal who gets an honourable discharge after 3 years Navy service and then goes off to find his biological Father and behaves dishonourably with him and his family. It's all rather sick really. Elvis worms his way into the family by seducing his 16 year old sister Malerie (Pell James). It's rather impossible to identify with anyone in this film from here in Middle England. Preacher Father and bouncy joyful Christian Congregation; I couldn't work out whether the film is meant to be deriding them for their mindless beliefs. Or is the target the happy family and we are meant to think that's unviable. OR is it just saying that some people are lost and just hell bent on destruction. It's shallow. We all know that bad things happen; the interesting bit is to learn why but this film just gratuitously depicts a violence without ever unravelling the thinking that has led to it. "The King" is such a lost opportunity. There are some really interesting questions about honour; the Warrior Code; the changing concepts of valour; honour killings in Indian families and so on. Honour is a very varied concept. But this film just adds nothing to the notion. However, Paul the Projectionist did more than his meagre role suggests. The DVD Projector showed all films in a green-only hue and the only way to repair this was to get it sent to Belgium. He did this through Christmas. I think those postal workers and repairers and Paul went far beyond the call of duty and our reward was this dismal film. But you might see it differently?
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: As a true lover of film I must advise you to avoid this appalling effort,, God knows how funding was approved, Seriously this is one cinematic experience which delivers zero dramatic tension and plods along until nothing happens again and again and again ,, The only connectivity is two scares which at least keep you awake Possiby the worst film I have ever witnessed and the acting by the female lead is bordering on criminal intent. One blessing with modern technology you can fast forward and watch it on 12x and it will only last 25 minutes, ,, And you won't miss any of the plot

No idea how people find this at all interesting and some are giving it high marks !
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

This documentary about the life and comedy of Bill Hicks features bits from Hicks' "Revelations" and other stand-up gigs. It also features interviews with fellow comedians and people in the industry who knew him, as well as reporters and journalists who talk about how his political commentary was raw and brutal.

I enjoyed it very much. I had already seen "Revelations" but the comedy clips were still refreshing. It's a nice balance of comedy and documentary that will explain Hicks' popularity to non-fans and please those who are already familiar with him.

I rated it a ten.
This is simply another bad Chuck Norris movie. Norris plays a cop on the trail of a twisted serial killer of women. He put the guy away three years before, but the guy somehow gets through the bars in the nut house he's in by using what looks like dental floss. Then the killer escapes in a cleaning van and drives it over a 400 foot cliff and survives to spend time around a theater undergoing renovation. Irish Jack O'Halloran is the best thing in this movie, but like in Superman II, he doesn't say a word. Somehow that's supposed to make him more menacing. Ron O'Neal of Super Fly fame and Steve James are wasted playing the city's mayor and Norris' sidekick respectively. The film also contains the idiotic subplot of Norris and his girlfriend having a child out of wedlock; it's so 1980's. When coupling Norris' "serious" acting turn with over-the-top musical cues signaling every forthcoming scene in predictable fashion, the film becomes a chore to sit through. The build-up while searching for the killer in the theater is interesting enough with Norris crawling through the shadows to discover the hideaway, but the end fight is disappointing after beginning in such a promising way. It's yet another disappointment from Cannon Films, and it plays like a movie made for television. * of 4 stars.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I have to hold my hand up and say that I was one of the first (and probably the last!!!) to see this film. Where do I start, it's a complete mess. The main attraction of course was the soundtrack. Which goes without saying is brilliant - it's what Himesh does best. But as they say, don't give up your day job - HR definitely shouldn't.

HR's acting is plain and simply awful. Even if the film had a plot, the thing that baffles you most is why this man is up on screen and what the hell is doing there. Two words of advice to HR - give up acting and secondly, use chapstick.

HR has no screen presence, no acting skills and the female lead looks just a little too young for him. As for Malika Sherawat - just the same old Bollywood vamp crap. 

You can package the product as much as you want, but if there's no substance it won't hold. Don't waste your money...
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
SPOILER ALERT! Don't read on unless you're prepared for some spoilers.

I think this film had a lot beneath its shell. Besides the apparent connections with "Oldboy" (and Park-wook's other films), an incestuous relation in this one really disturbed me, and also the subtle erotic theme that hung around all the vampiric, physical action.

The main actor, Kang-ho Song, is terrific in the rôle of the priest Sang-hyeon - coincidentally, "sang" means "blood" in some languages - who truly loved Tae-ju, played by OK-bin Kim. Their relationship reminds me a lot of that between Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek in "Badlands", where the girl appears psychopathic and the man is basically wrapped around her finger.

Their relationship is one thing, but the girl's mother is entirely different. While moving, she is stiff, one-dimensional and taut, but paralysed, she says all through not moving, or through the wink of an eye.

Park-wook has really, really mastered his cinematography in this film, and owes a lot to Stanley Kubrick; there are a whole lot of beautiful shots strewn throughout the film, some for simple effects and some that require several glances and probably repeated views to fully catch.

The music is quite stock, using mostly strings to accompany the main thespian's monoreaction; it's a very good thing that the character is as withdrawn as he is. While he does very little and loses at that, he seems to instead be a person who thinks a lot. While his love-interest says and does a lot, her actions display very little thought behind it. In my humble opinion.

All in all, a very disturbing film that is not made for action, which isn't even in the same dimension as most things that are about vampires these days; it's magnificent, and repellant at the same time.

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

positive
K Murli Mohan Rao made the much better BANDHAN in 1998 This film is an awful remake of THE WEDDING SINGER

Basically in short, the film consists of: Salman Khan who in those days used to have the role of a dejected lover who looses his girl and also he had his comic scenes where he hammed badly even today he does well he does it all here too and also looses his shirt in scenes

Jackie Shroff- wasted, bored and tired, his role is so stupid He is shown as a lover of Pooja Bhatra then in 1 scene he is shown as a womanizer?

Inder Kumar- confusing characterization again

Rani Mukherjee- boring, overweight and does nothing special Pooja Bhatra- tall, fair and actress worthy but lacks talent

Kashmira Shah- says a dial as if a poetry

Mohinish Behl- poor fellow the 2 kids were awful too

The story is the same and has awful comic scenes, a sudden love story and boring drunken scenes plus a forced comic track of Shakti Kapoor

Direction is poor Music is decent

Salman khan just goes through the motions, Jackie is bad, Rani is as usual, Pooja is bad, Mohinish and Kashmira are nothing great Inder is awful
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Jeff Garlin's film is filled with heart and laughter. As in Curb Your Enthusiasm, his screen persona is hilarious; but in addition we get to see both warmth and a sense of emotional vulnerability that makes the story universal. While the film chronicles his character's dreams of love, performing success, and weight loss, it will appeal to anyone who dreams of a better life. The supporting cast brings the frustrations and joys of his life to the screen in funny and heartbreaking ways. The simple joys of food, friendship, and trying once again once life has disappointed us are all themes. The use of music is creative and adds to the many pleasures of this film. Any fan of Jeff Garlin's TV appearances must see it!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Bedrooms and Hallways gives its audience a look into the mind of a man who thinks he's found himself, only to find out that he's not so sure he found the right guy. If you think that all gay comedies are the same, check this one out. Although the movie ends without much resolution, the hilarious one-liners, peculiar situations, and quirky characters are sure to satisfy.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

I wasn't expecting a great deal from this film, so I was pleasantly surprised when I watched it and found it to be most noteworthy. It's noteworthiness is mainly due to the talent and appeal of it's star, John Garfield.

Garfield plays Jack, a boxing star who is framed for murder. He must go on the run, and ends up out in the sticks with Gloria Dickson and the Dead End Kids. Here is offered a chance for redemption, yet will the past catch up with him yet? Garfield was an actor ahead of his peers. Before the term 'Method' was even coined and before Brando ever screamed 'Stella!' he brings 'natural' to the screen. His earthy quality and amazing acting talent dominate this production. Also interesting is that his role here as a boxer has shades of that 'Golden Boy' role he so desperately wanted to covet on screen. Garfield looks the type and goes the distance as a boxer, proving his acting worth.

Ann Sheridan is here in a small role at the beginning as Jack's trampy girl Goldie. I haven't ever thought much of Sheridan, but I liked her here. She plays well off Garfield. Dickson's' performance is a little tired and she does not share good chemistry with Garfield. The Dead End Kids are here, and Garfield seems their natural idol (even more so than Cagney). Claude Rains is miscast, and he looks uncomfortable in the role in many a scene. Strange, as he always was such a reliable actor.

Also interesting to note is the director- Busby Berkeley, best known for his early musicals with dancing girls and kaleidoscope images, directs a different genre here with remarkable ease. He maintains a gritty atmosphere throughout admirably.

A very good film that deserves greater attention 8/10.
or any stories reminiscent of the Leopold and Loeb case, you may find this movie entertaining. The cast includes Robert Culp,with Stephen Caffrey and Garrison Hershberger as the college students.

Peter Falk is his usual self, pretending to be tricked by the precocious students. Caffrey ("Longtime Companion", "Buried Alive") is excellent, and should do more of these menacing roles. Basically the two frat buddies become tired of their demanding parents, who expect nothing less than academic perfection, attendance at the best schools will only be financed if they conform. There is an excellent scene wherein Culp rakes Caffrey over the coals after he gets a low grade, threatens to cut off his trust funds and Caffrey later says to his friend: "I hate him, I want him dead"...

All is not well in Beverly Hills. This is always an excellent theme. I believe this film came out in 1990 right after the Menendez killings. If you watch "Menedez, a Killing in Beverly Hills" and then compare it to this film, you may find some interesting parallels.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Not bad performances. Whoopi plays the wise/warm role quite well. Still, the storyline and situations can not be believed (forced PC stereotypes). At times it is good Jews and Blacks vs. the evil White Christians (ho-hum). A typical Hollywood fantasy. The film does have its moments, but it is not one that I would recommend to go out of your way to view.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Awful, Awful, Awful show. "Real world" issues dealt with blatant unoriginality. Stereotypes galore. What the hell is going on with the African-American (black!) guys eyebrows? Tyrone power! Awful, Awful, Awful, Awful, Awful show. The fact that it lasted three seasons beggars belief. This show truly is swill for the brain dead accepters of mediocrity. 

Saved by the Bell almost seemed humorous compared to this. Well, upon hindsight, no. It's of the same banal ilk and therefore equally devoid of intelligence. The only thing that it's missing so far is the Jesus is GOD message. The mentality and deliverance is the same, yet somehow feels evil and soulless. You can almost hear the TV executives sprouting buzz words at each other. In fact I felt so incensed at this shows excremental existence, I felt compelled to comment. 

Awful, Awful, Awful show.
this really is an "okay" series.. everyone in it is pretty good. but i just can't take Reba. she's trying to be funny but she just isn't and then she got a stupid accent!! if they took her out of the show i would love to see it every day..

i have been watching the show in 10 min now and as i said before, Reba IS destroying the show. however the 20 year old guy (dont know his name) but he's soooo funny, and he's really saving it all..

so here's the recipe to get a great show. kick Reba of it and then put the 20 year old guy into the lead role.

i really hope someone out there agrees with me and thinks (like me) that they should kick Reba of the show and put someone else in the lead role
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
In December 1945 a train leaves the central station of Stockholm for Berlin. There aren't much left when it arrives. Not of the train and not of some passengers.

This is a black comedy directed by Peter Dalle and acted like they used to act in the 40s and also photographed (in b/w) like they used to during that period. The actors must have had lots of fun making it. They aren't much of characters, like they weren't in the 40s, but the story is well narrated and everybody has timing.

A deadly black and deadly funny film. See it, if you didn't think the Swedes were capable of humour.

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

positive
I think vampire movies (usually) are wicked. Even if the film itself isn't all that good, I still like it 'cos its got vampires in it. But this stinks. It really does give vampire movies a bad name.

For a start, the cheapness really shows. I'm not usually that bothered about low budget films - one of my favourite all-time movies is El Mariachi which only cost $7000 - but I hate this. The actions a load of crap as well, resorting to a 'stylish' wobbling camera which gives you headache.

Theres not much more to say other than don't watch this. I bought it for £1.50 as it was an ex-rental and I feel cheated out of my money, even for that low price.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is a very, very odd film...one that is so odd it's best you just see it for yourself. The film begins with a jaded professor haranguing his class because the students have the audacity to not be as incredibly brilliant as he is! You can tell very quickly that this man is a total cynic--finding the value in practically nothing but sticking to his own inner sense of self-importance. Additionally, he seems tired and bored with the monotony of life.

Later in the film, he walks into a bank robbery and manages to annoy the robbers so much that one of them shoots him in the head. Oddly, this is only half-way through the film and what followed was a very bizarre narration of the final seconds of his life. This is when the film becomes exciting because the style of the narration is just like one of this literature professor's novels--one that is intelligently written and says things the way we wish we could all say them.

See this weird film--it's amazingly compelling and not like anything I've ever seen before.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive