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

This film spends a lot of time preaching against marijuana. However, the plot and visuals are so insane that it seems more like the poster-child for LSD.

Plot: The heroic struggle of Michael as he battles his drug addiction while being subjected to the humiliation brought on by the likes of Winnie the Pooh and Papa Smurf.

Yea, yea, there's a good message, but it's obscured by the fact that the writers have taken a rather stale PSA idea and tried stretching it into 30 minutes. This includes a song sequence, where you're told that there's a million, rational ways to say "No!" such as "I can't smoke pot, I have homework!"

The writers can't make up their minds what to do with the characters they've brought in royalty-free. At first we see they all have to hide from the human characters, but within five minutes we see them all running around in plain sight without anyone noticing. Soon they begin interacting with the human cast, and the only one who's even slightly disturbed by this fact is not the drug-abusers, it's the little sister who talks to her teddy bear (Pooh, by the way.) Further, there's the little drug demon floating around. Because you know, pushers don't give kids drugs. He too is ambiguous - while he might be symbolic of Michael's addiction and hence is not supposed to be seen by other people, he laters goes and haunts little Corey to get HER into drugs. So I guess he's...uhhh.....moving on!

The whole plot finally culminates in some insane sequence in which Michael is in what would appear to be the Saturday Morning Carnival of Souls, aka a theme park from hell where the various cartoon characters beat him up and ignore him and stuff. For example, Miss Piggy eats him in a sandwich and spits him out. If the writers were not high when writing this, I must recommend they try getting high because they can't get crazier than this. Of course, the film ignores the fact that Michael's been having highs for two years by this point, so why this tripping sequence would frighten him is beyond me.

I realize I'm completely whaling on this film, but I actually just saw it again because I went through the trouble of tracking it down on eBay because of it's sheer infamy of being a BAD cartoon. The level of unintentional humor is is brilliant. Take this scene for example - Michael's dad is rooting through the fridge for a beer. He notices many of them missing and mentions it to his wife. The ever-observant Mom tells him "Don't worry, you probably just drank them last night watching football." While we're obviously supposed to be learning that Michael is drinking beer (in addition to the pot and crack), we instead read further in and realize - Hey kids, it's okay to have chemical dependencies as long as you're a grown-up! Scenes like this are worth the tiny price tag of this film. Oh yea, and the fact you get to hear Simon the Chipmunk say "Marijuana."
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I give this piece of Hollywood trash 1 out 10! Seriously! I mean, I like comedy as much as the next guy. I also can take just plain stupid comedy and actually sit back and laugh with it. But this film had nothing to laugh at OR with.

I like nearly all of the actors in this film. So I thought I'd overlook what many people told me about it (my fault for not listening). I was just mortified at how stupid this script was! Just ridiculous and not even in a funny way. The only funny scenes were in the previews that everyone saw in the theater when seeing other movies or on TV. I was very disappointed and I really would like to know why these otherwise relatively good actors would read this script and then still sign up to be in it! Bad decision on their parts...

*********************MAJOR SPOILER************************

Okay - here's my biggest question on this film.......If the characters are looking back on this story of Jewel (Liv Tyler) after the fact....then how can Paul Reiser have gone to a therapist remembering the past!?!?!?!? He dies in the last scene by being crushed by the dumpster!!!! Can anyone answer me that?!?!?!?!? Major goof on the part of the film makers.....Nobody noticed this?!?!?!?!?!?!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

This movie is beautiful in all ways. It is visually stunning, and this is a good thing since the dialogue would only take up a page or two of paper. The acting is superb; it is subtle, passionate and intense. Ben Daniels does a fabulous job of turning himself into an animal, and mixing that wild nature with a man's overbearing passion and honor. There is not one flaw, not one mistake or wrong moment to be found anywhere. It is completely perfect, but only if you understand what you're going to experience. It isn't a movie for anyone who wants normality.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I watched this film with a sort of dangerous fascination, like a hedgehog trapped in the headlights. There is no doubt that (even if you enjoyed it) it's a bad movie, but the important question is why? It has a good cast; it's lively; it's prepared to tackle sex head on, with some of the characters actually getting some of it here and there, which is unusual for a British comedy. It also has Johnny Vegas and Mackenzie Crook, Marmite performers agreed but they've have had their moments in the past.

What it's principally lacking is charm. The characters are impossibly idiotic, unbelievable and alienating, so that instead of a film of Men Behaving Badly the producers have made Game On. Any mediocre writer wanting to make a film about the sexual attitudes of dozy, sexist British men would have got hold of a few copies of Loaded, Zoo or even Viz to read Sid the Sexist and the thing would have written itself. Instead, the producers clearly tried to make up some moronic, difficult to care about, characters. Character comedy - as opposed to slapstick etc - only works if the audience can recognise some human truth to the situation. But watching this film is like being told an annoying joke that you know is not going to end up funny but you can't stop it.

Sadly, the film is also poorly made. The plot structure is weak, there's little character delineation or development, and many of the scenes aren't funny. Time after time the same lame reggae chips in to divide scenes, pointlessly and gratingly. There's a lot of needless repetition - when you've done one joke about parking outside a sex party you don't need to do it again. One wonders what the UK Film Council saw in the script.

This is a world where most men are rakes, and most women are continually up for it. The Apartment and Alfie satirised much the same world view, but the producers of this film accept it without criticism. Thus they've ended up with a kind of inferior update of Confessions of a Window Cleaner. Somebody British needs to have another go at this kind of thing, and do it properly  a good next project for Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright I think...
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

For comedy to work, there are many factors involved:

1. Don't be afraid to take risks. 2. If anyone or anything deserves to be poked fun at, do it and continue to do it,

...but most of all:

3. BE FUNNY!!!!

"The Chaser's War on Everything" succeeds in all those three things. In fact, the show proved to be so popular and so funny that already only months after it's first episode, a DVD of the first season was released. I picked it up within days of it being released and hit the floor laughing and had so many fu#@ing tears in my eyes- It's that well, good!

In short and to save me blabbing on about the show- watch it, buy it, podcast it, whatever will make you watch the fu$#ing best show in the world!!!!!

Go the CHASER!!!!
It's a shame that by garnering a restricted rating, perhaps the audience that would find this film the most useful won't likely see it.

Imaginary Heroes follows the life of a teenager after his brothers' suicide. Not, of course, the most original story in the world, however it does spend a great deal of time humanizing their parents, the 'imaginary heroes' that failed in their sons' eyes.

For teenagers, who tend to put responsibility for their failures on their parents but yet refuse to accept any real responsibility on their own, the movie sends a powerful message, that in the end we all have our own troubles we need to deal with, and that we all make our own paths.

But, unlike other movies that tend to urge youth independence, this one resolves the issues between parents and child, and they become a stronger unit for it. That the eldest child committed suicide is regrettable, but not overlooked later in the film, and the responsibility by all parties for the tragedy is thoroughly explained.

Although the subject matter has been covered before, it hasn't been covered quite this way -- the film pulls very little punches. Now, why this earned it an R rating is confusing -- you're unlikely to get across to a teenager in this era without being realistic, but yet providing realism restricts that very audience.

Were my junior high-school class have been shown this film, two suicides may have been prevented. In this case, the censors seem to have exercised extremely poor judgment.

8/10

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

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

When I first looked at the back of the cover of this film, it seemed like me and my friends could be looking forward to 82 memorable minutes. And it certainly was memorable. Puckoon was the kind of movie where you keep asking yourself how this was possible. How it was possible that it was released on DVD at all. Out of all of the movies available at the video rental store that night...we might just have picked the worst. And yes, they had Tomb Raider. Absolutely nothing in this movie amused me even slightly. Who came up with the idea that it would be funny if the narrator could change the story by suggestions from the main character? Out of all the stupid things you can totally ruin a movie with, this is now my favourite. The character Foggerty, the village idiot, played by Nickolas Grace is the most annoying character since they started making movies in color. If there is one single movie that you definately not should see this year, please let it be Puckoon, cause I don't think it can be any worse. I still wonder if this just might have been the worst way I have spent my money, and take my word for that I have made many lousy purchases over the years.
What's an example of a movie review?

The murder of the Red Comyn in Grayfriars Abbey was a long way from one of the most horrendous things ever done in the Scottish War of Independence and fights (and killing) in churches wasn't unusual at all. Not that much later Robert Bruces wife, daughter, two of his sisters were captured during a fight in a church in which people were killed. And comparing it to the massacre of Berwick in which the English slaughtered at least 8000 non-combatants (some, yes, in churches) is ridiculous.

That said this is not a well-made movie. It is slightly antidote to the absolutely RIDICULOUS sniveling representation of Robert Bruce in Braveheart. Whatever Bruce was, it wasn't a wuss.

Too bad that they didn't do a better job of this because someone should make a really GOOD movie of a war that is so amazing that it sounds like something someone made up going from complete defeat at the Battle of Methven to a secret return from hiding to a long guerrilla war to Bannockburn. This isn't it though. Poorly made and to a large extent poorly written and acted. Too bad!
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

*MILD SPOILERS*

In this would-be satire, Chaplin set his sights on the evils of German fascism, playing the twin roles of Tomanian dictator Adenoid Hynkel and one of his subjects, an inadvertent World War I hero and Jewish barber. Through events inspired by both Adolf Hitler and the Marx Brothers, Hynkel negotiates contracts and declares war on neighbouring Osterlich whilst finding time for numerous, oddly flat set-pieces. The dictator's much-celebrated waltz with an inflatable globe is actually entirely heavyhanded, underwhelming and unfunny.

Chaplin should certainly be commended for looking to lampoon Hitler and for speaking out strongly on celluloid - his much-maligned final speech is actually the bold, memorable highlight of the piece - but the film simply isn't sharp or funny enough to merit the praise frequently heaped upon it, nor to demand repeated viewings. The best gags are away from Hynkel's tiresome posturing and involve The Barber attempting to avoid a large spinning bomb (a sequence which steals from the gun tussle in The Gold Rush) and later, with a pot on his head, accidentally walking the plank off the roof of his shop.

Compared to the director's silent classics, The Great Dictator is slow, wildly inconsistent and altogether somewhat unsatisfactory, whilst the barren spells between laughs are often long and difficult to endure. There is no doubt that Chaplin was a genius, but even geniuses make disappointing pictures and The Great Dictator certainly ranks as such.
Excellent special effects make this disaster move very plausible. One can see that the producers went to some trouble to get the displays on the computer screens just right - it all makes it very convincing. The sets are also very authentic looking. A good choice of music rounds off the film nicely.

Acting is good and the presence of David Suchet adds some weight to the cast of course. Compared to other movies of this genre, Flood is right up there with the best of them. Thankfully, the "human drama" aspect has not been overdone, as is often the case with this type of movie. The human suffering is portrayed in perfect balance with the actual flooding scenes.

And of course, the movie confirms what many of us suspect anyway: weather forecasters so often do not get it right! :)
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I only wish that I had the good sense to turn this movie off in the beginning when I knew it was terrible. 

Instead I gave it the benefit of the doubt and waited for it to get better. 

Don't make the same mistake I did. 

The title has nothing to do with the movie. The movie has nothing to do with the real world. The plot has nothing to do with a plot. The acting consists of a guy who wants to be John Cusack, but can't pull it off. The lead is a girl who tries to be Claire Daines. Sadly, she can't pull that off either. They are in love, although god only knows why. And by the end I was hoping that they would all kill each other off just so I could believe none of these kids would ever taint the world again.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Reba sucks. It sucks hard. It's about this awful country singer attempting comedy. They might as well call this show "Generic", because that's what it is. It's dumb and generic. Reba, you're not funny, and I'm glad your retarded show was cancelled because you suck, and so does Brock, Barbra Jean, the red-headed teenager, that jockey guy, and the 12 year old who got knocked up. You all suck, and none of you are funny. Oh, and I heard a rumor that Reba is actually a gay devil-worshipper who idolizes Hitler and tortures animals. And she puts subliminal messages on her show and in her "music" in hopes to make children kill their parents and kill themselves! But it was just a rumor. Anyway, this is the worst show ever, Reba is gay, I do not like her, I think The Office is better than this show, and this show sucks.
This surrealistic, absurdist movie is the first film I have seen of cult Swedish Director Roy Andersson. He is a veteran filmmaker who has made his living filming commercials, directing only four feature films in the last forty years. This background shows: the film seems like a collection of fifty 2 minute arty commercials. There is no story interconnecting these vignettes, though some characters appear in more than one vignette (there is a theme throughout underneath them, though: the absurdity of modern life). Some of the film's mannerisms (having the actors appear in light white makeup) are more irritating than illuminating. Some of the skits amount to very little (a man unsure in which queue to stand?). Other skits are better, though. The best is the one about the rock chick dreaming that she goes on honeymoon with her rock guitarist bride on a house that turns on something akin to a train (you have to watch it to get it). A film worth seeing, even if comparisons made by some film critics with such great filmmakers as Keaton, Tati and Kaurismaki seems overwrought: Andersson lacks the vision of them and the lack of a story interconnecting the vignettes is fatal to this film's pretension of being a masterpiece.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
If you want to see a brilliant performance of Mikado, played to perfection with expert timing and panache, don't watch this version. If you want to see a hammy version with Eric Idle strutting around in 1930's english gentlemen's private club society, this is the one to watch. It's a lot of fun and a good intro to Gilbert and Sullivan, but after this, rush out and rent the Canadian Stratford version. You'll see the difference between good and great. Nobody does G&S better than Brian McDonald and the Stratford group.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

An orphan boy named Tom (Tommy Pender), who works for a pair of shady chimney sweeps, is falsely accused of stealing from the mansion where he is working at by Mr. Grimes (James Mason) - the real thief - and goes on the run. Tom's only alibi is the niece of the mansion's owners (Samantha Gates, a slender, blue-eyed blonde, with long, wavy hair, who I'm sure was the primary reason why I repeatedly watched this as a boy). He and his dog jump into a river and a witch turns them into water breathing cartoon characters! While underwater, he befriends and rescues a group of water breathing children known as water babies from a shark.

A very interesting and always fascinating fable, set in 1850, that should appeal to all children. The animation (42 minutes of the 85 minute HBO VHS print) is just average, but it's preferable to most modern day animation - even computer animation! My only real gripe is a plot hole caused by a deleted scene. At 42:06, after the first verse of "High Cockalorum", the film cuts to a scene with octopi swimming, followed by Tom and Jacque's encounter with Terence. This leads to a scene in which the killer shark (voiced by Mason) leads our heroes into a trap. The shark then greets Tom with, "Young Tom, so nice to see your ugly mug again" - but this is the first time in HBO's print that Tom meets the shark! Most reference books list the running time as 92 or 93 minutes, and it was previously available from Sultan Entertainment and Nelson, so it's very likely that HBO's print is edited and / or time-compressed. Adding insult to injury, MGM released a fullscreen, 76 minute print on DVD in 2002! Let's hope a restored version appears in the near future.

The film is copyright Ariadne Films 1978. "Ariadne" is the water baby voiced by Samantha Gates. Bernard Cribbins, who plays Mason's partner in crime, also voices the electric eel. A.K.A. Slip Slide Adventures.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

This is how I interpreted the movie: First things first. There was not a single scene in the movie where u see the bad guy (Taylor) torturing or nailing Ben's hands to the wall. However the same cannot be told of the gals. In the end too, u see Taylor disappear as he walks. Looks like the message there was "There was no Taylor". And the whole movie was a figment of imagination of Ben. Also, there was no scene during the torturing moments wherein any of the gals confront or are in the same frame as Ben. It was Taylor all the time. But in real, Taylor was Ben. If they were two different people, then why was there no scene showing both of them in one frame during the horrific times? But of course before that, u do see both of them together and THAT cud just be Ben's imagination at work. Also, when Ben was out of jail, the text on screen clearly says that Ben's story was unrealistic and there was no such place as he had explained (read mine, cars etc...)Even after Liz Hunter leaves Kristy and comes back to find Ben, she doesn't find him. Why??? Because Ben (Taylor) was out looking for the gals. Instead Kristy has all the time in the world to check out Taylor's (Ben) Web cam, photos etc...

Somehow everything sums up to just one fact that Kristy and Liz, both of them knew that Taylor was Ben. So, my conclusion is that Ben was schizophrenic and the movie where you see him and Taylor in one frame was nothing but figments of his imagination. Otherwise if there really was a Taylor, then they should have found him out given all the detailed explanation coming from Ben.
An extremely powerful film that certainly isn't appreciated enough. It's impossible to describe the experience of watching it. The recent UK television adaptation was shameful - too ordinary and bland. This original manages to imprint itself in your memory.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I do not generally appreciate light-weight attempts at creating humourous stories, which means that "Anita no perd el Tren" cannot score very high for me. The story is good: a middle-aged but still good-looking woman finds a new love. But the attempts at making this film as a romantic comedy only managed at times to be somewhat comical. 

Rosa María Sardà has ably demonstrated that she can be a serious actress in such productions as "Amic/Amat" (qv), "Todo Sobre mi Madre" (qv), "Las Amargas Lágrimas de Petra von Kant" (qv) and "El Embrujo de Shanghai" (qv). However the powers that be have over the years dished her out a lot of trivial stuff, for the cinema and for TV. Something similar could be said of José Coronado: perfectly able to produce serious performances. María Barranco belongs safely in this grouping.

Such that, in the end, I was left with the feeling that I would be real pleased to see a new making of this film, in a serious tone, which would allow the actors to really show their performing skills. And the curious thing is that it should be done with exactly the same leading actors. Wasted talent on a rather silly film that could have been very promising indeed.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I'm amazed that I have a real affection for this one inasmuch as I'm not an action and adventure lover. But hey... It's pretty tough to go wrong with a Robert Carlyle film. I've read several poor or temperate reviews on this film, pulling it apart for it's period errors or unlikely plot development, but no one seems to mention the rather intriguing character transition which features how a hardened, down-on-his-luck scoundrel (Carlyle) transforms into a rather noble, selfless hero and how the pretty-boy, cowardly vagrant (Miller)develops a real taste for the life of a highway man once he "gets the feel of it." Filled with lots of bad-boy humor, lavish scenes (particularly the use of "fireworks" by former apothacary Plunkett) and a charmingly ecclectic musical score, Plunkett & Macleane is a fast-paced,highly enjoyable piece of film making. It's certainly worth your viewing time FOR THE CLIMAX SCENE ALONE! Shoot 'em up, boys!

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: "Two Hands" is a good addition to the Australian Film Catalogue.

It is that curious mix of real life, surreal life, comedy, tragedy and love the Australians have developed on their own.

Heath Ledger is basically a good if naive guy. Wanting to get on he falls in with a local "Big" Man Pando (Bryan Brown). But at the very moment he sets a first toe on the dark path to crime he meets Alex (Rose Byrne). Here is the cause of the error to change his life in ways unexpected. After getting on the wrong side of Pando accidentally, things get very bad very quickly and if not for a little otherworldly help this would have been a short sad film. Yes, Jimmy learns a few lessons in life and no one escapes uninjured in one way or another but at the end of it has a feel good feel to it. Although there is a lawless theme through the story, it is not glorified and helps to show how destructive crime can be on normal lives.

Heath Ledger is excellent as Jimmy, innocent and savvy at the same time, Rose is hypnotic as Alex and Bryan is marvellous as usual. This is a small ensemble of characters are believable and I found myself caring about the good guys and disliking the baddies.

This DVD is usually in the cheap aisle so I would recommend adding it too your DVD collection, it would be money well spent.

8 out of 10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

This has got to be one of the best episodes of Doctor Who that I've seen since it came back last year. There is a brilliant mix of amusement, fear and tenderness all mixed up which equals one amazing episode. The ood were brilliantly designed and I'm pretty sure there' going to be a lot of ood jokes in the next few weeks. I myself am guilty of that already.I particularly liked the way that we saw a different perspective of Rose's and the Doctor's relationship and the ending;well, it's the first time I have ever hidden behind a cushion! I cannot WAIT until next weeks episode to find how they get out of this mess.
What's an example of a movie review?

Written by brilliant Monkees' TV writers Gerald Gardner and Dee Caruso,WHICH WAY TO THE FRONT was the last of the "Jerry Lewis" movies until "Hardly Working" almost a decade later. Jerry's comedy is evidently an acquired taste, and admittedly he can occasionally be his own worst enemy when he helms as producer/director--but even in the dreariest of his films, there are always moments of brilliance.

WHICH WAY manages to be amusing,entertaining and yes,quite funny. It is somewhat unlike any of the typical Lewis films.The pace is very upbeat and ther are lots of excellent supporting players--a kind of JERRY DOES HOGANS HEROES.The whole thing looks kind of like an unsold TV pilot and you will either love it or hate it---but hopefully YOU VILL LAUGH
In a bizarre experiment, an astronaut is abandoned on the moon as Alice (Florinda Bolkan), a troubled translator living in Italy, wakes from a nightmare about a lunar mission mixed with an old movie that frightened her as a child. She also has no recollection of the last three days except for a torn photo of the Garma hotel she finds in her apartment. Fired from her job, Alice heads to that resort island to try and piece together the mystery...

Often touted as a giallo due to it's director (THE FIFTH CORD's Luigi Bazzoni) and the presence of Evelyn Stewart, Nicoletta Elmi, and Klaus Kinski, FOOTPRINTS is actually a deliberately paced psycho-thriller with sci-fi overtones. Blurring the distinction between dream, reality, memory and movies, the disturbing story is beautifully photographed by Oscar-winner Vittorio Storaro with a pensive score by Nicola Piovani. It also combines elements of such diverse films as Armando Crispino's MACCHE SOLARI and Lucino Visconti's DEATH IN VENICE in it's depiction of alienation, isolation, hallucination, and maybe madness. Brazilian actress Florinda Bolkan, on screen all the time, does a redux of her Carol Hammond in Lucio Fulci's A LIZARD IN A WOMAN'S SKIN as Alice, a young woman thrust into a mystery that makes her question her sanity. The locations mirror Alice's unstable state of mind; the island of Garma, off-season, with it's Arabic influence and ancient ruins, is a lonely, almost mystical place unwilling to give up its secrets. Evelyn Stewart has a bit in the beginning as a concerned friend, Nicoletta Elmi and Oscar-winner Lila Kedrova are hotel guests, Peter McEnery plays a handsome biologist trying to help Bolkan, and the ever-intense Klaus Kinski is "Blackmann" in the film-within-a-film, "Footprints On The Moon". 

FOOTPRINTS is a classy case of "Guaranteed 100% Euro-weird" but not for everyone. There's only one murder toward the end but you won't see it coming as the film starts to come together.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Another "must have" film. Henry Brandon is a favorite! I was so surprised when I learned years ago that he was from Germany because he sounds & looks so typically American! And wasn't he great in "The Searchers" as Chief Scar??!! Another of my favorites, I have it & watch it over & again. Now if I could add this one to my collection, it would make my day! This is a great wildlife story & film for all ages. The scenery is so absolutely beautiful & the plight of the endangered snow leopards is told with such great emotion it will spark the interest in endangered species in anyone, especially children. If I could I would give a copy to all of my grands & great grands!
I actually belong to the demographic Zoey 101 specifically is trying to target, so I can see that as much as it tries to be relatable to people my age, the premise is simply too ludicrous for an average person to relate to. The show revolves around the wealthiest boarding school in existence, and the lovely, incredibly tan, attractive gang of one-sided characters who inhabit it. As is the tradition amongst kids networks, the cast is an array of skinny white kids, with the token black guy, of course.

The story lines all revolve around Zoey and her gang of friends stumbling upon or creating some sort of minor dilemma, such as not wanting to attend gym class, resulting in Zoey devising a scheme to save the day for all her friends. There is generally a B-line revolving around either a one- sided guest character, or placing supporting characters in completely unrealistic situations, such as having a hive of wasps in a dorm room and no one noticing. These plots often play off stereotypes, such as any character who pulls good grades in math must by default completely lack social skills. The majority of episodes have the continuous and overused will-they won't-they Chase-Zoey dynamic.

The characters, unfortunately, are all incredibly one-sided; there is Zoey, the perfect girl with a solution to literally everything,Chase, the constantly lovesick still but rather endearing Best Friend, Michael, the token black guy (kudos to Christopher Massey for managing some genuinely funny one-liners), Lola, the theater chick (meaning she dies her hair and 75% of her dialogue is about her dreams of stardom, despite the fact that she never does anything in the actual theater), Logan, the womanizing narcissist, Dustin, the spazzy little brother, and Quinn, the science geek. The few words I spent on each of these characters sum up each character entirely.

Zoey 101 does manage to be entertaining at times, but the serious flaws in the system of values it promotes are a major turnoff. Zoey, who is set up as the obvious role model and quasi-feminist crusader and who is on the surface portrayed as flawless, still manages major character flaws. For example, when Lola was first introduced, she was believed to be a goth girl. Zoey tried to use this as an excuse to kick her out of their shared dorm room for being "freaky".

As for the acting, it is quite clear that Jamie Lynn Spears landed this role because of her name, not because of talent. Although she has definitely improved as time goes by, it is clear she is not a born actress, which greatly affects the quality of the show, as most of the plot lines revolve around her character. The supporting cast is surprisingly good, especially considering the material they have to work with. They deliver quite a few good one-liners for comic relief, if the plot hasn't yet ventured into obscurity.

All in all, Zoey 101 is a flawed view at high school life, and anyone past their Limited Too years shouldn't expect much from it.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Henry Thomas, and Robin Tunny, are a couple of the most underrated performers in the business. It's beyond me as to why they haven't received more recognition than they have. This movie is a perfect example of how boundless their abilities are.

Acting out the lives of folks who could be referred to as a bit odd seems to be their speciality, and if these characters ain't odd, I'm at a loss to find anyone who is.

The story is funny, romantic, dramatic, complicated, and tragic. I hated the ending, but if I hadn't, I wouldn't have loved the story as a whole. So there ya go.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Seven pioneer kids strive independently across many miles of Indian territory and harsh weather to reach Oregon.

According to history, young'uns who traveled by themselves through long distances of land - such as with the 'Children's Crusade' - were manipulated and exploited by being abused and sold into slavery, but these kids are pretty tough and they try their best to prevail in accomplishing their goal of making a homestead out west. Film is a little too syrupy at times, but OK for fans of 'The Waltons' and 'Little House on the Prairie'.

Dean Smith gives a cool performance as 'Kit Carson'.
OK by the time you read this I MIGHT have stopped crying. This movie was so horrible as to be quite vexing. The creatures are kinda cute, but the only really good thing about the movie was the growing attachment among the prisoners and their guard after getting marooned on this daffy island. Even seeing Barbara Bach with her hair all riffled was no payoff for buying this sterling bit of poop. She goes about with a whispery I've-never-used-my-voice-before breathiness that just don't wash when one is screaming bloody murder. (Hey the leading man was cute too but I'm still not assuaged.) This is a cry-into-your-beer ripoff of the good ole Island of Dr. Moreau. Poor Richard Johnson, who was surely born for better things, is just unrelievedly bad as the bad guy. I mean, HOW bad can a BAD guy BE? (Ask Richard Johnson). Joseph Cotten tries hard not to look embarrassed as he staggers through his cameo appearance. In the name of all that's holy, don't rent this darned bomb.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Serendipity. I thought I was off to a bad start, bringing home the wrong dvd in the case of "The Intruder". Rental stores' staff! So I did not want to see this film but I am glad I did. In all probablility my chosen movie would not have been as superb a slice film as this delectable and delicate taste of what independants in both US and Europe can do together. Seven years apart, two heroine sisters embark on fantastic journeys through early 1970's post-student demo / Baader-Meinhof Europe. Sumptuously shot in the Algarve, Portugal; and in Berlin, Paris, and Amsterdam (reminiscent of the feel of the exterior shots in Paul Verhoeven's early masterpiece, "The Fourth Man"), it's touchingly acted by Brewster , Diaz and especially Christopher Ecclestone.The story unveils itself along an abstracted plot, capturing the ephemeral emotions of these characters as they confront their relationships and see idealised images of each other and themselves shattered. A movie with great refinement and taste. Not for Arnie Commando fans, which is probably why the reviewer upstairs is so wide of the mark in 'his' claims that this is a girly film. Daft criteria. Wrong too. Well worth experimenting with.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I watched a movie called Dark Talon, dated 1974. The credits to this movie are exactly the same as Dark Star, so I'm going to presume it was an alternate title. Dark Talon was nowhere near as funny as everyone else here states. The acting was lame, the editing slipshod, and overall stupid. At the beginning there's an annoying 1970's trucking song called "Benson, Arizona" that has absolutely nothing to do with the movie. Basically the plot revolves around a small crew of an interstellar bomber that goes around bombing places that are unstable. The bombs are sentient and respond to people. The obligatory disaster disrupts communication between the bombs and the crew. One of the crewmen goes out and has an absurdly idiotic existential conversation with the bomb that made no sense whatsoever. The movie I saw was done in under an hour and a half, with commercials thrown in, so I suspect that Dark Talon is an overedited version of Dark Star.

The alien is an inflatable red beach ball spray painted with a pair of monster hands that it walks on. It was silly and unconvincing as an alien.

It's hard to believe that John Carpenter had a hand in this. His other movies were so much better.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The movie uses random events of historical significance as its backdrop and willy-nilly criss-crosses the lives and time-lines of its 3 central characters. To what purpose, one may ask? The problem with this film is that the script becomes the 'story', not characters or their lives.

It starts off with a bunch of rich, aimless college kids (and a couple of not-so-rich too) drawn into the Naxalite movement. Affair, rejection and separation follows. People go their own ways, seemingly. Only till the heroine forces herself upon them. Not once but twice. After a pause in the 'Movement', the next hurdle for these 3 is the Emergency imposed on the country by Indira Gandhi. Lots of political figures roam around for no obvious reason. The sub-plots are too contrived and don't add up to make a logical whole.

The movie tries to impose a false pace but never reaches a true rhythm. Barely coherent at times, there is no maturation and growth whatsoever in the arcs of the 3 ex-college buddies. Even after they are presumably married, engaged, settled or whatever, they are ever too eager to just ditch it all and head off to a village to have sex with the ex-lover or ex-flame. What fertile imagination the screen-writer possesses. So many 4-letter words are used without any rhyme or reason that its downright abusive!!

Chitrangda Singh has a horrible American accent that she doesn't try to hide. Its hideous hearing her mouth cliché-ridden dialog like 'Whats up? I didn't think you'd come' (this, after the hellish nightmare she's just been thru) or, in the beginning, 'I appreciate your concern but I can take care of myself'. Yikes. What kind of clown wrote the dialogs for this? She invites her friend in to have a cup of 'South Indian' (no less) coffee, wishes someone Good Morning and then is wished Good Night by someone else in the family. Now whats up with THAT?!?

The countless uncredited villagers and tribals are the best actors. The editing is really erratic with too many cuts. Obviously trying hard to make a bold statement, Sudhir Misra screwed up big-time on this one.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I just finished watching one episode(S1-#5 A boy in a bush), so maybe my review is not very fair.

But based on that episode, this is a very poor version of CSI, the acting is crap. The main character, Dr whatever her name is, is so fake it actually hurts. I wouldn't cast her to do an add for dog food!

The other hurtful thing is David Boreanaz of the "Angel" fame, a good actor, does a great job, but wasted coz of the idiotic acting of that woman.

Supporting cast is OK, but all is ruined due to this stupid acting of Emily Deschanel .

Very disappointing version of CSI, very sorry to see it appear on the filmography of some of the potential talents involved in it.

That woman is really sh#t, at least in that episode. But based on this one view, I will not even invest watching it even if it was shown on an elevator screen.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The best horror/sci-fi movie i have ever seen. I was myself in the Arctic, working for Canadian government , in a small northern station when I see this movie for the first time; needless to say I was in the mood...

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I feel as though I know these people and have known people similar to them. These days, though, people are discouraged from showing such passion about anything especially love and loneliness. It has a slow beginning, but then look out! If you love romantic comedies, but would like to see one that had some basis in reality for a change {or at least did have back in the 70's}, then you should see this movie!
It was evident until the final credits that this film was made in 1989, as all the elements of its production were made to look 1960's - the acting, the characterisations, the sets and the props all had an aesthetic from an earlier time.

The film opens to the moments prior to the dropping of the A-bomb on Hiroshima and how this tragic incident affects one family: a young woman, Yasuko, who lives with her aunt and uncle. Even in black and white, and using special effects that are quite primitive by modern standards but emotive and effective nonetheless, the depictions of the immediate aftermath of the bomb are quite horrific. Family members become unrecognisable to each other, others resemble zombies as they wander the streets bedraggled and in shock.

The title refers to rainfall that fell soon after the bomb, which was mixed with radioactive ash, and in which Yasuko is caught. Rumors of Yasuko's being in Hiroshima at the time of the bombing affect her marriage prospects and it is later learnt that the black rain is indeed causing sicknesses. The film is concerned not just with the physical effects of the bomb on the Japanese, but on the social and psychological damage that was wrought.

I found the film compassionate and a fascinating journey into a unique culture. While the film is primarily concerned with the pain felt by one family, the film's gentle political message is relevant today and probably for all time - wars have horrific consequences, and should not be entered into unless absolutely necessary. It is said that history repeats itself, and the current leaders of the 'Coalition of the Willing' have learned nothing. While atomic warfare has not resurfaced since 1945, other deadly after-effects have. This film is compelling viewing.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
After "Attack of the Fifty Foot Woman" with Alison Hayes opened the doors for women to be just as dangerous as men, there was obviously an open market for other movies to pick up and carry the torch and what more a lovely actress than Dorothy Provine from "It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" to play the role. The downsize is that cute and blonde Provine may just be too sweet and innocent looking to step into Allison Hayes' size 50 shoes. This role really needed someone with an amount of smoldering sex appeal; Provine is more the girl next door type. She may have taken and done this role to prove she could be sexy, but the material lets her down. Lou Costello, however, proves he can do a movie without Bud Abbott feeding him lines and he even interjects a dramatic role in some of his scenes when he not turning to Gale Gordon as his front man for gags. Gordon, however, establishes that all he can be is blustery, perturbed and pushy, much the same character he creates later on "The Lucy Show." Charles Lane also plays the same role in everything he does: a straight man, and his screen time is limited. The special effects are convincing for the time, but I would have liked Dorothy to have been a little more than cheesecake and dressing and at least have been allowed to become dangerous. As the movie's lead character, she takes second billing to Costello who is in all of the movie with Dorothy several times vanishing like a sub-plot. The whole movie put together just can't decide if it's supposed to be science fiction, a comedy or just a parody of the Allison Hayes classic. There's a lot of good scenes, some very funny humor and some very ridiculous camp that affects the rest of the film. Still, I do like this movie for it's empowerment of women; there's not enough movies out there like this one. If this movie had a chance to be remade today, I'd highly recommend Courtney Cox and Jason Alexander in the lead roles and allow me to completely re-write the original script. Courtney tops my lists of actresses who I believe could and should adequately play gorgeous giantesses; although, I have to admit that if either of the titanic beauties Allison or Dorothy came after me, I'd go quietly !!

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

positive
This movie was never intended as a big-budget film but was a cute little picture that pretty much anyone could enjoy. It probably won't change your life, but it is certainly charming and engaging.

Clifton Webb plays a curmudgeon (that's certainly not new) who has a TV. However, his ratings are failing and he is worried about cancellation. So he decides maybe he is too out of touch with kids--as he and his wife have none of their own. So, he volunteers as a scoutmaster and regrets doing this almost immediately! Remember, he IS a curmudgeon and doesn't particularly like kids. To make things worse, one of the kids really likes him and follows him like a lost puppy. No matter how indifferently he acts towards the kid, the child just wants to spend time with him! The kid is cute and nearly steals the show all by himself! 

What happens next and the twists and turns of the movie are something you'll just have to find out for yourself. Understand that this is a light, cute and yet not cloying movie you'll probably enjoy.

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

positive
Radio is a true story about a man who did what he felt, in his heart, was the right thing to do. The viewer will be compelled to wonder what he or she would have done. The adversity that coach Jones and Radio both faced was both tragic and predictable. People did not understand; nor did they want to understand. But in the end, the power of circumstance forced people to understand and appreciate so much more than they did before it happened. Radio is a mentally challenged youth who understands very little, besides three of the most important things the are too often forgotten as we mature: Intuition, compassion, and love. Coach Jones is a high school teacher who cannot ignore the plight of the underdog who is just trying to play a bad hand of cards in the best way that he knows how. It was sad the way coach Jones and Radio met. The practical joke that terrified the life out of Radio was enough to make you want to severely punish, not only the boys involved, but every boy who knew what was going on and did nothing about it. However, on the positive side of the scale, the incident led to a friendship that would influence so many lives in the kind of way that most of us believe only happens in the movies. This movie is a real life fairy tale and not to be missed. Ed Harris was his usual brilliance. Gooding was flawless. Radio is an inspiration.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive