cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Determine the sentiment:

I was never in the past interested in this play although love Shakespeare and have seen most of his plays now and enthusiastically studied some at school. Something about this story and all the fuss about it seemed to put me off. I never bothered to try to see Hamlet until fairly recently deciding I should at least try to watch it and I borrowed the Olivier version from the library. Well, I struggled with it. Olivier seemed far too old, not only in his looks but in his acting of the part. The play had been enormously cut to fit a more conventional movie length and I think must have missed out too much as I found it difficult to concentrate on it, soon became bored and annoyed by it. I still think Olivier's Henry V is the best version I've seen of that rousing play - tho' admit I haven't rewatched the Beeb version yet and can't recall how it was when first shown.

I heard of the Branagh full length version of Hamlet. Although I enjoyed his Much Ado, I think the Beeb version is far better and I wasn't entirely impressed by his Henry V. But I was off Branagh a bit after seeing his disappointing effort at a musical of Love's Labour's Lost which is a play I like and was so well made by the Beeb. 

Finally acquiring the complete Beeb Shakespeare on DVD recently, I soon rewatched one of my most favourite Shakespeare plays, Richard II, and was simply enthralled by Jacobi in the part so was immediately persuaded to watch his Hamlet next. What a revelation this play now is for me! Yes, it is splendid, but I feel it needs an actor you can emphathise with to play Hamlet and this for me is Jacobi. Amazing. Intriguing to note that although he is older than I understand the character Hamlet was, it doesn't show whilst in Olivier it did. Now I note he's also in the Branagh version and had much to do with training Branagh, so I shall have to watch that to see what Jocobi does with Claudius! I'm interested to discover Jacobi has trained Branagh as yes, you can certainly see the influence.

And now I'm going to watch it all over again....
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I recently rented Twister, a movie I'd seen several years ago on TV, and it has aged well; I found myself laughing out loud several times at it and as weird as all these people are, by the end I profoundly cared about them. This is the sort of little movie that is made for a cult audience because, rather like Howdy's gazpacho (well, I think that's what it is), it's an acquired taste: you have to be attuned to its peculiar wavelength. The production values might be charitably called inexpensive and the pace and atmosphere take a while to get settled, but the film has a "look", especially in some wonderful shots contrasting the dry flatness of the land with the cluttery nouveau-riche opulence of the mansion interior: Michael Almereyda had a good eye even then. Life with sodapop magnate Eugene Cleveland (Harry Dean Stanton) and his household (two adult children, a grandchild, and a housekeeper) seems so detached from life outside we could be in Gormenghast. Everyone in this film is wonderful (especially Suzy Amis and Crispin Glover as the directionless genius siblings Maureen and Howdy), inhabiting their roles so comfortably after a while you just buy the strange premise, that somehow, having survived the tornado and being apparently incapable of happiness, these people are lucky, and yet don't know quite what to do with their luck. There are some truly great scenes: Eugene's sudden confrontations first with his gold-digging children's tv host girlfriend Virginia (an acidly pert Lois Chiles), then with his children; William S. Burroughs taking target practice in the barn and telling a story about a mysterious Jim; Maureen's boyfriend Chris proving himself by battling a shed full of wasps cloaked in a tablecloth and doily and old fedora; Howdy, Violet, Maureen and Chris all sitting on the couch (the latter three in appropriately lightweight summer garments, the former in a red blazer and black leather rock'n'roll gear) staring at images of deserts on the huge tv, and contemplating the future (the images were done by Bill Viola, who did the backdrop video installation for Nine Inch Nails' last tour). Crispin Glover is predictably magnificent as Howdy: as always, he remains perfectly in character. Howdy has made a cult of his misery and brilliance; he's like the Oscar Wilde of Kansas, striving to live up to his red velvet suit. Whether he's thrashing away tunelessly yet loudly on an electric guitar, cracking a fullsize bullwhip while wearing an all-black cowboy outfit, demolishing a room, or even doing simple things like driving or pouring the aforementioned soup from a blender pitcher, he's mesmerizing. If you like his work, you'll like this.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
It is fitting that the title character in Sydney White is defined from the beginning of the film by her awkwardness because the film, like the character, tends to begin every scene with a well-meant but inappropriate statement, then backtracks inadvertently making it worse and leaving the viewer in total confusion.

This scenario gets old quick. Now imagine a hour and a half of this, throw on the most predictable storyline imaginable; add some vague Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs references and Amanda Bynes blinking in wide-eyed puzzlement and you have Sydney White...for more of my review http://www.helium.com/items/1433421-sydney-white-review
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

This is a classic movie that dramatizes the plight of a man who cannot adjust to changes taking place in society and feels more and more alienated, which leads to violence. Joe is a worker, and he is dissatisfied and angry, and all he is needs is a pretext to lash out, which is what the story is about. Alone, Joe is quiet; together with someone else, he becomes lethal. And what makes the character of Joe even more chilling is that he fully rationalizes his violence so that to him it's not only not bad, it's necessary. For Joe projects his own violent tendencies onto those who he considers "the enemy" and therefore considers himself to be in a war, and in this movie, the "generation gap" is portrayed as a war. But it is a war in Joe's mind only, because "the enemy" in this case is in his imagination. Nobody wants to fight Joe, but Joe feels he must defend himself. Although this movie was released in 1970, it's message is as relevant now as it was then as society continues to undergo major changes which lead to the kind of intense alienation that the movie effectively dramatizes.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Do you hear that sound? That's the sound of H.G. Wells rolling over in his grave, between this version and Spielberg's cinematic abortion it's been a tough year for the classic novel. But at least Steven got a few things right compared to this crapperella. Hello, the ships weren't big insects, they had names. They were Tripods and the aliens worked in threes. The ships and the aliens were all wrong, you don't really get to see the aliens until the end. The effects and the cast work fine. But these actors are much better then this "movie" deserves. The bulk if not all the movie is the Howell character wondering through the devastation, meeting one person, they join him and he looses them for one reason or the other. There's not more then two people on camera at any given moment though most of the movie. It's like if they filmed three at once it would put the movie over budget or something. So fat the only and mean only watchable adaptation of the WAR OF THE WORLDS story is the GEORGE PAL version way back in the 1950s. THE BLACK HOLE.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

Sick of the current cinema output, particularly American cinema, I've been making an effort to see the Oscar-winning foreign films. That's when I came across this gem. Slow to start, it picks up nicely once war is declared. Basically an old fashioned girl-waits-for-boy-to-return-from-war-story, the performances, the cinematography make this so very much more. Why Tatyana Samojlova as the young woman didn't become an international star after this is beyond me(though she has remained successful in her own country). You take the journey with her: young, defiant impetuous young girl, who, through the ravages of war becomes a very sober, somber woman who keeps a glimmer of hope (her final scene is devastating). We love her as much as the camera does. And the camera-work! Was this the pioneer in hand-held camera work? It truly adds an immediacy to the story. And the beauty of it (like when Tatyana's character is running up stairs and next to a slatted fence). I am humbled and grateful to see this film.
I think there's a reason this film never came close to hitting theaters. It was probably my neighbors down the street who filmed this movie with their mother's video camera. The acting is very amateur. This movie is definitely not something you would want to watch unless you were extremely bored. The actors even seem to double as directors and crew members, with no "professionalism" whatsoever. Should the director(s) and/or actors choose to continue with their endeavor of making movies, I would definitely advise them to brush up on their skills and perhaps take a few (ok, many) classes on film-making and acting.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Sometimes the Academy doesn't recognize the potential of some films, or doesn't nominate them because they are controversial or strong. Sometimes they are nominated, but don't win anything (I hope this doesn't happen this year with "American Beauty"). This is exactly what happened with "Boogie Nights", which was the best film of 1997. The Academy preferred to give the best picture Oscar to "Titanic", a purely commercial and hollow film, and other awards to the overrated "Good Will Hunting" and the irritating "Full Monty". The other pictures which were nominated in the main category were "L.A. Confidential" and "As Good as it Gets", great movies, but "Boogie Nights" is still better and should have been remembered in more categories.

This amazing film tells the story of Eddie Adams (Mark Wahlberg, in a surprisingly great performance), a 17 year old barman who takes the attention of Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds, in a redeeming acting), a director of porn films. Eddie has a special 'gift', and this helps him to get into the world of porn movies. He changes his name for Dirk Diggler and starts to make a huge success. But fame... doesn't last forever. Other characters also have their parallel stories- Amber Waves (Julianne Moore, perfect), Buck (Don Cheadle) and others, including Rollergirl (Heather Graham), an actress who accepts to do anything, but she has to be wearing her roller shoes.

What could have been a banal, trivial film, turns into a perfect, memorable one in the hands of Paul Thomas Anderson. What makes "Boogie Nights" such a great film is its execution, added to a clever, well written screenplay, great soundtrack, etc. Each character is very well developed, and each of them has his/her importance in the context. Each feeling, weakness, fear, emotion is explored, resulting in a masterpiece of the modern American cinema.

"Boogie Nights" is a strong, impacting picture that should be seen by everyone who really likes cinema. Under a plot that seems banal at first impression, there is a wonderful story of highs and downs, things that we face in our lives. It is an amazing portrait of the end of the '70s and the beginning of the '80s, exactly an age of highs and downs. That's what makes this film so special and a true masterpiece. 

10/10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Logged on to the imdb to say what a charming film Love Love is and am totally confused. Seems to me that someone has been getting their titles mixed up. "Plastic demon baby" what? This wasn't Love Life. A little bit luvy dovey for my tastes but a great, funny and original film. Especially liked the ending that didn't fall into the normal pit of cliche that all hollywood romantic films crash and burn it. Nine out of ten.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This show is up there with the best Comedys made in Australia as it makes fun of pretty much anything which is what lots of our public want. Some of the best bits in the show are the ad road test which tests out how an ad would do in real life. What is really great about the show is how original it is and the fact that it has people(the chasers)who love doing what they do and who would n't. This show has loads of bits in it that can crack up anybody like the ad road test which I've already mentioned, Mr ten Questions where he asks 10 questions really fast in front of famous celebrities like Hugh Jackman and the Beach boys, temporary ones like The Chasers Emmys and ones that have been there from the start like What have we learnt from Current affairs this week. Overall I rate thin show 98%.

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

positive
This movie and several other movies from the 1950s with a religious overtone, such as The Robe, Quo Vadis, and Samson and Delilah, unfortunately depict all pagans or anybody who isn't a Jew or Christian as morally depraved and decadent. The focus is only on biblical-related stories that ignore the world outside the Bible. As far as they are concerned, nothing good came from pagan Egypt, Greece or Rome.

Any movie that preaches about the "one true god" gives a short shift to freedom of religion. The movies ignore the fact that ancient Judea's lack of religious freedom made it a fertile ground for religious extremism. Most 1950s religious movies also overlook the loss of freedom the occurred after Christians assumed political power in the 4th century.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This movie is full of pseudo deep thoughtfulness and it's cloying in its writerly-ness, that includes a canned ham voice-over and some unbelievable dialogue. Dialogue that is tinny and tone deaf the way Spike sometimes (not always) is when writing "certain" characters. For those that like nonsense films like Pieces of April and One Hour Photo, this is another one for you.

That said, this comment is nothing against Ryan Gosling who has shown his awesome chops in The Believer. A film that proves that movies are a director's medium, and when a movie is rotten it's fair to say the fault lies there and not in the actors.

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

negative
I saw this movie in the theatre and it was a terrible movie. The way Michael Oliver who now turn even worse in the sequel is the biggest intolerance I cannot bare. Junior upset his father because he would not go to school which got his father Ben madly insane. Also the Crazy Dance ride operator is not fair to Junior for not letting him go on the ride. And that Lawanda Dumore is as horrible as a serial killer to Junior because she made threatening insults to Junior which is why I cannot tolerate this movie. Even if the movie is re-released back into theatres in the extended version, I still would not see this movie because this movie is not something I can even tolerate. In fact, it stinks!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

1st watched 8/26/2001 - 8 out of 10 (Dir-John Cassavetes): Well-done early independent film by Cassavetes introduced a style that was much different than what Hollywood shows it's audience. This movie also introduced some very taboo subjects, especially the actual racism that probably was prevalent all over the country but was not displayed by the mostly white controlled filmmakers of the time. About the only black actors that had much respect at this time were the ones that acted and displayed personality like whites(aka. Sidney Poitier). Besides this, the idea of ending a film without truly concluding the relationships that began leaves many moviegoers dumbfounded but actually makes the viewers realize that life is like this(it goes on...). I prefer this kind of an ending because it makes you think more about the characters and what may happen next and the conclusions are not just laid out for you. The movie follows the lives of people(particulary a couple of people who have a brief relationship and happen to be opposite skin colors) then we watch what happens when the white man realizes what he's done. This is done very well and makes the movie very special. The acting is supposedly done improvisationally which makes the movie even more amazing. I guess you can say I liked this movie, if you can't tell. If you can find it check out this classic early independent film.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I really liked this movie.

Everyone has something to be blamed for, everyone is real. No paperboard heroes or cold, omnipotent, know-all characters.

I read many others viewers here complaining about Anne morality and about James will to maintain his love for her, despite her cheating on him, but I don't agree.

I found Anne (Emily Watson) absolutely wonderful and I felt love for her.

She was a heavily repressed woman, her actions were not planned: once she started to break free she was in confusion and did many errors. But so it's in real life, when you gain freedom you are likely to do errors (expecially at the start point).

Was she a little too ungrateful? Maybe. But we must remember that she is running with her feet for the first time. She knows that James after all is a good man, maybe a little too stiff, serious and work centered; but she also feels the urge to live the life as herself.

Is she to blame more than him? I think no.

But the turn happening into their lives generates some changes.

James instead of letting his wife go out of his life (as other viewers suggested as the right choice) bites the bullet and waits, hoping for the better. He starts to understand that what he superficially though was OK (his marriage) in reality was a control game played by him on his wife.

This is not a story with characters having over-emotional and precarious nature (i.e. the usual clichè Latin American or Italian jealous guys), this is a story of men and women that use both heart and brain.

It can be very painful but if you really love a person (women or man) and if you are not a terribly unstable nature, you are likely to forgive his/her cheating and let him/her go. Unless you are a jealous, prehistoric, crime-of-passion inclined, possessive and mentally instable individual.

A really good movie. The last scene, when James - despite all the things happened before - goes with Anne to the train station is really moving: She is free and He understood what freedom means for a person.

Guido
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I really really liked this one. I know, it's rampant with what are now cliché plot lines, and plenty of overacting, but it was hell of a lot of fun.

In our quest for 70's and 80's horror cheese, we come across many flicks that are so bad they're good. We also have some that are so 'good' they suck, and then, we have some that are so bad they are just bad. This is definitely so bad it's good.

Some teens traveling come across an 'oasis' in the middle of nowhere, a forgotten slice of roadside America, and they decide to 'check it out.' They cross every line of inappropriate until it is absurd and they pay for it. They pay dearly.

I would not normally give a movie like this a 9, but the girls in this one are the type that we miss from the 1970's: ditzy, scantily-clad and FIT. These aren't the anorexic broads from today's horrible horror; they look awesome in booty shorts.

I give it a 9 out of 10, kids.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

When I first saw it 9 years ago, when I was 9. I thought it stunk. I'm 18 now and I still think it stinks. I mean geez no Special effects or anything, it was boring and kinda anti-climatic. My cousin watched once and George Takai (Sulu) kept talking about how it was supposed to be so much better, but they kept cutting to the budget. It would have been a great episode, but it was a terrible movie.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Probably one of his lesser known films, it suffers from the same lack of exposure as Salvador in that its actually one of his best.

Written by and starring Eric Bogosian, Talk Radio tells the story of an opinionated radio phone-in host who upsets the wrong kind of listener. The film is important, and has much to say on the issues of free speech and just how free it should be, and you can easily tell that it started life as a stage play. Know what you're getting into before you sit down to watch it and you'll be fine.

There isn't much to the acting really as Bogosian pretty much steals the film, he wrote and is given licence to rant, I couldn't take my eyes off him and that was part of the fascination many of the listeners had; the people who hated him wouldn't turn off in-case they missed something.

Not for everyone, but a very good drama and overall a very good film.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I went to this film full of hope. With so many capable and humorous actors headed up by Sir Ben I thought this is going to be a little treat.

Oh how I felt like gouging my eyes out as the credits rolled. That I had wasted 93mins of my life this film that was clearly DOA. There are some real problems with this film and it will probably be easier to list them; 1. No jokes, I am not particularly hard to please comedically - high or low brow - but there really is not one laugh in this film.

2. Sir Ben mumbles through every single line whether he is supposed to be drunk or not?!? 3. There is no effort to to begin let alone develop the relationship between the love interests in this. 2 people bumping into each other randomly in the street would instantly have more rapport.

4. All the acting talent that is assembled is completely wasted. Don't be fooled into watching this because of the names.

5. For a cold ass hit-man he rubbed out more people in Gandhi than this flaccid waste of time (a by the way dyed beards look really creepy) I was hoping that this was a slow burner but in the end the only thing that could inject any life - and justice - into this is Frank pulling out his 9 and offing the whole cast starting with Tea and ending with himself - sorry it was that bad.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Man, I can't believe the largely harsh and negative comments for this movie. Okay, it sure ain't no sophisticated work of cinematic art. But it is a good deal of entertainingly tacky fun. For starters, the titular pumpkin-headed supernatural killer dude has to be one of the single most laughably silly and unscary things to ever stumble in front of a camera; he looks like something you would see in a fourth-rate carnival spookhouse. Secondly, the moderate gore is ridiculously fake and unconvincing, with the definite highlight occurring when this annoying uptight ultra-conservative woman gets electrocuted by a toaster. Then there's the always welcome presence of the ever-lovely Linnea Quigley, who's memorably introduced taking a nice, long, utterly gratuitous shower that goes on for two minutes. Amazingly, we also have appearances by deceased schlock picture legends John Carradine as an evil warlock and Cameron Mitchell as a horror TV show host. Moreover, scream queens Brinke Stevens and Dawn Wildsmith have fleeting cameos. Lead child actor Ryan Latshaw projects all the charm and acting ability of a moldy old tree stump. Pretty brunette Rachel Carter pops her top and bares her cute little breasts. The cruddy special effects are decidedly less than special. The score is suitably overwrought. Yet this film overall has a certain endearingly hokey appeal to it which in turn makes this honey a real delectably cheesy hoot to watch.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Harry Knowles has a quote right on the front cover of the DVD stating"The Next Icon of Horror" Really?!?!?!? I have heard a lot of hype surrounding this one but wasn't totally convinced. However I am a die hard horror fan and will give just about any horror movie a chance. No matter the budget or the rating cause ya never know where your gonna find the next gem. Not here.Not Hatchet. Hatchet is poorly conceived,poorly acted and un funny. Just because you have the actors who played Freddy Jason and Candyman and a Buffy chic topless with tons of gore does not make you an expert on horror.Sorry. I don't even want to describe the plot because it is so idiotic. Honestly my money is on Rob Zombie. There is a man who knows old school horror. Forget this trash.
Yes this movie features a gal named Jessica who says everything is evil and she causes trees to land on people too (well she only causes a tree to fall once, but she does say everything is evil). This movie is about a farm that apparently rents out rooms to people, but offers little else in the way of entertainment. Jessica can find things with a stick and she finds the head of an evil guy. Of course they don't know this until the owner of the farm's helpers open the box containing the head. The head proceeds to hypnotize everyone it can so it can get to Jessica and use her powers to find stuff to help look for his body. This movie has an interesting enough story, but it plays out very bad here. Everyone in this flick will get on your nerves at least once.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I was browsing through the movies on demand and saw Underdog for free and it was only 82 minutes long so I decided to watch it. I wasn't expecting much but it exceeded my expectations of being awful. Everything about the movie was cringe worthy. The dialogue was atrocious including many terrible puns. The jokes were also terrible. I found myself yelling and flipping off my television screen while I was suffering through this trash. It hit its target audience very well but I don't see how anyone else could enjoy this film. It made me very angry and nearly cry because of everything terrible this film had going for it.

The only enjoyable thing about this movie was being able to give it a 1/10 after viewing it. I beg you to avoid it at all costs. I understand the fact that its made for kids but there is nothing likable about it at all.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

This film was basically set up for failure by the studio. One, Anne Rice (author of the book) offered to write the screen play but was refused by the studio. Two, they tried to stuff 2 in depth novels in to a 2hour movie.

I maintain the only way for these two books -Vampire Lestat and Queen of the Damned- to work in a live action form would be through a mini-series. First off the the Vampire Lestat alone takes place from the 1700's to the 1980's and has a plethora of character vital to the plot understanding of the main character, Lestat. The entire book Vampire Lestat sets up the events of the second part Queen of the Damned. Without that full understanding the premise of a movie is destroyed.

Lestat was not cruel and vicious to all, he was not wanting to go along with Akasha's plans, Marius did not make Lestat, Lestat did not love Jesse or make her, Lestat could not go remain unscathed by the light, Marius was not after David nor the other way around, every character was completely represented wrong, BASICALLY same names different story.

If they wanted to make a vampire movie, fine. Even if you wanted to be inspired by these novels, fine. But don't piggie back into the theaters off the success of Rice's great novels and characters just to destroy what her loyal readers have come to love.

If you haven't read the books you won't understand the film really, if you have read the books you will be insulted. That being said, I am such a huge fan I had to see the movie knowing full well this was going to be the case and still went for it. Catch 22, must see it, will hate it.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

One of the best horror/suspense movies I have seen in a long time. Wow, it was a big surprise and stunning at how good this movie was, sometimes a gem like this will surface but is rare. I expected a popcorn monster flick and a mildly diverting way to spend a late night but instead a very well made and directed movie with great acting and made with passion and heart. 

This is a movie that makes you feel for the characters and what happens to them, and it is filmed like you are there and it is really happening. I know some people in other reviews compare it to "Open Water", but I disagree because I thought Open Water was quite boring and mediocre, while this movie was the opposite, although superficially they are filmed in the same "realistic" style.

The actors are unknowns, at least to me, but they all are very effective and convey the dire situation with frightening intensity and realism. The story is well done and flows smoothly, the plot is logical and appears to be something that could happen, all the actions and thoughts of the characters are quite what a person would do and think about. Very believable and this makes the movie more real because of it.

I had tears in my eyes at the end. I must say a movie seldom has this effect on me, this is how powerful and emotional this movie was done and I am suitably impressed by the director and actors of this great movie.
"Icky Flix" is an excellent starting point for anybody with even a vague interest in the Residents. Most of their classic videos are present (although "Earth vs. Flying Saucers" and "Don't Be Cruel" are curiously missing), and the "concentrates" of their various CD-ROM projects offer tantalizing glimpses into how the orbed ones have been spending their time since they realized MTV was no longer putting them in heavy rotation (or, indeed, showing videos period).

All of the videos on this compilation feature striking imagery and idiosyncratic music (with a choice of the original tracks and newly-recorded ones). And two of them -- "The Third Reich 'n' Roll" and "One Minute Movies" -- are in the Museum of Modern Art's permanent collection. Check out this DVD and find out why.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
When this show first came on the air, I saw it once or twice and thought it was another "fat guy, skinny wife" show that seemed to populate the networks at the time. It was just "okay" upon initial viewings and I didn't watch it again; however, once it went into syndication, I caught several episodes (simply because it was on twice a night), and I'm telling you, the more you watch this show, the funnier it is. Once you see how all of the great supporting characters are connected, this show makes you laugh out loud. Every new episode I watch is more creative than the one before--people who only watch this a couple of times will not notice this. The writing and story lines are much more sophisticated than they appear at first (this is far from "According to Jim"). First of all, Kevin James is hysterical, incredibly charming, and a talented comedic actor, as is the supporting cast. Leah Remini has excellent timing, and Patton Oswalt's Spence is one of the funnier characters on the show. And of course, Jerry Stiller is brilliant as Arthur. I was shocked to read comments that he was the worst part of the show--he's a gigantic part of why this show is so great--his delivery of these ridiculous schemes (rounding out the crazy dad character) are beyond hilarious. And the yelling--the best episode is when they show him as a kid yelling "Lemon Icee!!". That episode, during which Carrie takes him to a therapist in hopes to get him medicated (to make Doug less stressed out), guest star William Hurt decides that Arthur yells because he's never been validated. The latter part of the episode where Doug beats up his childhood self in a therapy session is beyond funny, it's one of the most creative scenes I've seen on a sitcom. I feel the strange need to defend this show, because it is severely underrated--while "Friends" was sometimes amusing, and "Raymond" has some great episodes and characters, they both lacked the creative touch that "King of Queens" has. In an era where most sitcoms have canned jokes and are on the whole mediocre, "King of Queens" continues to push the sitcom envelope and show real comic genius. Critics of this show obviously don't get it--or haven't watched the show enough to give it a chance, because anyone with real comic and creative sensibility has to laugh out loud while watching. It's certainly on par with my other two favorites, "Seinfeld" and "The Office" in its ridiculous tone. It's the Arthurs, Kramers, and Michael Scotts of TV that keep us watching, and laughing out loud.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

This movie is not very bad tjough. But one cannot find anything new about the personality of Marquis de Sade from this movie. The movie tries to stay on the borderline between erotic and insightful and it cannot succeed at either. The cinematography is really bad (straigh-to video quality)
What's an example of a movie review?

I'm sitting around going through movie listings and not really seeing anything I want to see. My appetite keeps saying, "Something like BROADCAST NEWS." That's what I want. Something smart and funny, with adult ideas and great acting and writing, and a directorial style that doesn't call attention to itself. This may well be Hurt's best performance (is this or THE BIG CHILL, to my mind): however eccentric, Hurt is smart, and to play an unintelligent person without making sure -- wink wink -- the audience knows -- wink wink -- hey, I'M not stupid... well, that's fine acting right there. Hunter is note-perfect, and Albert Brooks is a revelation. (And he can read and sing at the same time!) Great, great work.
A tedious gangster film that leaves you wishing someone had edited it farce more ruthlessly. I would have thought that the story of the creation of Las Vegas would prove interesting but it fails at almost every turn. Warren Beatty's performance as the stupid and unlikeable Bugsy Seigel leaves you wishing you were watching someone else. Once or twice he flashes through the fog of his performance to deliver an interesting scene but most of the time you just can't care about him. Annette Benning gives a skilled turn as his untrustworthy lover but even she's only faintly more savoury than he is.

I really wouldn't bother with this turgid drama unless you're a Benning devotee.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

it's embarrassing I had like 3 minutes on my way to a job to stop at the video store and it was 2 for 1 night and I was really intrigued by the half nekkid pic of the 'star'. 

I guess this film shows what the new york film school and sir daddy's fortune - judging by the bio of this clown in the lead - can do for you and you and you cause that's about what we have here and in addition a photoshopped pic of the lead "actor" with someone else's body in a still image that doesn't happen anywhere in the movie. it's weird cause in so many ways it had money thrown at it obviously low budget money buckets but from the outset when all the extras are laughing in their scene of terror it doesn't bode well would have maybe had some charm if it had been done for 2 cents! in short order I skipped scenes and fast forwarded to see the image on the box that was all I really cared about. strange, why don't I just rent a porno or something? but wow there is bad acting that's funny I guess and bad acting that's just bad. robert englund is pretty pathetic in this along with everyone else. it does make you appreciate the more not so straight to video horror that's out there. . . blah most of which I wouldn't bother with. shoulda watched uh hellraiser 3 if I wanted to see an 8 pack! I would imagine horny old gay guys with 2 minutes in the video store are going to be the principle renters of this and they ought to start a class action suit!
Although not a big Coen brothers fan, I am an admirer of their dark humor films like 'Fargo' and 'Miller's Crossing.' I have been much less impressed by their other comic mode, goofy-camp (or is that Camp Goofy?) Unfortunately, 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?' falls into the latter category and isn't even as good as 'The Big Lebowski' or 'The Hudsucker Proxy.'

'O Brother' is basically an episodic series of in-jokes without much point, and not all that much humor or cleverness either. As most reviewers have noted, the film's plot is very loosely  and, as far as I could tell, quite arbitrarily  based on The Odyssey. Its main character, Ulysses Everett McGill (George Clooney), is an 'adventurer' like his Homeric namesake and has as his 'real' goal the return home to prevent the marriage of his wife Penny to a suitor. Of course, we don't discover that this is what the Clooney/Ulysses character really wants until long after we've stopped caring. And what does Homer have to do with "Cool Hand Luke" chain gangs, Ku Klux Klan meetings a la "Indiana Jones" cult gatherings, a disbarred lawyer's vocabulary, a talent for blue-grass country music singing, an association with Baby Face Nelson, a Clark Gable lookalike hairdo, and other random and sundry character traits and encounters? I leave that for others to discern.

The allusion to Preston Sturges' 'Sullivan's Travels' in 'O Brother's' title is equally pointless. Yes, viewers familiar with the Sturges minor screwball comedy classic might find it mildly rewarding to recognize the title of the socially conscious Depression movie Sullivan abandons Hollywood and comedy hoping to make. And they might even be mildly amused by a couple of shot/scene riffs (e.g. hopping freight cars, and the chain gang shuffle into view a movie). But so what? The Coen brothers don't seem to have anything to add to the art-for-art's-sake versus moral high seriousness critical debate about the function of art. They obviously fall into the former school, but that doesn't seem to motivate the reference in the slightest. Is it an homage? If so, why make it? I like post-modern pop culture reference and textual play as much as the next person, but it's a lot nicer when it amounts to something at least tonally, if not thematically, consistent  and not just an arbitrary concoction.

This screenplay is simply a silly mess. The only consistent, and consistently pleasing, element is the folk/country music soundtrack. It doesn't have much to do with Homer or Preston Sturges, but, considering the rest of the film, that's probably a good thing. On the other hand, I'd recommend using the price of admission on the soundtrack CD.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Idiocracy felt like Mike Judge took my thoughts on society and put them into film. In fact, the movie is a social commentary. Almost feels like a documentary at times. Luke Wilson did a good job playing a boring average joe (Like in most of his movies).

Of Course Idiocracy was an extreme of the current state of society. But that's what makes most comedies funny, a extreme of any situation. Fiction isn't that much different then reality.

With kids praising materialist Hip-Hop culture and taking pride in being ignorant. When people feel useless in life, they breed. Giving them a purpose in the world. And it seems only the worse people breed the most. I can understand how others don't like it. It doesn't help most of the jokes were 2nd grade bathroom humor. Not much different than a Kevin Smith film.

Idiocracy throws away logic, reason, any intelligence (For good reason).

Mike Judges comeback was a knockout.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Who doesn't remember The Muppet Movie???

Kermit the Frog is now an American culture icon. What child doesn't appeal to this character?

As the first actual Muppet film, the movie simply called, The Muppet Movie did very well. Kermit takes a Hollywood agent's advice and goes out of his home swamp to respond to the ad. Along the way he meets up with a pig, a bear, chickens a rock band and a few other quality puppets. Watch for dozens of cameo appearances like Madaline Kahn, Steve Martian, Richard Pryor, Mel Brooks and several more. I grew up watching this movie and I loved it.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
One of my co-workers recommended this one, implying that it was one of the most frightening movies she ever watched. I checked it out together with my girlfriend and we gave up after 50 minutes or so.

Yesterday, I had a long talk with my co-worker (we're still friends!).

This movie is as original as the latest film starring Steven Seagal. It brings absolutely nothing original to the table. The spooky parts have been done thousand of times before.

The biggest fault however is the painfully slow pace of this movie. The periods between the scares are completely wasted with meaningless dialog and a lot of.. nothing..

1 of 10 Molotov cocktails
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Film auteur Stephan Woloszczuk explores the depths of love, passion, and brotherhood and the devastating results of loss in his latest film BLINDSPOT.

BLINDSPOT'S diegetic world is exploding with suspense and takes the audience on a twisting  journey to the core of the human soul.  As a director, he manages to draw the human spirit from the performances of his actors.   With superb editing, especially in the flashback scenes and beautiful cinematography, BLINDSPOT is a thought provoking suspense from beginning to end.  A thriller which leaves much to the minds' eye.

What an  astounding accomplishment for Stephan Woloszczuk.

  Cheers Stephan! Angela Sander
I love watching steven seagal movies not because of the action of the great plot holes but just because it makes me laugh

oh it makes me laugh so hard this movie totally got no point and is ridiculous compared to this movie Pearl harbor rocks!!! and Ben affleck need no acting school at all just to give a impression how bad it is

first off all there so many goofs and bad acting its just getting worse like when steven is try to get out of jail a chopper lands at first the security notice and they led them land when they fly away all of the sudden a guard start shooting

or when he killed that guy in the car he and treach both walk away you can't see no oil on the ground behind him steven notice that there is oil without even watching treach trows a lighter and the car blows up

and there are plenty of more goofs Steven uses his basic action when someone is pointing a gun at him he grabs it and shoot him totally bullshit!!! like some gangster would let that ever happen.

the acting is also very worse at the fight scene in the jail outdoor place you can see steven clearly wait to come in action just rewind it a couple of time and you notice the bad acting

its just makes me laugh i hope one day it comes to the cinema's here in Holland then i'll go there with as many friends as possible just to laugh my self to death

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

negative
This movie is a disgrace. How can you take one of the greatest science fiction stories of all time and turn it into some kind of half-assed love story. The entire beginning of the movie was not in the H.G. Wells story and didn't need to be. Also the Eloi were done completely wrong. They did build houses or form any kind of real society. They didn't care about each other at all. That was an important part of the story. The way they had formed a world that was without hardship or complex emotions. They were barely even aware of the Morlocks. I don't know why this movie was made the way it was but some stories should be told as they are or left alone.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Piper, Prue and Phoebe bring Dr. Griffiths to the Manor in order to try and save him from The Source's personal assassin, Shax. Whilst Phoebe looks in the Book of Shadows for a spell to vanquish Shax, Prue and Piper are attacked by Shax and chase him into the street. Unbeknownst to Prue and Piper, they were filmed by a news reporter and her cameraman using their powers and broadcasted live on national television. With Phoebe in the Underworld, Prue, Piper, and Leo must find a way to reverse the damage done. Leo goes down to Phoebe, and tells her that the Charmed Ones have been exposed as witches. On the surface, Piper is shot by a manic witch-wannabe, and Prue has to take her to the hospital. The problem here is that the crowds are blocking the driveway. So Prue has to use her magic on the crowd, and they go to the hospital. Piper is pronounced dead, and a SWAT team moves in. Leo learns of Piper's death, and goes down to tell Phoebe. Cole is asked to ask The Source to reset time, and The Source agrees; only if Phoebe turns to the dark side. Phoebe agrees, but the deal will shatter them. Up on the surface, Prue and Piper are battling Shax. Prue shouts out for Phoebe, who unbeknownst to them is in the Underworld. Shax throws Piper and Prue through a wall, and Dr. Griffiths out of a window. Prue is not pronounced dead until the Season 4 Premiere episode, "Charmed Again, Part One".

"All Hell Breaks Loose" is a gripping episode, and it made me sit on the edge of my seat. Sad that Prue's dead, but happy that there will be five more seasons of Charmed. My vote; 10 out of 10. EXCELLENT
What's an example of a movie review?

What makes watching and reviewing films a pleasure is when every once in a while when you least expect it a film like The Cell comes along and knocks your socks off!. This movie is a superb horror that has everything a you could want when you want to be scared out of your witts. Without going into the story all i will say is that it has a great beginning ,middle and end that keeps you on the edge of your seat while being transfixed with the amazing special affects. The acting is good without being outstanding but that does not matter because the subject matter and the way it is put on the big screen makes this one of the best horror movies i have seen for a long while. It is one of those films that you imagine started as a novel but saying the credits it does not look like an adaptation , so a lot of credit must go to Mark Protosovich the writer. 9 out of 10.
What's an example of a movie review?

I suppose that to say this is an all-out terrible movie would be unfair, but it's pretty bad. The sub-Disney storyline involves dogs playing soccer and falling in love (aw, how cute!) The acting isn't bad, but definitely could be better, especially that of young Canadian actor Kevin Zegers, who, during the whole movie, looks embarrassed, like he doesn't even want to be there. Anyway, kids will love it, but parents beware!