cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Dead Man's Bounty (the film's American title) has the look and feel of a classic Italian western. The cinematography, costumes, and sets look great. The cast is rugged, not a pretty face among them. At the beginning I was preparing for a pretty cool movie but what I eventually witnessed was an absolute disaster.

The script was perfectly dreadful. There was no suspense whatsoever and very little action or worthwhile drama.

Despite looking great, the cast spoke (English) with heavy European accents that were often unintelligible.

The final nail in it's coffin was the broad streak of pretentiousness that paints most of the picture, focusing heavily on the character of the barmaid who's featured in a couple of very awkward sex scenes. Also her speech near the end was pretty repugnant!

The only novelty comes from the stunt casting of Val Kilmer in the role of the dead man, continuing his recent string of DOA performances!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Ok let's start with saying that when a dutch movie is bad, it's REALLY BAD. Rarely something with a little bit of quality comes along(Lek, Karakter) here in holland but not often. Costa! is about 4 girls going to Spain to go on vacation, party, get drunk, get laid (u know the drill). It's also about the world of Clubbers or Proppers. Pro's who're trying to lure the crowd into their club.

I'm not sure how long it took to write the script, but i suspect somewhere between 15 minutes and 20 minutes because you're watching a bunch of random scenes for 90 minutes long. Nothing, and i mean nothing is believable in this movie. It's almost too riduculous for words what happens with the storyline. Suddenly the movie transforms into a sort of karate action thing. With a one-on-one fight with 'the bad guy in black' and cliche car chase scenes trough a watertank-car (can it be more cheesy). Also the words character-development and casting are unfamiliar to the makers.

After having seen "Traffic" 3 days before this, i fell from sheer brilliance, from a piece of art to this. This is film-making at it's saddest. And don't start about low budget. Because even with a low budget you could write a better script. It almost seems that the film-makers were too busy partying themselves to make a decent movie.

Anyway the chicks in the water at the end made it up a little bit, but for the rest of it, don't waste your money on such garbage.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I enjoyed this movie extremely. It was the last great Mario Van Peebles movie I know of. It had a hip-hop old west flavor to it. Big Daddy Kane and Tone Loc had major parts. It shouldn't have won any Oscars, but it was enjoyable all the same.
I saw this film at the Seattle International Film Festival in a full house of avid movie buffs and Indian ex-pats. The film is amazingly beautiful and smooth flowing for a first film. The direction is self assured, especially with locals who were recruited on the fly for extras and bit parts. While the plot and story line is elementary to nonexistent, the pleasures of watching the performances and scenery offset the lack. The soundtrack to this film is a big attraction to world music lovers. If you want to see what can be done in 45 days, with a different location every day, check out Hari Om for inspiration. It was not disclosed in the Q & A, but I imagine Hollywood could take a lesson in budget film-making by learning from this director.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: There is nothing in this that the viewer could point to and call "good". The acting was dull and sedated. The sets and cinematography look like they were developed by someone grew up in a Starbucks and tried to make the perfect Gap commercial. Characters have no drive, motivation, or reason for us to care about them. There's such a lack of interest and tension that it's hard to follow the banal action and dialog. And the plot... if anyone finds it, I'm sure it would be as boring as everything else.

This isn't funny, it's not romantic, it doesn't reflect on the human condition. If you want a good stoner comedy, watch Half-Baked; if you want a good stoner drama, watch Trainspotting. The only reason I gave this 2 stars instead of one is because it's kind of fun seeing some familiar faces in the mid-late 90's cast. Which is a shallow reason to give the film even one star, but, then again, this is a shallow movie.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

This is a movie with an excellent concept for a story but that got sidetracked but a large number of clichéd sub-plots, hackneyed and unrealistic portrayed characterizations and performances, and some frankly implausible (and highly coincidental and, not to mention, convenient as plot points to move the story to its inexorable finish).

The lack of anything that marked the lead as actually gay, other than some coincidental references to Crow Bar or that he's gay, was troubling. It wouldn't have hurt to actually show him do something, even if it was just meet a friend for drinks.

It's worth checking out and has it's merits. There isn't much, even now a few years after the movie was released, in the way of movies that feature both a lead that is gay, or a significant gay plot line, and that is also about African-Americans. For that, it's worth checking out. I wouldn't look too hard for it and I wouldn't waste my time looking for it to own. This is a rental, and not a premium rental at that.
See Three Colors: Blue and Three Colors: White. They are both wonderful films and will give an added dimension to the finale Three Colors: Red. Red is a fantastic film. It can be enjoyed in a single viewing, and indeed, the climax of the film is very powerful in that first viewing. But, watch it again. Once you understand the use of symbolism and character parallels in this movie, you will see new things with each viewing. With the first viewing you understand that the film is the work of a brilliant mind. With each additional viewing, you find yourself discovering that it is, in fact, a work of genius. Red is meant to symbolize fraternity in the French flag. The story turns the theme of fraternity around to be viewed at angles one would never suspect. The facets of fraternity shared by the different characters is as deep as you care to peer. If you are used to the blatant "symbolism" in most mass films, you may find Red a bit slow. You may find yourself looking at a screen filled with intensity that you do not fathom... and yawning, wonder what all the excitement is about. This is not a mindless, vicarious experience. Everything is not explained to you. You must think as you watch. You must see... not simply look. Wonderful movie... one meant to be enjoyed by a wonderful moviegoer.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Seeing this movie in previews I thought it would be witty and in good spirits. Unfortunately it was a standard case of "the funny bits were in the preview", not to say it was all bad. But "the good bits were in the preview".

If you are looking for an adolescent movie that will put you to sleep then Watch this movie.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Well now this strange movie. It was listed as a comedy but I certainly found nothing to laugh at. Actually I am struggling to find anything positive to say about this film. Oh here I go. Alex Ferns is not bad in the lead role and I did not pick the ending for a change, but apart from that this has no great direction solidly two dimensional characters and is not funny enough to be a comedy or serious or dark enough to be any form of decent drama. I would really avoid ever having to watch this movie again and think it does nothing to benefit any of the working class characters it is attempting to portray. I found it hard to empathise for any of the characters and was not given enough information on the lead character Jimmy to believe his motives. Best avoided.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I know that Trey Parker and Matt Stone really hate celebrities and spoof them in every single episode of South Park (if not showing them, then mentioning them) and they love to mock and joke and make fun of themselves too, but I felt this mockumentary went too far.

For one thing, the most common running theme in the "documentary" is that they're episodes are meaningless pieces of crap they put out just for the money. Obviously, that's completely untrue if you even bother to watch any episode, and the constant "You know, I learned something today..."'s said at the end of almost every episode by the main characters. The creators are also depicted as pompous, arrogant asses who only care about money, including a supposed-to-be-funny-but-isn't scene involving Isaac Hayes delivering lines for Chef (over the phone) and Trey Parker yelling and screaming at him for sucking and hanging up. I guess it's supposed to be funny, but the pretension in it just really made it... cringe.

The way they interview employees working for Trey and Matt shows the duo as tyrants who push their employees to the limit, all just for money, in the end. Completely untrue, obviously, and all a joke, but it's just not funny. It's disturbing, even though it's just a joke.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I have seen this movie and in all honestly was quite disappointed. And in my opinion this movie lacks heart. I frankly didn't care what happen to the characters by the end of the movie. 

There was so much there they could have done with the movie that they didn't because they were either so rapped up in trying to be obscure and make some deep comment on life, or trying so hard not to, that the characters and story were completely lost in all of it. I have seen another picture by this director and enjoyed it well enough. But I felt this film lack of the whimsy and heart of the other and I was left wondering what the point was, or if the point of the movie was that it had no point. Honestly, while I didn't feel like tearing my hair out during the movie, I did remorse the lost time on the sad little film.

I have no doubt that some people will love this movie, but frankly I didn't.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Original Movie lovers can actually love this show, if they just stop complaining all the time.

The Emperor's New School brings up some old jokes from the movie, like pulling the lever to Yzma's lab and Kuzco pausing the episode. But since it's a kids show, it's just classic and is in their right places. Even though the style is much more simple, the animation and characters keeps their personalities very well and it surprised me, actually. Eartha Kitt makes excellent voice acting for Yzma and J.P Manoux does a wonderful job for Kuzco's voice instead of David Spade, who played Kuzco in the movie. Great plots, hilarious moments and Kuzco's amazing looks makes this show worth watching. (Just stop complaining about everything!)
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

This film has to be as near to perfect a film as John Ford made. The film is magic, a masterpiece, the reason Ford was, well Ford. If you want to know why Ford was great this one explains it.

The photography of course is superb, black and white as black and white should be, wonderful shots, not an over the shoulder conversation in it, pure Ford, great moments, big and little. The famous ripped pants of Ward Bond. Apparently two dogs kept invading the set and fighting so Ford wanted to use them in the fighting scene, but instead of fighting one dog ran away and the other attacked Ward Bond and ripped his pants, which caused Ford no end of mirth. A whole scene around plaiting a rope. The way Ben Johnson burn then snuffs his rope, wonderful foreshadowing and anticipation of the final. Harry Carey's naive courting of Prudence. The usual ford line about being scared and not showing it. Bond's horse accidentally falling in him and its left in the film. Johnson and Bond are fantastic in that scene. Lord help any Ford actor who does not stay in character while the camera is rolling even when a horse falls on top of you.

A couple of very sweet romances, not intruding on the whole focus, two very likable leads, not to mention for the girls, the number of times the cameras focus on Ben Johnson's rather delightful backside.

Lots of old time stuntmen getting lines and roles, Cliff Lyons, Frank McGrath. Some wonderful character studies mostly of faces staring, all the villains and main stars. A set of villains to rival any group in any western.

Many many Fordian shots of faces, groups, children, women, small things happening, foals in the background (Ford seems to love images of foals), women in aprons, allowing the moment as wagons cross rivers and the camera lingers.

This is probably not a western as much as an artist's picture that happens to be set in the west.

Lucky the film was made in 1950 because it is impossible to imagine such a film could be ever made again, but then it is such a work of art that it would be a sacrilege to attempt it
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

within about 5 minutes in to the film the first fight scene i was watching i just could help but pointout the lack of tension in the scene the cameras crossing back and forth really shows he had no idea what he was doing, well actually the soundtrack shows that the best. i no its a low budget film and your not going to get top 40 songs but at least get music that goes with the scene that isn't actually that hard acting, well if i saw any i would gladly let you know. the script was so badly written would now surprise me one bit of the guy directing wrote this piece of beep, i will give the person one 10/10 and that was for the DVD cover because if i actually saw "before watching this" in a shop and it was like 10 15 bucks i would have bought it, why well if you look at the front cover this actually well done you flip over to the back and you see that it has actually won awards. now that is a very misleading thing because even in a small film festival i wouldn't ever believe in my life that this would win anything all i can say is "wow if this was the best i wouldn't want to know what the crap in the film festival was like"

films that are this bad only have one good use and that is for a aspiring film maker to use as inspiration films like this are better tools then good films, because with good film you almost know off the bat there is a good chance you wont make a film that good, but if you use a film like this you can look at all the things they director or writer did wrong so you wont make the same mistakes, and you have the added plus of looking at this film and saying if a piece of beep like this can get made then there is hope of anyone out there
Admittedly, I tuned into this in the hopes of seeing some beefcake shots of James Brolin. Unfortunately, there was only one, early on, and the rest of the movie was very tame, and ultimately made little sense.

The story, what there is of it, centers on Nick and Julie Atkins, a couple whose marriage of many years is beginning to grow stale. Nick, a successful businessman is focused on work to the point of neglecting Julie, who tries to fill the void by going back to school. Julie's longing for the passion that she and Nick had early in their marriage begins to take shape in the form of powerful sexual fantasies which block out reality for minutes at a time, causing her to do things like burning breakfast and misplace her husband's papers. At first she fantasizes about her husband, but as the movie progresses, she begins to fantasize about other men, and about encounters with random strangers whom she meets. This culminates in her acting out her fantasies with disastrous consequences for her marriage. Can she and her husband rebuild their relationship? Is it worth saving? 

This could have been an interesting premise, but the execution is so bland that you wonder why they even bothered. Characters aren't developed. Motives aren't explained. Background information isn't given. No exploration is made of how Julie got to the point where she couldn't control herself, and no explanation is offered as to how she will do so in the future. The end product is a muddled mess which is just as confusing as Julie's fantasies, which are surprisingly underdeveloped.

The acting is a mixed bag. Donna Mills as Julie does well with the material she is given, although her continual self pity does become strident after awhile. James Brolin acts as though he is reading his lines from cue cards, and even his anger over his wife's infidelity is hard to buy into, he shows so little passion over the whole issue. The supporting roles are mostly forgettable.

Disappointing treatment of what could have been an interesting story. More's the pity, since it doesn't even offer the eye candy it promised.

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

negative
A criminally short lived show that went on to spawn three movie spin-offs (Naked Gun 1, 2 & 3), this is fast-paced, in your face, rapid fire comedy that has more hits than misses. 

Leslie Nielsen plays Detective Lieutenant Sergeant Frank Drebin, an incompetent Detective who bumbles and fumbles his way through cases, with the capable assistant of his boss, Capt. Ed Hocken.

The story lines are spurious, at best, but it's deliberate, as the goodness here lies not in the storytelling, but in the weaving of a constant flurry of jokes along with some genuinely weird and wonderful characters. 

The jokes themselves come in many forms, be it wordplay, slapstick, puns or background gags, most of them hitting the spot, though some fall a little flat. It's inevitable with this 'gag every few seconds' approach that some will fail, but the ratio is good. 

The characters are a delight. From the guest star of the week dying in the opening seconds of every episode, the laboratory scientist who appears to be conducting cruel and unusual experiments on children to the shoe-shine who is some form of oracle, the writing is witty and sharp as a cutlass. 

Though not especially successful at the time, it rapidly developed a cult following, many blaming the shows' relative lack of success on being way ahead of its time and too sophisticated for the target audience, chief amongst them none other than Matt 'The Simpsons' Groening: and he should know. 

Dated by todays standards, if you can see through that aspect, you're in for a treat.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This film is too good for words. Its so unbelievably great and funny and true to life. You just know from watching this that the person who wrote this has DEFIANTLY felt the way that Jip and his friends do through the film. It was my life at one point and I would rely on coming home to watch Human Traffic ever night before I could even think of going to bed. I think you just get so loved up with the characters and their life style. Of course, this film wouldn't be for old people more around the age of 16 to 22 I guess. There is defiantly nothing wrong with this film and it will have you in stitches all the way through. It doesn't have a particular story line to it. The general idea is a weekend in the life of older teens in London and what they get up to. The places they go, the people they meet, the drugs they take and the experiences they have. You have to get this movie on DVD never mind just watching it, you have to have it!!!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is a very strange series with Dean Learner. I really didn't understand the guests. I knew they weren't serious but whether they were really them was unclear because...i guess i'm just that stupid. I don't know if this classes as a spoiler but the guests aren't real like in Ali g or anything they're played by one man or so i believe. I love the serious look that he's got going on. Its like that programme that was on on a Sunday morning that i forget the name of lol. I also really like the suit and moustache thing he has got going on. Its quite hot. He's insensitive which is one of the funniest qualities. I also like the way he has subsections of the programme. It makes it seem more authentic.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I saw this film at the tender age of 18 with a group of friends. Its reputation had preceded it, and though all my friends were also of legal age, I alone had the courage to enter the video store and actually rent it. We gathered at a house where the parents had left town for the weekend. Though we sat in close proximity to each other, we did not speak or otherwise acknowledge each other's presence. As it turned out, the film both merited and did not merit the anticipatory shame we felt. It did not disappoint in terms of sheer gratuitous content, but it disappointed in every other way.

Caligula attempts to transcend genres by combining a historical epic with a brazen porn flick. It fails miserably in its ambition, subjecting the audience to the worst of both worlds. The film's obvious selling point is its pornographic aspect, and it does indeed provide far more than its share of real, graphic sex. But in setting this sex in the context of Caligula's depraved reign, it dignifies the act even less than the average adult movie. Sex without context might at least be physically pleasurable for the consenting adults involved, but pleasure and perhaps even consent are largely absent from the world of Caligula. In it, sex at best serves as an idle pastime and at worst as an instrument of sadistic domination. In the present day, it is somewhat common to hear words like "sin" and "depravity" used facetiously to describe acts which are enjoyable yet considered taboo according to certain moral or religious perspectives. Caligula takes the viewer beyond the facetiousness by depicting true depravity and demonstrating that no joy or pleasure comes from it.

The historical portions not only fail to meaningfully contextualize the sex, they fail to entertain, enlighten, intrigue, or interest the viewer in any way. They only provide lengthy stretches of unremitting tedium. Rarely has a film proved so boring. The sex, after the initial shock and astonishment fades, only contributes to the overall monotony of the picture.

Rarely do discussions of this film involve its violence. While many films more violent than Caligula have been made, few can rival it in terms of the shock value of its violence. Apparenly, unrelenting barbarity as well as hyper-depraved sexuality characterized Caligula's emperorship. The violence is even less for the faint of heart than the sex.

A review like this will likely generate as much curiosity as it quells. I understand why someone would want to see this film; after all, I myself succumbed to the same curiosity. I simply hope that my review, by plainly describing its lack of redeeming value, will at least give potential viewers the knowledge to make an informed decision about whether to see it or not. My high school criminal justice teacher described police work as "hours of boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror." This statement perfectly describes Caligula. You have been warned.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Only adding to the chorus of people who deemed this to be 'unredeemable' I will state the following without repeating the obvious FLAWS plainly stated by some of the other commentators: The "film" is shot on video (what type of camera I don't know) but the cameraman had it on AUTOFOCUS(!) all the time, so that any slight movement makes it go In and Out of focus. In many of the scenes the actors themselves go OUT of focus for their scenes. This alone screams "Amateur".

I also noticed that out in the 'middle of the cornfield', you can hear the sound of the gasoline generator that is powering the lights ... loudly.

Also what is with that single lighting source that follows (and many times 'leads' the actors) when they walk around. It looks like a newscaster with that 'on camera light' that follows the people around like a spotlight. There was no 'credit' for lighting design/DP and I know why. The 'filmmakers' saw no need to have someone who actually knew what they were doing lighting this picture (note I didn't say "film"). So be prepared for a SINGLE glaring spotlight as the sole source of 'cinematic lighting' for most of the movie. UGhhh!!!

This is probably the most technically inept production I've ever seen commercially released. I "bought" this title because I like bad cinema. Usually it's so bad that you can laugh at it. This is just so bad that it's unwatchable. Plan Nine from Outer Space is "Citizen Kane" in comparison to this title.
If you want a complete waste of time, because pulling lint out of your belly button or cleaning the wax out of your ears or grouting your tile is your idea of a carnival thrill ride, then you'll not want to miss this one.

For one thing, forget the VHS cover. NO body in this movie looks that attractive (ie, the Indian girl). Someone else commented that whoever posed for the cover is not the same girl and I agree. The cover is THE most exciting thing about this movie.

To put this in perspective, I bought this VHS for 99 cents at K-Mart and three minutes, no, 40 seconds into the movie, I knew I had been ripped off.

I finished watching it because 1) I did pay 99 cents after all and, 2)there might possibly, conceivably been a hair of chance some scene in this turkey was worth more than a pinched loaf.

There wasn't.

Good grief, Fonda. I know you were hard up for roles when you did this, but this is beneath you.

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

negative
I had a different experience with this movie - it never got charming, or delightful, or funny for me. one big clue that this was not your typical movie was that the label gave no indication of the Ianguage(s) spoken in the film. another was the lack of choices re subtitles.

I found the lack of dialogue annoying, especially when accompanied by exaggerated facial expressions as it almost always was. The wildly inconsistent development of the feeble plot was puzzling. Were there characters, or only vague gestures? was there even a plot?

on a separate matter, I'm getting prompted to correct the spelling of "dialogue", with the suggested substitute of "dialogue". maybe this movie in its entirety, including the IMDb portion, is designed to puzzle, or amaze, but I'm getting more irked than amused.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

This film could of been a hell of a lot better if they didn't use Brian Conley as a gangster and if they didn't start the film with Christopher Biggins.

When I watched this film I had absolutely no idea what was going on. There were too many double crosses and plot twists to make the film believable. The film deserves a 0, but seeing as I there isn't a 0 I gave it a 1.

I wouldn't recommend this film to my worst enemy, I would rather poke out my eyeballs with some rusty scissors than watch this film again. I'm telling you, that was an hour and a half of my life I won't get back.

If you want to watch a gangster film, don't get this. Watch "Going Off Big Time" or "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" instead.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I rented this film when my girlfriend was away, hoping to see some serious military/specialist action.

After 10 minutes of watching this "movie" I was so terrified and horrified and sick of the quality of everything in this film that I was ready to destroy the rented disc with a flame thrower. Luckily I couldn´t find one. I´ve seen many bad films. But this is not even bad, it is total garbage and it does not even deserve to be counted as a movie here on IMDB.

I feel sorry for the people who have been involved in the making of this total disgrace. Hope it wins some Oscars though :D.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

A truly excellent look at the world and the realities of being a heroin addict. The movie is one that will hit much too close to home to those who were involved in the drug culture and have knowledge of what being(or being around) a heroin addict really is. Good movie, which will never truly be outdated. Excellent performances by all involved and the minimalist set is Preminger's way of showing how bleak a JUNKIE'S world can become. Worth a look--an education of sorts. The golden arm is a worried look at the truth of the underground life of pain a junkie lives in.
I starred as Eugene Morris Jerome in my high school adaptation of the play and this film definitely doesn't live up to the script or the imagination of Neil Simon. I know this play backwards and forwards and I can honestly tell you that the acting was off, The production was cheesy. The changes in the play's script were poorly done. If you want to really enjoy this play you should see the actual play, not a Hollywood movie adaptation. The Eugene character lacked soul and was overly sarcastic in all he said. The other characters were off key as well. A general disappointment, messy, disloyal to the play, amateurishly executed!

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

negative
I enjoyed Carax's "Les Amants du Pont Neuf" and was therefore expecting this film to be of a similar standard. Well, the first 10 minutes were OK, but then it disintegrates into a rather pretentious journey of a young man looking for the essence of life. A sad disappointment.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Mockumentaries are proliferating lately so much that the approach therefore needs an injection of fresh and creative material each time it's used to maintain its vitality. This film does not deliver anything but worn out retreads of similar stories, an aimless script, weak ad-libs, uninspired acting, and unfunny self-gratifying humor. 

The premise would seem promising enough; the legend of the Loch Ness monster is made to order for one of these goofy mockumentary misadventures, with a vast array of history and legend waiting to be tapped for outrageous satire. The film makers totally waste this enormous potential, however. We get some fool inserting a fake Nessie into the water. Gee, that's original. Another scene has one obnoxious idiot threatening another obnoxious idiot with a gun. Sidesplitting. Some gratuitous shots of a pretty girl in a bikini. Annette did that 40 years ago (and far better, by the way). Throughout the movie, somebody always seems to be yelling: I suppose this is designed to wake up the audience who have nodded off by this point.

Worst of all, though, is the relentless salvo of those reality show type "interview comments" made by the characters. Not only do they nuke you with this tired joke every five seconds, but apparently, the actors also improvised; that's the only explanation for how humorless the jokes are. If lines like, "I've never seen anyone write a book about non-evidence" were actually scripted, then the writer should be shot on sight and fed to Nessie.

No wonder Nessie got violent; it obviously saw this movie.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I kept watching it because it seemed like the plot was going somewhere. When it ambiguously got there I was very disappointed. I'm going to tell you what really happened in the next sentence. But maybe I won't. Maybe I'll just imply something will happen. The writers lacked any imagination. This is not even a "B" movie - it's a made for TV "B" movie.
Determine the sentiment:

This movie was definitely on the boring side. The acting was decent and the film looks pretty nice, the soundtrack is definitely for fans of Kenny G and Michael Bolton. Speaking of the soundtrack, I found it very ironic that a film about telling the truth and not stealing decided to use a song in it's titles that was a BLATANT RIPOFF of Paul Simon's "You Can Call Me Al" - except that they don't acknowledge it at all. Isn't there something a little hypocritical there? The scene that the main kid was in where he was mimicking a game show host was my favorite. 10 lines? I have to write ten lines about this movie to be included? What a ripoff, I don't think it's too fair to FORCE people to write more than they would just to get it included!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
An EXTREMELY fast paced,exhilarating, interesting, detail rich book. Its a huge shame that the film had none of these qualities. not only was Tom Hanks' mild mannered portrayal or Robert Langdon Laughable, but the name changes to key characters, huge deviances from the original story line, and poor Irish/Italian accent from Carmalengo Played by Ewan Mcgregor, made for the worst book to film EVER.

As a huge fan of A&D the book, i had high hopes for a more lavish, true to book detailed movie, where it would start and finish just as the book did - leaving me wanting more.

All the film really did was depress me within the 1st 10 minutes.

what was impressive was how the... sorry! i couldn't even finish that sentence without laughing.

in short - Vittoria was the token hottie, a very second to Audrey Tatou and there were some very nice Alfa Romeos.

i would recommend reading the book to understand that, if Ron Howard must insist on making ANOTHER book to film, i would be happy saving my £6.40 for a KFC zinger meal and some chicken wings - far more entertaining and deeply more satisfying!

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

negative
Far more sprightly, and less stage and set bound than Gene Saks' previous efforts Barefoot in the Park(67) and The Odd Couple (68), Cactus Flower is not a work of art, but compared to most of the tired farces from the 60's like The Apartment, How to Murder Your Wife, Goodbye Charlie, A Guide for the Marrried Man, Divorce, American Style, Any Wednesday, Kiss Me Stupid, Boys Night Out, it's a masterpiece. Director Saks and writer I.A.L. Diamond have effectively "opened up" Abe Burrows' Broadway hit, and the film benefits greatly from New York City location shooting and excellent performances from Ingrid Bergman and Goldie Hawn. Bergman is charming, looks great, and demonstrates a flair for comedy. Hawn in her Oscar winning role has never been better or more appealing. Matthau is OK though it's hard to believe that Hawn's character would be so enamored of him. And in retrospect, Hawn's attempted suicide at the start of the film is out of character and unbelievable. Nonetheless, the film has a plausible farcical set up, and once it gets going it generates laugh. Rick Lenz, Jack Weston, Eve Bruce, and Vito Scotti provide good support. The film is likable and fun, and Hawn and Bergman make you care.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
'Blade' would be an extremely above-average comic-book, vampire-hunter action/horror if it weren't for two minor flaws. #1 I loved seeing the all-but invincible Blade/Snipes do his slicing and dicing, but the whole "Yes!" fist/punch was literally a letdown. #2 Bad, no make that horrible, CGI  even for 1998 standards. This is mainly in the last third, but some sprinkled throughout. Okay, despite those minor infractions, I really enjoyed this movie. All actors did a suburb job and the fact that this now looks like yet another 'Matrix' rip-off is hilarious considering this came out one year prior. So maybe 'The Matrix' copied 'Blade.' At any rate, it's a very movie for multiple genre-loving audiences: Comic Book geeks, action fanatics and horror/vampire lovers. So, we have Blade, half-man/half-vampire, or "day-walker" and his accomplish, Whisler (a la "Batman and Alfred") battling the undead who, apparently almost out number humans. Who knew? In a rare act of humanity (Blade's more of an antihero) our sword ninja/vamp rescues a newly infected (coincidentally) blood specialist/doctor. Meanwhile, trouble brews amongst the vampires as one wants (you guessed it) supreme power and needs Blade somehow to obtain it. It's not the most original concept, if you read what I just wrote, but still highly enjoyable. You will want to see Blade succeed, you will root for him despite his imperfections and mannerisms. And you will know what's coming as this is the typical act 1-2-3 of a comic book introduction movie. Still, watch this without trying to go too deep. Such as Vampire SPF-1000 "suntan lotion"? Really? What about the scalp? Wouldn't that still burn? Just like the money they burn for weapons? Uh, okay, I am going too deep. Once again, sit back and enjoy the techno-charged fun ride.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

Once in a great while I will watch a movie that completely surprises me. One that comes out of nowhere to be a bit of rousing entertainment. One that is pure fun from beginning to end. Well folks, When A Stranger Calls is NOT that movie. It is an unbelievable stupid and far fetched remake of the much better 1979 horror camp classic. Our lead heroine Jill is forced to babysit after going over her cell phone minutes and is harassed by telephone calls from a mysterious caller. Every cliché in the world is used here from the stupid cat-jumping-out-of-a-hidden-spot to the car that won't start to the killer can be anywhere at anytime. This movie is bad...not even bad in a "so bad it's good way" more in a "so bad it's boring way." Skip this godawful film and save your movie for something else. You'll thank me later, trust me on this. Grade: D-
What's an example of a movie review?

I saw this film because Calexico did the score. A real disappointment. Annoying, trendy scenes, with urban hipsters and their cliche hip lifestyles. Cheesy stereotypical Mexican border culture (mystic grandfather with the rattlesnake and potions, granddaughter in her mariachi-style restaurant getup). A few laughs, but hipper-than-thou, and sorely lacking in vision and basic filmmaking talent.
Being the sci-fi fan that I am, I was always curious about this film. So I was excited to see Journey to the Far Side of the Sun finally get released on an affordable DVD (the previous print had been fetching $100 on eBay - I'm sure those people wish they had their money back - but more about that in a second).

Anyway, the premise of this film (just like Twilight Zone's "The Parallel") is that there is an undiscovered planet resembling Earth on the "other side of the sun". This planet is of course exactly like ours except that it's inverted. This basically means their letters are reversed and people drive on the wrong side of the road.

Sound intriguing? Well that's basically all there is to this film. The first hour or so is dedicated to the preparations for the journey to this other planet. It's just tedious scenes of switches being pressed, banal dialog, etc. There's no point to it whatsoever. Gerry Anderson managed to find the most boring British actors in the history of cinema to play most of the roles. I mean they are so dull I'm surprised the crew was able to stay awake to finish the film.

Anyway, once the crew FINALLY lands on the planet (after an interminable sequence of the astronauts sitting and literally sleeping in the cockpit), Roy Thinnes notices the copy is all backwards on a bottle of cologne and hops back on another ship to tell people about what he has discovered. Oops he never gets to do it as he crash lands and dies. The end! Oh wait, there's a bonus scene of one of the space executives hurling himself into a mirror in his wheelchair at the end. I guess he wanted out of this film too.

I'm really surprised a film like this could get made even back in the 60s. Rent if you must. DO NOT BUY.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Horses on Mars is a wonderful journey taken by very small creatures. It doesn't have to work hard to hold your attention and the characters are truly memorable. Most of the credit must go to Eric Anderson for his choice of visual style and for writing an interesting story, but credit is also deserved by Anuj Majumdar for the narration and the wonderful music score. These choices were obviously not an accident. If you can, see it in 35mm scope for the most impact. It is quite a beautiful film!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Every episode I saw when I was an innocent child was stupid. There were some funny looking puppets called "The Mitts" who would always discuss childhood things. They would play this song before "The Mitts" part of the show that goes like this "Let's join the Mitts..." There was a Groucho Marx puppet that told jokes. Before the session, this man would sing "Hot Fudge! Right On!" There was a green puppet with teeth that was called Seymore. We would always see more Seymore. He would crack jokes and sing every episode. There was always a moral in every episode. One episode, a man sang "Liars are losers!" Another episode he was singing about sharing and caring. Seymore said tell me about those two little girls "Sharon and Karen." The Hot Fudge Holey Moley part has this man doing weird stuff and they played weird music.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I LOVED this movie because Bobbie Phillips can REALLY FIGHT! I always hate when actors are not believable in action parts. It was great to see, no offense, but a WOMAN who can skillfully perform martial arts and fighting. If you compare this with most action movies with females you will DEFINITELY see what I mean. They don't have to cut up the shots with someone that can fight and it flows better. I was VERY impressed. I hope there's more!
For those of you out there who have seen this pic on VHS, I would recommend the DVD. In fact the VHS is utter rubbish. The main reason is that the film was shot widescreen (2.55:1) and the producers ran out of money making the VHS version and released it as 4:3. The result is that several actors are not on screen at all, and in many drag races, less than half the cars are showing since one is on each side of the screen. The DVD is actually a reasonable version of the film.

A lot of the best scenes in the film were cut before the final release. They were viewed as being too offensive to minority groups. In fact the prospect of a US release caused even more cuts in the film. For example, the Americans reputedly did not understand words such as Petrol & Strides. 

Mike's dad and mum were meant to be hippies. The dad survives in the film as a wasted dope smoking guitarist. But the following scene with the mum was cut. The scene took place in the roof space of the house which was lined with aluminium foil, fluoro lights and filled with plants... you get the picture. The producers had rounded up a lot of real plants for the foreground and when they saw the result on the big sheet, they freaked and the scene was cut. Cowards!

Yes, the film is noted as an Australian cult classic. Voted #2 in Street machines best 100 films of all time, narrowly missing out to Mad Max ll. The latter had over 10 times the budget of ROE. In fact the budget on ROE was so small that the director could not afford to wreck any of the cars... even though there would have been a public outcry if anyone had wrecked a real HO. (compare that with Smoky and the Bandit or Blues Bros where dozens of cars were wrecked.) 

So there's one real GTHO and two fakes. One of the fakes was bought from the local indigenous community in Cobar after the standby GTHO crashed into the back of the Country Boy's truck. (That was unscripted! The car was meant to burst out from the side of the truck.) Because the budget was so tight, the car was made up with ordinary brown masking tape instead of the painted on gold trim of the real thing.

The 55 chev is absolutely real. The car began as a very plain 4 door and was brilliantly and quickly converted to the blown '55 in the film. The motor was a marinised 545 which made around 1000 bhp. This was reduced to around 600 for the filming. The car was able to easily to 170 mph as show in several scenes in the film. 

Just for the record, anyone with $12,000 could have picked up ALL the cars after the film. The HO, the Dodge, the '53 Ute, Rammer's 53 Chev... the lot. Wonder where they are now?

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

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Donald Pleasance and Peter Cushing united in one horror film; that always sounds like a terrific plan. Two of the most versatile cult actors of their generation, who previously already starred together in terrific genre outings like "The Flesh and the Fiends" and "From Beyond the Grave", pairing up in a mid-70's satanic themed exploitation flick. How can this possibly go wrong? Well, unfortunately, it can. To my deepest regret "Land of the Minotaur" can hardly even be called mediocre, and that in spite of the cast, the exotic setting, the appealing title and the potentially great sounding premise. In a remote little area in Greece, more particularly near an archaeological site, multiple tourists vanish because Baron Peter Cushing and his docile followers keep feeding them to a fire-breathing Minotaur statue. Cushing, who never looked more bored and uninterested in any role he played before, owns a giant medieval castle and apparently in Greek this means you also own the complementary archaeological ruins and an underground network of caverns. That is of course quite handy if your hobby is the kidnapping of random campers and amateur archaeologists. When three of his young friends also mysteriously disappear in the same area, Father Roch - the priest of a couple of towns before) - decides to investigate. "Land of the Minotaur" is a boring and extremely slow-paced horror effort that never really undertakes any major attempts to generate a satanic atmosphere and doesn't bother to elaborate on all the potentially fascinating elements and pagan trivia details. The titular Minotaur, for example, is an intriguing creature of Greek mythology with the head of a bull and the body of a person, but for some inexplicable reason the script never deepens out the significance. Instead, the film focuses on tedious and overly talkative sequences and loud inappropriate music altered with experimental noises. The only reason to even consider giving this major disappointment of a film a chance is because of Donald Pleasance. His portrayal of rude, bossy and old-fashioned priest who criticizes everything that represents modern youth is powerful and reliable as always.