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

I discovered this late one night on Turner Classics. I kept saying to myself "I'll turn it off as soon as it stops being funny", but needless to say I watched the whole way through.

I am a movie junkie but I had never even HEARD of this movie (or if I did in 1971, I forgot). It's worth watching just for the performance of Goldie Hawn as the tart-tongued ingénue. Her acting is a revelation in this movie. Yes, the script is sharp and excellent (when was the last time they made a Hollywood comedy with a smart script?) but her acting is extraordinary. I never realized how funny Goldie could be, and it makes her later appearances in roles such as Laugh-In and Private Benjamin a little sad. In her later career she is far too over-the-top compared to her minimalist, wickedly funny appearance here.

It's a pleasure watching the young Matthau, the great Bergman and the stellar supporting cast, but it's Goldie Hawn that will make this movie worth watching again.
Sex, drugs, racism and of course you ABC's. What more could you want in a kid's show!

------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------

"User Comment Guidelines 

Please note there is a 1,000 word limit on comments. The recommended length is 200 to 500 words. The minimum length for comments is 10 lines of text. Comments which are too short or have been padded with junk text will be discarded. You may only post a single comment per title. 

What to include: Your comments should focus on the title's content and context. The best reviews include not only whether you liked or disliked a movie or TV-series, but also why. Feel free to mention other titles you consider similar and how this one rates in comparison to them. Comments that are not specific to the title will not be posted on our site. Please write in English only and note that we do not support HTML mark-up within the comments"
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Clearly this film was made for a newer generation that may or may not have had an inkling of Charles Bukowski's work. The autobiographical Henry Chinaski character in Bukowski's stories was brilliantly portrayed to perfection by Mickey Rourke in 1987's 'Barfly', also starring Faye Dunaway. Anyone who has seen 'Factotum' should certainly see 'Barfly' to get a better look at how Bukowski wrote his character. 'Factotum' lacks the greasy seediness of Bukowski's screenplay and the fearless hopelessness of his loner hero. The inadvertent humor that bubbles through in the dark desperation of Chinaski's misadventures doesn't work for Dillon as it did so admirably for the overweight filthy blood-soaked Rourke. Rourke's character makes the pain and pleasure of the previous night's misbehavior a place-setting for yet another grueling ugly day in the life of a drunken misanthropic unknown writer. Dillon's character misses these marks in favor of a strutting, handsome, relatively clean-looking wanna-be writer that scarcely passes for any moment in that of Chinaski's story. Dunaway's sleazy heroine Wanda is the perfect complement to the ne'er-do-well Henry. The women in 'Factotum' can't hold a candle to Dunaway's 'distressed goddess' and the use of more profane sexual subject matter in 'Factotum' proves to be more of a crude distraction than a tip of the hat to Bukowski's raw and unapologetic portrayals of dysfunctional relationships. I was stunned at how many of the exact same scenes were used in 'Factotum' (Marisa Tomei buying all the stuff and charging it to the old man is an exact rip-off from 'Barfly').

If you want to see the best Bukowski stories on film, see 'Barfly' and 'Love is a Dog From Hell' (which also goes by the title 'Crazy Love').
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

Corniness Warning. As many fellow IMDb users already know, I'm not a corny, cheesy person. If you don't want to read this kind of review, then go.

To tell you the truth, you're hearing this from a man who laughed through Titanic and almost broke his parents' tape from continuously rewinding the propeller scene.

---Spoilers---

One day, I went off to the theatres with two friends to see Dickie Roberts: Former Child Star, last year in August. The boring trailers rolled on until one started off so calmly. It was for Radio. The moment I saw the trailer, I just had to see this movie on opening weekend. When that weekend rolled along, Scary Movie 3 was out too so many teenagers were there waiting in line that Friday night. It turns out the movie sold out and those teens were so desperate to see a movie, they went and also sold out Good Boy and Radio. I couldn't get a ticket and the following weeks, I was busy with more important things. About 5 months later, my friend rented Radio. He let me borrow it and I watched it in my room. I'll tell you this now, this is the ONLY movie I have ever seen that got me crying EVER. When Radio's mother died, it just came out automatically. The next day, I went off to Blockbuster and bought the DVD.

Well enough of my stupid personal story, let me tell you about the movie.

Cuba Gooding Jr. stars as a mentally challenged man nick-named Radio. Ed Harris co-stars and this movie is directed by Mike Tollin. Based on a true story, Radio is a teenager who has a life by spending most of his day alone. He goes around with a shopping cart picking up whatever he can and is always carrying a radio around. He's got his own collection. At the end of every day, he goes home to his mother. He never went to school until later in the film. One day, Radio passes by the local high school while the football team is practicing. A football flies over the fence and Radio picks it up and continues on. Ed Harris plays Mr. Jones, the football coach. They meet and this is the life of Radio.

Throughout the whole movie, Radio and Coach Jones spend quality time together, both teaching each other things. It is beautiful to see how the movie goes to the highest joys, the lowest lows, and just seeing Radio live his life. You will laugh, cry, and live the life of Radio with him. This movie holds a special place in my heart along with Toy Story and others. This is a must-see for the whole family, by yourself, or if you're someone who just wants a great drama. Radio is one of the most beautiful movies I have ever seen. Radio will never be forgotten by me. Never.

As Ed Harris' character said greatly near the end of the movie:

"We're not teaching Radio, Radio is teaching us."

My Rating: 8/10

Eliason A.
What's an example of a movie review?

It's along the line of comedy of errors, mistaken affection transferring from one to another, blossoms and passes onkinda cat and mouse situations Flares of passion, sparks of fire fanned and put outguessing maybe she loves, he loves or they love Circle of emotions, evolving, releasinghiding, yet not hidingwanting to let him know, wanting to let her know, let them know Good ensemble cast in spite of the seemingly confusing mix of emotions from different parties involved. 

It's a refreshing charmer, casual, free and easy and rather down to earth -- not Hollywood glamorous like "Notting Hill", but lots of human feelings, frailty, vulnerability a-flowing. Yes, all revolving around an accidentally (lost &) found love letter. Kate Capshaw as the owner of the town's bookstore, with a variety of characters portrayed by Ellen DeGeneres, Tom Selleck, Blythe Danner, Tom Everett Scott, Gloria Stuart, Alice Drummond and Geraldine McEwan as the seemingly unaffected Mrs. Scattergoods. Romance is in the air, love lurking everywhere. You get to appreciate the talented Kate Capshaw. ("The Alarmist" is another quirky little movie which is fun to watch: Capshaw has a wonderful chemistry with David Arquette, and Arquette with Stanley Tucci).

"Notting Hill" is satisfying in its story revolving around the glittering pairing of Julia Roberts and Hugh Grant, and the wonderful support of his circle of (London) friends. "Love Letters" is delightful in its quirky (Loblolly) small town-ness, and its story involving Kate Capshaw's centrifuged ripple effects on her friends and neighbors. Both maybe fantasies, somehow, the latter felt more attainable if it should happen to you. And if you appreciate words or poetic lines, it could be the movie for you.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: There are good movies, and there are bad movies, and then there's Moscow Zero, a film so utterly bad it makes spending a month in solitary with an insurance salesman an attractive entertainment alternative.

With an incomprehensible plot about the gates of Hell opening within a labyrinth of tunnels under Moscow, the film is a mess of repetitive and nonsensical shots of a little girl running through tunnels, red lights floating about, and strange wall shadows, none of which serves to mount any fear or tension, but instead elicits the reaction of "here they go again with the girl (or lights)" from the viewer.

Directed by María Lidón, who for reasons I can only conclude as shame, was billed as Luna, the movie stars Vince Gallo as Owen, an American priest who travels to Moscow in search of Sergei (Rade Serbedzija), a friend and colleague who has gone missing in the tunnels. He enlists the help of a series of locals who, with the exception of Oksana Akinshina, are all portrayed by Spanish actors trying with limited success to inflect Russian accents.

Along the way they cross paths with members of some sort of underground leather-coated religious mafia headed by a portly Val Kilmer, whose career seems to be in such free fall that he's resorted to appearing in dreck like this, and henchman Sage Stallone (Sly's son), who seems to have been cast merely so the Stallone name can be included in the film's marquee.

Apart from watching the troupe try to navigate their way through the tunnels with the aid of a comically drawn map, and repetitive shots of them being followed or eluded by a pale faced young girl, not much else goes on throughout. Dialogue routinely switches between English and Russian, with actors frequently taking turns in each language, and entire conversations are uttered half in one and half in the other with the only apparent reason being they felt like it, adding a frustrating dimension for the viewer, over and above trying to figure out the crazily cobbled together story.

About the only thing Moscow Zero gets right, however, is its title, which could only have rendered a more accurate description of this movie if the word Moscow had been omitted.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Though it hardly compares to other sci-fi film giants like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY or CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, LIFEFORCE does work as a totally berserk and bizarre melding of science fiction and horror elements. Somehow, despite dialogue that approaches the ridiculous and acting that does the same, it manages to work because of a few highly different elements.

Loosely based on Colin Wilson's 1976 novel "The Space Vampires", this film from director Tobe Hooper (POLTERGEIST; THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE) focuses on a joint US-British mission aboard the British space shuttle Churchill to study Halley's Comet. Led by an American commander (Steve Railsback), they discover an alien spacecraft in the comet's coma. And when they investigate the interior of the spacecraft, they find alien occupants that look like giant bats. Later on, the Churchill reaches Earth's orbit, but no response is given from radio calls issued from the mission's home base, the Space Research Center in London. Columbia is launched to rendezvous with Churchill, but they find the entire ship gutted by fire--all except for the alien beings encased in glass who, far from being untouched by the fire, look absolutely perfect. The aliens are bought back to Earth...and that's where the incredible happens.

These space vampires escape from the Space Research Center and, instead of draining their victims of blood via bite wounds, suck their victims' lifeforce totally out of them. One of them is the Space Girl, a thoroughly nude vampiress played by Mathilda May. Railsback, the only actual survivor from Churchill, is bought in by the SRC's chief (Frank Finlay) and a British special agent (Peter Firth) to track May, who is in telepathic contact with him. Pretty soon, however, the vampires have turned London into a scene of pure holocaust; people are either being dessicated or turning into zombies, and the threat by NATO to sterilize the city with thermonuclear radiation looms large. Railsback finally catches up with May, and sacrifices himself by impaling her with a large metal sabre.

Undoubtedly disjointed, unquestionably uneven, but nevertheless worth watching, LIFEFORCE, despite the frequent incoherency of its script and its acting, benefits from some drop-dead excellent special effects work by John Dykstra (STAR WARS), some of the best ever seen. The other working element, and a surprise one it is, is the incredible orchestral score by Henry Mancini, almost Wagnerian in the same way John Williams' score for STAR WARS was--and Mancini, like Williams before him, uses the London Symphony Orchestra, to boot!

Largely forgotten these days, and a critical and box office disaster in 1985, LIFEFORCE, if for no other reason, should still be seen for anyone with a taste for the bizarre. There had never been a film quite like it before, and there will certainly not be anything like it again.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I would have to say this is a great movie. 

Mike Judge has an eye forseeing things that nobody would ever notice hence Office Space. Hemakes a statement about the dumbing down of society and that survival of the fittest is mere pipe dream in 500 years. That pop culture and mass marketing by wealthy companies tend to rule the day. Yes there is a lot of potty humor in it and it is to get the story moving and his point across. But the genuine frustration on Private Joe Bowers face is priceless and some cases we can all relate to it at some point in our lives. 

If you do not enjoy the humor then look at it from a different point of view and watch it again. It took me watching it twice to really appreciate this film for what it isAnd with said after watching it twiceI am going to read a book now.
This is definitely a "lesser known" comedy short from the 1920s. The only reason I saw it was because it was on a DVD by Kino Films featuring non-Laurel and Hardy shorts featuring Ollie. They are interesting and historically important, but also generally average to below average for the style film. Compared to shorts by Chaplin, Keaton, Arbuckle and Lloyd, they are definitely a step below them in quality and humor. Also, the accompanying music was pretty poor by the standards of other silent DVDs. I ended up turning OFF the sound due to the inappropriateness of the music to set the proper mood. But, despite this, they are still worth seeing.

I've gotta be honest about this short. It was the last of 8 on this DVD and by the time I got to it, I was pretty bored with the mediocrity of 7 of the 8 shorts. So, it is possible the film might be A LITTLE better than a 4--but certainly, if this is the case, no better than a 5! The film is a pretty standard short about an incompetent bellboy. Nothing especially interesting and there are certainly MUCH better silent shorts out there.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

If this is the author's and director's idea of a slice of life, they are clinically manic depressives. A sad, moody film at best, with ubiquitously aimless and unhappy characters who negatively interact with disastrous results. This film is billed as a comedy. What was so funny about losing your home to an allegedly premeditated arson or the drug induced, forcible rape of one of the main characters. Is this art imitating life? Jack Black was mildly amusing as the mountain man, weed farmer. However, even this segment of the film was rife with pathos. What was the point of living in the middle of nowhere with an entourage. If Black's character was so paranoid, why was he doing acid with a group of people right out of Woodstock? Is there no end to disconnected relationships, a plot less script, and scene transitions lacking any cohesiveness or logical chronology.
What's an example of a movie review?

Lovely little thriller from Hitchcock, with lots of nice shenanigans surrounding a murdered spy, a kidnapped child, a nasty church, a foreign plot and some random taxidermists. Jimmy Stewart is as ever a great hero for Hitchcock, the story rips along to its cool climax at an embassy function, but it lacks the brooding menace of Hitchcock's black and white, low-budget original. Nevertheless yet another wonderful film from the great master's stable.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I agree with BigAlC - this movie actually prepared me for a lot of the cultural differences and practices before I went to live in Japan for a year in 1993. Tom Selleck does a fantastic job here, as always, and the movie is greatly humorous and educational. I'm a big fan of Tom Selleck's, and he blesses this part with his usual charm and charisma to this part, bringing the film to life in a way I can't imagine any other actor being able to pull off. 

This film featured some first-rate Japanese actors, and it was highly entertaining to watch them as they interacted with Selleck - I can imagine the fun he had during the actual filming of the movie - Japan's an awesome place to go, whether you want to party, sight-see or just try to take everything in.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Crazy director....Yeah, you need to be crazy to make a near movie. Rob Lowe was bad in his character, Ice-t is always bad and Burt Reynolds had nothing to do in the movie. Crazy six is an unknown movie, with some known actors...this is pretty weird. A bad movie with some good actors in it. It looks like the bad movie did an influence to their performance...It did! Crazy people.....I give it *and a half out of *****
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I just wanted to say that I am watching National Velvet on TV, it is now Feb 2006 and I was checking on dates details, etc. Surprising to see it was made in 1944 and Rooney was 24 years old whilst Liz Taylor only 12, what an accomplished English actress she is.

To put some Americans contributors right: There are no Irish villages in England. Ireland is a completely different country and has nothing whatsoever to do with the English countryside. The scenes shown are supposedly taken on the South coast of England between Brighton and Arundel (county of Sussex). No such scene exists now unfortunately. Like many other places roads and buildings have been built on the hills and beaches.

So please, all you lovely Americans, do not confuse Ireland with England, ever! we take great exception to it. Like confusing Texas with Coney Island.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
As a true Canadian, I always avoid Canadian movies. However now and then I get trapped into watching one. This one is better than most, which is to say mediocre. It has many of the usual flaws of Canadian films...self-conscious acting...an excess of cinematic gimmicks and, above all, the self-effacing Canadian habit of using Canadian cities as stand-ins for American ones. I mean using the historic metropolis of Montreal as a stand in for Harrisburg Pennsylvania is just short of obscene. I was in a generous mood. I gave it a 4.


How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Having seen the original when I was 13 (and, yes, I was stupid enough to watch it while babysitting!), I was excited to see this remake.

Camilla Bell did a great job as Jill Johnson. And the fact that a teen horror flick could be made in the year 2006 without tremendous vulgarity and gore, made it even that much stronger of a film. I had a great time trying not to chew my fingernails off!

This film won't win anyone an Oscar, but it is entertaining and worth the matinée price ticket I bought to see it. I think girls around the world should watch the original and the remake...and then determine to never babysit again. 

All I can say is, I'm glad I'm too old to babysit! There's just something about being in a dark creepy house with sleeping kids that makes this movie classic. No blood, no gore...just good psychological fun! WINNER!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

The plot in this movie is very thin, and there is not much acting. Val Kilmer--I don't know why he agreed to do this movie--plays a minor role as a gang leader. In short, the movie is tedious to watch.

One guy, who sort of resembles an archeology/religion professor, is exploring a subterranean area of Moscow, that has some history connected to railway construction and the Bolshevik revolution. A church tragedy in that history makes the exploration "spiritual" and spirits of a malevolent intent haunt the underground ruins. A friend of the professor decides to find his friend in the underground and hires a couple of Russian guides. The entire movie is based on this plot and contains much repeated footage of the underground, and some camera effects; much like those seen in "Day Watch", "Night Watch", etc.
What's an example of a movie review?

Some people have the ability to use only 3 neurons, one for eating, one for breathing and the other one for s**ting... This is not a movie for them... 

But for those who enjoy using the brain... the whole movie is a metaphor, everything is there for a purpose, every single detail, the coffee mug, the red couch, everything... is a underestimated masterpiece... 

It is hilarious, is raw and totally realistic, that's how we actually interact.... it is a royal comedy... total causality...

Just hang on, don't let the first scene shock you..... hang on... and enjoy the show....
The story of Tom Garner opens with his grand funeral and is told through a series of elegant flashbacks narrated by his faithful lifetime friend Henry. Henry and his wife debate whether Tom was a great man and a genius or an utterly worthless scoundrel. The film is beautifully written, acted and directed, and I highly recommend it.

Tom was the fabulously rich and successful owner of a large railroad, dominating his board of directors and his competition, terrorizing his employees, slaughtering strikers. Tom's ambitious wife Sally was responsible for all of Tom's success. When he met her, he was illiterate and entirely content with his work as a trackwalker for the railroad. Sally teaches him to read and takes over his trackwalker job while Tom goes to school. He starts to rise one step at a time through the railroad hierarchy until he eventually takes over as president.

But as Tom becomes a business tycoon, his marriage to Sally gradually falls to pieces. His spoiled son despises him, and he takes up with a much younger woman (the aptly named Eve), with predictably catastrophic consequences. In his business life, Tom is a total success; in his personal life, a disastrous failure. Much like the Hearst figure in "Citizen Kane," Tom symbolizes the best and the worst of the capitalist system.

Spencer Tracy is terrific in the role of Tom Garner and the business scenes ring with authenticity. Colleen Moore is also excellent as Sally; both of them age beautifully in the multi-generational story. The film was written by Preston Sturges, but is nothing like the screwball comedies for which Sturges became famous.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

When I first watched this movie I thought it was a very strange movie. But I know that the director almost always has a purpose when he makes a movie. So I decided to watch it one more time. The second time I watched it I realised that Albert Puyn is a very talented and a very original film maker. In the beginning the viewer was told that the movie took place a decade after the fall of the communism in the eastern Europe. But they had clothes and cars with a design typical for the 1950's. They had plutonium which I think is a symbol for the futuristic trade. I think that it means that the movie's real time is not specified. The music in the movie is creating a long music video which tells some parts of the actual story in the lyrics, specially for the intro and the outro.

Albert Puyn is using red and blue back-color when he's showing the symbols for communism (red) and the capitalism and western world (blue). One can notice that Ice-T, has the name Mao (communism) and that when he's in focus the back-color is red. The american cop, starring Burt Reynolds, is always filmed with blue back-color. The club where Mao and his gang hang out is also with red back-color. Crazy six is pendling between the red and the blue color.

The white little dog that Mao had in the beginning symbolize, I think, the controlling force. Mao had the dog in the beginning but the cop took it in the end. That symbolize, I guess, the fall of communism and the replacement of the capitalistic way of thinking from the western world in Eastern Europe.

I think Crazy Six is a very well-made movie. Albert Puyn creates an sci-fi/action movie with a politicial depth. It's a different but a very special movie about the communism fall in the Eastern Europe.

I'm looking forward to watch another spectacular movie of Albert Puyn.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The subject is World War II and Robert Ryan is a rejected soldier whom Lupino hires as handyman. She is a war widow.

The set is limited but the acting makes up for this. Robert Ryan is conflicted: one moment he seems nice, then confused about where he lives. At first Lupino tries to help him. He seems troubled but nothing more dangerous. But how do we know? The suspense builds. I truly enjoy films like this, which rely on the human element for suspense. What is this man capable of?. There are some scenes with O.Z. Whitehead and Dee Pollock as an annoying grocery boy who sees something is wrong. We keep thinking she will be helped, then Ryan's personality turns again. He becomes like a Jekyll/Hyde character and eventually chases Lupino with a knife.

Worth watching for these two superb actors. 9/10.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: !!! Spoiler alert!!!

The point is, though, that I didn't think this film had an ending TO spoil... I only started watching it in the middle, after Matt had gotten into Sarah's body, but then I became fascinated by the bizarreness of the plot, even for a Channel 5 movie... and couldn't possibly see how Matt wld end up happy. What about his fiancee? At one stage looked like he was gonna get with his best friend, surely icky and wrong... and then the whole 'oggi oggi oggi' thing does NOT WORK as a touching buddy-buddy catchphrase, tis just ridiculous... so was going 'surely he can't just come back to life? and yet how can he live as a woman?' and then the film just got over that by ending and not explaining anything at all!!!!! What's that about??? I was so cross, wasted a whole hour of my life for no reason at all!!! :) but was one of the funniest films I've ever seen, so, swings and roundabouts
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I watched part of the first part of this movie, and tiny little bits of other parts. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I don't think this movie is really worth watching. The odd characters and happenings does catch your attention and is rather interesting, but there are bad things in it as well, and some gross things. The magic and mythical side of it turned me off, and for most Christians this movie would not be very suitable or worthwhile to watch.
I watched this film mistakenly thinking that it was that other radio station zombie flick. The shonky production values and low-rent cast soon gave away that this was another one of the those cheap sci-fi channel style knock offs.

The central performance from Bill Moseley is initially quite engaging as the dubious radio shock jock but as the film goes on becomes less and less convincing as he is actually required to act. The rest of the cast have little to do other than look concerned and have no depth whatsoever.

The cinematography is dull, flat and completely uninspired, like so many of these kind of films. It doesn't even manage a decent bit of convincing gore, the zombie make up is literally pathetic apart from one notable exception towards the end of the film.

The film tries to inject originality and a message into it's concoction of half baked and ripped off ideas by somehow equating this outbreak with intolerance towards Islam and the war on terror. This is woefully handled with all the intellectual clout of a 6 year old. As the characters and seemingly the writers are unable to distinguish the difference between race and religion - describing all people of a certain skin colour as "muslims." Most notably one character is revealed to be Muslim by skin colour alone. At the same time the "muslim" terrorists who cause the outbreak are the usual psychopathic stereotype. 

Presumably the far far superior Pontypool had a similar budget as Dead Air yet shines everywhere where this film fails miserably.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is the worst film I have ever seen, so bad it is astonishing. I am glad that I have never seen that black sidekick in any other film: OK, it wasn't his fault that someone gave him those lines, but he could have refused the role, and tried to learn how to act instead. How did anyone get the money to put this film together. Is there some corporation in Hollywood that deals with trash for male college students with no brain? "Oh yeah, they will love this one: it's got no believable plot, some kungfu movements, Chuck Norris, a black sidekick with bad corny lines, a sweet little Israeli (or is he an Arab, or does anyone care?) boy pickpocket, and the devil." Brilliant, and many thanks to all concerned for enriching the human race.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Okay, make no mistake - this is a pretty awful film, but I actually thought it had a couple of creepy scenes and overcame its pathetic budget every now and then. At the very least it's unintentionally funny in spots and has a definite air of creepiness and discomfort (a face burning scene, the part with the disfigured bride). 

This baby falls into the "so bad it's entertaining" category to me, and for that alone I would give it a star. The effects are terrible, the acting is abysmal, and the whole thing looks like it was shot in a day. You gotta love that toy ship at the beginning, too! It brought back childhood memories of seeing this on late night TV many years ago. While the Alpha DVD print looks weak and as though it was recorded directly off an old television broadcast or something, I actually liked that in this case!
Write a negative movie review.

This movie is awful, I'm SORRY. I bought this to get Star Worms, and actually expected this to be better after how disappointed I was in Star Worms. Oh just kidding, turns out this is the worst movie I've ever seen. The acting is garbage, not that there really is any, and the main character is a big stupid box who gets attacked by like, stuff or something. I can't really tell. The special effects are so bad that you can't even see the warring dinosaurs, which by the way do not war, but just stand and kind of move their mouths, or whatever those things are. The movie is a headache. It's very obvious the director is trying to establish a universe. Hahahahahahahaha... Really, this movie is just abominable, even by Troma's standards. The only good thing I can say about it is that it's got a Lloyd Kaufman intro, as he tricks us yet again into watching something that isn't fit for consumption.
I just saw this movie tonight. Coming into it I thought it would be good because I like Natalie Portman alot and Susan Sarandon is a great actor too, but it was way better than I could have imagined. You come out of the movie feeling great. The acting was excellent, which is something that can be hard to come by lately. Natalie Portman is destined for great things and me being a college student at NYU, think that it is great that she is going to school instead of just being an actor. Anyways, back on subject, the movie keeps you interested the entire way through and I definitely think that everyone should go see it. I would give more details, but I don't want to give away the movie.

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

positive
We all know what Chan-wook Park can do. If you haven't seen Oldboy(or the sympathy trilogy for that matter) you are missing out on some of the best films made this century. But i'm not here to talk about them. I'm here to talk about thirst.

This movie is not what you would expect. Yes it is a vampire movie, but at the same time it is also a very twisted tale of romance between a priest and a young girl. I wont get into the synopsis(you can read that above) but instead tell you what this movie has to offer. Chan-wook Park is a master of cinematography and this movie is no exception. With some very surreal scenes backed by intense lighting, he sets the mood perfectly in almost every scene. The movie does start a bit slow, but I felt this was necessary to build a relationship with the characters. Once things start moving along it almost never lets up until the credits roll. "Thirst" is predominantly a love story, but not in the same sense that you would think. the relationship between the lead characters is very intense, but at the same time almost disturbing. Chan-wook Park is no stranger to controversy as we know, and this film touches on taboo almost as much as oldboy. The end scene is by far the most powerful in the movie, and perhaps one of the best conclusions to a film I have seen.

Overall this is an exceptional film that I feel all movie buffs should see. It is an exciting(and admittedly different) take on the world of vampires, and the romance is far from sappy or boring. This movie is gritty, selfless, and beautiful in all the wrong ways. Obviously it is not for everyone, but chances are if you are reading this review you are already interested. See it. Do not hesitate

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

positive
This well-meant film falls just a bit short, and unfortunately in too many areas.

The scenery is gorgeous, with vistas of north-central Vermont providing the setting for this mid-century tale. Quebec Bill endeavors to go back to his whiskey-running past in order to save his farm.

Going back and forth between scenes of magical realism and straight-forward action, this film rarely hits its stride.

Kris Kristofferson as Quebec Bill seems pretty stilted, or else it's his lines; or else his cross of Yankee and Quebecois accents. Anyway, he just comes off as a low-key blow-hard. His dialogs with Gary Farmer's Coville character do sparkle, though. William Sanderson's Rat Kinneson is solid. Charlie McDermott shows some real potential as young Wild Bill; but his part's not large enough to carry a scene and he never steals one. Luis Guzman shows up on Lake Memphramagog (with a fine stand-in performance by Lake Willoughby) as a monk with a boys'n'the hood accent: who knows? And then there's Bujold's Cordelia: an oracle like her namesake, she channels Yoda as she intones lines like "You will marry a Quebec woman!"?!? Just too weird and nowhere near enigmatic enough.

The end gets really choppy. Again a bad mix of magical realism and the concrete. And Yoda never provides an answer we can understand.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

This movie was quite a pleasant surprise. I had anticipated it for a long time, and was afraid going in that it couldn't possibly live up to my expectations.

It exceeded them.

I adored this movie.

Hilarious from start to finish (stay until after the end credits!), it is absolutely remarkable how a movie about dumb and annoying characters can be so intelligent, witty, and engaging.

With it's obvious matte paintings, the movie's future Earth recalls the Planet of the Apes series and other Sci-Fi movies of that era.

In fact, this movie is essentially Planet of the Apes, but with people who are the mental equivalent of apes.

It moves at a fairly brisk pace, and Luke Wilson carries the movie quite well, with a character that recalls the one he played in "Bottle Rocket." (There's even a not-so-subtle nod to "Bottle Rocket" in an early scene).

Maya Rudoulph is also surprisingly good as a former "painter" who was frozen as well.

Despite all its strengths, "Idiocracy" has the distinct feel of a movie that was taken away from the director/editor before it could be fine-tuned.

I cannot for the life of me understand why a movie this funny would just be dumped into a few theaters with no advanced screenings, no trailers, no marketing whatsoever.

It's as if the studio decided they were not going to spend any more on it and just walked away.

Or maybe they thought the movie had the makings of a cult classic, and the only way for it to become a true cult classic was to set it up to fail? 

Whatever the case, it is a shame, because Mike Judge and this film in particular deserve better.

I predict this movie will have real legs on DVD, and word of mouth will propel it to the success it deserves.

Perhaps the Fox Executives saw themselves in the characters, were confused, and thought it was a documentary?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I am a big fan of Lonesome Dove and all the books in the series and I love the movie. I was happy to see that they finished up with Comanche moon. I have been a long time fan of Steve Zahn and was eager to see him in a serious role. I personally think that Steve Zahn has done an amazing job of re-creating Gus. I can't think of another actor who would have been better. He has the voice, the mannerisms, the pronunciation of word all down to a T. Granted, no one could ever hold a candle to Robert Duvall as Gus, but I think that Steve Zahn has done a pretty darn good job. Karl Urban acts the same in all the movies he has been in so he has made a good match for Woodrow Call. AS for the movie itself, yeah it's a little corny but can you really beat Lonesome Dove? No, I don't think so.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: In defense of this movie I must repeat what I had stated previously. The movie is called Arachina, it has a no name cast and I do not mean no name as in actors who play in little seen art house films. I mean no name as in your local high school decided to make a film no name and it might have a 2 dollar budget. So what does one expect? Hitchcock?

I felt the movie never took itself seriously which automatically takes it out of the worst movie list. That list is only for big budget all star cast movies that takes itself way too seriously. THe movie The Oscar comes to mind, most of Sylvester Stallone's movies. THe two leads were not Hepburn and Tracy but they did their jobs well enough for this movie. The woman kicked butt and the guy was not a blithering idiot. The actor who played the old man was actually very good. The man who played anal retentive professor was no Clifton Webb but he did a god job. And the Bimbo's for lack of a better were played by two competent actors. I laughed at the 50 cent special effects. But that was part of the charm of the movie. It played like a hybrid Tremors meets Night of the Living Dead. The premise of the movie is just like all Giant Bug movies of the 50's. A Meteor or radiation stir up the ecosystem and before you know it we have Giant Ants, Lobsters, rocks or Lizards terrorizing the locals. A meteor was the cause of the problems this time. I was was very entertained. I didn't expect much and I go a lot more then I bargained for.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
So bad, it's entertaining, especially during cocktail hour, and believe me, you'll need a beer, a drink, or whatever to get through this turkey. Where do they get the financial backing for such paint-by-the-numbers "horror" flicks? The fun in this movie is predicting which characters will get eaten and in what order, and trashing the so-called "uniforms" the "military" jokers wear. The raptors, by the way, are not the same raptors we met in "Jurassic Park," but a cousin species. (Sorry, no spoilers here. You'll have to watch it to find out for yourself) Don't expect the plot to make sense, simple as it is, just go along for the ride. You could make it a game... take another drink each time you hear a certain sound... or better yet, every time someone gets crunched by a "raptor." With a little luck, you won't even remember having seen this "C-grade" made-for-TV movie!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I saw this movie as a child and fell in love with it. It has a sweet sensitive story. Something children can appreciate. I loved so much as a child I had to find it for my daughter. It is definitely a movie I would watch with kids. It reminds me a great deal of story's of a Disney nature like Pete's Dragon and Mary Poppins. Both because of the live action and cartoon features but on its premise. It is also a good story to show kids that if they tell the truth they can be trusted and adults will listen to them. I think all kids should see it and would enjoy it. It is such a break from the violent movies of bad taste so many kids watch these days. It has all the charming qualities so many of today's movies don't have.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

The animation is still the slightly rougher style of the first episode, Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire, but already, with this first regular episode, Bart the Genius, the humor is beginning to be more "layered", quicker and greater depth of characterization is already appearing.

This episode firmly establishes Bart's "slacker" personality, and more subtly, Lisa's intellectual superiority to the whole family. Although that's the main theme of the whole episode (there's also a nice secondary theme of Bart and Homer's father/son relationship), it's given to us first in a nutshell as the episode opens with the Simpsons playing Scrabble. Lisa comes up with "id" for her word--short, but something you have to be well educated to know. She has to read the definition to the rest of the family from the dictionary, which has been serving as a way to prop up the couch. Marge can only come up with "he". Homer has "oxidize" already sitting on his tray in order, but doesn't recognize that it's a word, so he presents "do" instead. Bart comes up with "kwyjibo", which he insists is a word. Similarly, in the main plot line of the episode, Bart cheats on his IQ test, which leads to his being put into a special school full of gifted kids. We know that's not likely to last long.

"The Simpsons" has always had a lot of fun playing with varying degrees of intellectual abilities among people through its characters, and more importantly, they way that people with vary degrees of intellectual abilities fit into (or not), are accepted (or not) and are perceived in society. Aside from beginning to present Bart, Lisa, Homer and Marge's place in this context, this episode already starts respectfully poking fun at nerds and geeks outside of the Simpsons family. Via some of the dialogue from the students at the special school, as well as some of the other references, including purely visual ones, this episode also shows that "The Simpsons" isn't going to pull any punches by means of writing or talking down to its audience. It may be just a cartoon, but it's a cartoon that intellectuals, geeks and nerds are going to understand more than anyone else. And that fact, aside from it just being a very funny show, is the key to the show's longevity.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

SPOILER ALERT!!!! This was my son's review of the movie, which he wanted me to post.He wrote this, I swear.

With Malcolm in the Middle's Frankie Muniz, and Nickelodeon's Amanda Bynes, they get to go to show business. They team up on the actor Paul Giamatti. He stole Jason Shepherd's essay on Big Fat Liar, and makes it in to a movie. Jason (Frankie Muniz) and Kaylee (Amanda Bynes) have to go to L.A. to get it back. Jason's dad does not believe that he wrote that essay. So every time they see each other Jason asks Wolf (Paul Giamatti) to give Jason's dad a call because he wants his essay BACK!!!! Wolf does not make the movie but the President of the company makes it. At the end the family and Kaylee see the movie, Made by Wolf Pictures and based on a real story written by Jason Shepherd.
This is the most human and humane of movies that I have seen in a long time. The ironies abound, Susan Sarandon as a nun, Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon in a movie that doesn't preach but neither does it condemn. It is cinema verite at it's best, and yet the story is fictionalized from several real events.

Which of the two is more amazing, Sarandon or Penn? It is easy to say who is more likeable, but it is hard to say who is more convincing. they are simply magnificent.

You may think that all killers should be killed or you may argue that life without parole is no life and that death is more merciful. whatever your personal feeling, this movie gives you a chance to pause and reconsider.

At the end one simply wants to sit in silence and reflect. That is what great drama does, it gives catharsis, it creates a moment in time, a shared memory that touches our humanity.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

When I was a little girl, I absolutely adored The Swan Princess, it was reliving the same fairy tales of Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, and Cinderella, the princess and her prince who saves the day is always a timeless story that will never die, well, hopefully. But I figured that I would check out the sequels for The Swan Princess to see what they were like and unfortunately, this is the typical cartoon sequel that just disappoints more than entertains. The only character I found still very amusing was the Queen, she was very funny in this movie and had the best part. But with the voice changes, they were noticeable and also bothered me quite a bit, I don't mean to be picky, just it was too weird for me. The story also was just more or less borrowed from the first Swan Princess, just the villain in this movie is following Rothbart's footsteps.

Odette and Derek are about to celebrate their one year anniversary, but Derek has been too preoccupied with fighting for his kingdom to keep it safe. With his mother's birthday also coming up, he forgets about that since there is a new villain in town, Clavious, who is hoping to go above and beyond where Rothbart's powers went and kidnaps the Queen on her birthday. But Odette must change back into her swan self in order to help Derek fight him and save his mother.

The Swan Princess 2 is of course more than alright for the kids, that I never mind, it's good clean fun for them. The reason why these sequels are disappointing though is because it is usually just for the kids, that is the audience they aim for, but it's more enjoyable when the jokes and story can be enjoyed by everyone. Now there are a few laughs and giggles here and there, but this wasn't as clever in my opinion to the first Swan Princess. I would recommend it for the little one's, but if you're looking for a fun cartoon movie, I'd recommend staying with the first Swan Princess.

4/10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative