cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: It is fascinating how this title manages to slip by the average viewer as something new and groundbreaking (quoting some of the comments). Murali K. Thalluri must have thought by himself: "Oh, great! Elephant ... What a fantastic movie! I'll try hard to do exactly the same movie and see if anyone notices!", sadly enough, he even failed with his outrageous idea. The movie turns out a complete failure. Considering that it tries hard to catch the brilliance of Gus Van Sants "Elephant", it makes it look even more ridiculous - a most embarrassing faux pas for a film director.

The movie starts off with the suicide of a student in the schools bathroom. This scene, already, shows the awkward acting skills of each one involved in this scene. You don't buy a single word they say. In carries on, interrupted by short interview-styled bits of the kids who "live on their marry lives" with each bit rather distressing in its plain stupidity on the basis of each worthless monologue. Thalluri means to introduce the characters this way, to give a kind of fast-as-junk-food insight look into their hearts ... and fails once again. Not five minutes later, Thalluri ultimately screams at the audience "Yes, people! I stole this movie and for some curious reason, I am proud of it!" by taking Gus Van Sants most unmistakable narrative style from "Elephant": He shot scenes twice to let the viewer follow each character involved in a scene on his particular way and role in a school situation. Hm, doesn't this seem awfully familiar? To me, this certain level of very forgiving tolerance had been infringed right there to a point at which I couldn't stand this dreadful movie any more. Shame on you, Murali K. Thalluri, I say! I am especially surprised that "2:37" has reached the official selections in Cannes as of 2006, whereas everyone must have certainly remembered "Elephant" (2003) at the very same Film Festival just a few years ago! So, how in the name of the lord did this most disgraceful rip-off end up being shown there? I find myself absolutely puzzled by this mistake.

Directors like Thalluri use the ignorance of audiences who aren't (and cannot completely be) aware of every independent film out there. As Elephant has little to do with mainstream cinema (although it is without a doubt a masterpiece), few people notice that the story as told in "2:37" had been told before! How that is possible at a Film Festival of such importance as attributed to Cannes, I cannot say. It is sad and shameful that such things are passed on and hardly anyone sees the true fraud in it.

2:37 is by all means solely commercial, worthless as an independent film and (on a certain level) rather a phoney parody of its obvious idol, "Elephant".
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The Snowqueen is one of the best love stories I have ever seen: much better and deeper than Luhrman's Romeo&Juliet or Spielberg's Titanic. Gerda's love impresses me every time, her search, her battle is exceptional. Gerda becomes a strong, loving woman throughout the movie. Kay is the poisoner of dark forces: the temptation. This story encourages me to fight like Gerda for the ONLY ONE, for the love of my life, for Mister Right. Patience is one of the keywords of this movie. I cry every time when I realize all the suffering of Gerda and Kay. And I wish that it ends soon... Snowqueen tells although my life, I deeply identify with the story and the characters. Thanks at least for Hans Christian Anderson and the director.

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

positive
Swift's socialism and pacifism come through against all odds in this well done remake. (Did you know there is no hyphen after "well"? Fact.) He meets warlike miniatures, socialist giants, head-in-the-clouds (literally) philosophers, and pacifist horses who rule over Yahoos -- nearly neanderthal humanoids. (Is that where "yahoo" came from?) We also meet the dastardly Dr. Bates, the devoted Mary Gulliver, the sweet and devoted son Thomas, and the full cast of a truly horrific 19th century lunatic asylum. Suspension of disbelief comes easily, and our 7- and 12-year-old girls enjoyed it as much as my husband and I did. (Sorry for the length, IMDb requires 10 lines.)
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
There's nothing particularly unique or interesting about this run of the mill low budget sci-fi flick. Regardless of its pedigreed origin (the film is loosely based on a novel by Leo Tolstoy), the plot and overall themes of this film are in no way remarkable or original, the science is weak at best, and unfortunately, the film fails to even involve compelling action sequences.

The plot begins with a manned space flight to Mars, and though the main plot doesn't really get rolling until the ship lands, most of the most interesting scenes occur en route. Unfortunately, as soon as our interplanetary travelers touch-down, their previously interesting interpersonal relationships, speculations about cosmology and the meaning of life, and everything interesting about the film all give way to an only remotely coherent plot concerning Martian revolutionaries, environmental problems and not very convincing webs of deceit.

There is nothing very remarkable about the production quality of the film either. It's passable. And most of the acting is, though slow, OK. Cameron Mitchell is actually pretty good and plays a likable character. I guess the best quality of this film, from my perspective, is its fashion sense. The martians have very nice outfits! If this film had a point, it might have been much more interesting. Oh well.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Great film, a very worthy 7/10.

Tom Hanks was at his usual best, the heavy drinking congressman who saved Afghanistan from its communist oppressors! Based upon a true story tells us how the West throws money and arms at a problem and expect it to go away. Well, it did go away, albeit temporarily. Look who we (the British, amongst others) are now fighting the very same people who the US gave arms, training and money to in the 80s.

This film was always going to provoke political thoughts by the people who watch it, but it does portray a very nice story. However, once the main objective is achieved, i.e. ridding the communists from Afghanistan, it is seen how quickly the plight of people is forgotten about.

This film was good, it was a well deserved 7/10. It told the story of the Communist invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent covert operation by the US to some detail and was dramatised well. Although being a good film, I will recommend it to people but some people will not enjoy it particularly is a serious film about good (US) v evil (Russia) isn't your thing!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
If you see this film in the TV listings just ignore it. If you're looking for something scary you'll be better off watching reruns of the X-Files.

Previous comments referencing the incredibly poor acting by the female lead are dead on. She is almost unwatchable. The sum total of her range includes 'whiny and scared' and 'whiny and not scared'.

I am the kind of movie buff who enjoys a good 'bad' movie. But this is ridiculous. There is no direction. The plot is as simplistic as the set of numbers they keep throwing at you and much like that set of numbers, it ends up having no meaning in the end.

Your time will be better spent if you turn off the TV and give your dog a bath.

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

negative
I have decided to flush this show from my memory down the toilet of bad TV show into the obscurity of forgetful, disappointing, pointless, garbage TV show hell.

The Skyler guy who is the host/star/creator of this show is boring, uninteresting, unbelievable, not particularly good looking and not at all funny, in short why is this guy on TV and especially why is he in a comedy show when he's not funny, pretending to be a professional con man when he definitely is nothing but an obvious pretender? Others have said it here already but this guy is a total fake and fraud, if you believe any of these cons I think you should seriously consider going to get your head checked because they're all fake, and the ones that might possibly be true are so pointless, like spending all day to con someone out of giving you an average meal at a restaurant? Seriously this guy needs to go away, glad this show got canned.

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

negative
Write a negative movie review.

First i have to say that i don't like since fiction movies at all so much! But there are some movies i liked really. This is one of the others ;) I've the same opinion like some (most)others here. The Film is still going on in my back, but the few effects are really not enough to watch the whole time....I think what they have done well are the animated sceneries with 3 suns and 4 Moons, but its the only i liked. There are no intelligent dialogs (are there???). But its a Great Film for everybody who loves Lara Croft or some other Girls in HOT-PANTS... ;)

For the directors: " Stop to try again, PLEASE!!! "
This movie has been a classic in my part of the country because it was filmed in my own small town. I now have many friends who are guards at Dixon Correctional, and I myself worked for 3 yrs at the SuperAmerica store next to the Krogers store the old lady was at. However, this is still the dumbest movie ever made, destined to be introduced by Gilbert Godfreid or Rhonda Shearer, if it hasn't been already. A bit of trivia, Illinois doesn't even have parole hearings, and Dixon Prison is a medium security facility housing burglars and vending machine vandals. The classic clucking/seduction scene is perhaps the most amusing piece of writing I've ever seen, especially with the suspenseful build-up

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

This is an incredible piece of drama and powerful which hits you. I found the film was great and getting to grips with the two main characters disability, this was represented in a great performance by both two Michael and Rory. Whether the story is based around a true story I feel the story was trying to giving the audience a message that as a whole the general public should respect and feel for the needs of disabled people and that they should be given the same chance as any other human. On the whole this film reach into my soul and I too felt touched by the actors and the director sending out there creativity. The whole picture is that some actors take it beyond their character the play and only show part of the character that is believable to the audience, but I feel that theses two certainly made great use as their gifted talent to portray a masterpiece piece of drama. Certainly one not to be missed!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

If Jacqueline McKenzie and John Lynch weren't such talented actors this film would probably be even worse than it actually is.The story of two mentally disturbed people who fall in love and have a baby is an interesting one,and well worth exploring.However on the negative side,the plot becomes increasingly over the top as the story progresses,and the music choices more and more bizarre,so that by the end I found myself laughing when I know the director intended for me to be crying.
Write a positive movie review.

This is the true story of the great pianist and jazz singer/legend Ray Charles (Oscar, BAFTA and Golden Globe winning Jamie Foxx). He was born in a poor African American-town, and he went blind at 7 years old, but with his skills of touch and hearing, this is what would later in life would lead him to stardom. By the 1960's he had accomplished his dream, and selling records in millions, and leading the charts with songs and albums. But the story also showed his downfalls, including the separation from his wife and child, because of his affair with a band member , his drug and alcohol use, and going to prison because of this. Also starring Regina King as Margie Hendricks, Kerry Washington as Della Bea Robinson, Clifton Powell as Jeff Brown, Harry J. Lennix as Joe Adams, Bokeem Woodbine as Fathead Newman, Aunjanue Ellis as Mary Ann Fisher, Sharon Warren as Aretha Robinson, C.J. Sanders as Young Ray Robinson, Curtis Armstrong as Ahmet Ertegun and Richard Schiff as Jerry Wexler. It is a great story with a great singer impression, the songs, including Hit the Road Jack, are the highlights. It won the Oscar for Best Sound Mixing, and it was nominated for Best Costume Design, Best Director for Taylor Hackford, Best Editing and Best Motion Picture of the Year, it won the BAFTA for Best Sound, and it was nominated for the Anthony Asquith Award for Film Music for Craig Armstrong and Best Original Screenplay, and it was nominated the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy. It was number 99 on 100 Years, 100 Cheers. Very good!
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Your ability to enjoy The Ashes of Time may depend on our expectations before stepping into the theater. Even its most strident supporters seem to agree that audiences can be split right up the middle in their appreciation of this unique film.

Unlike most HK actioners, the battle scenes are curiously kept at a distance. When they do happen, they're rendered in a jerky style in which it's difficult to make out exactly what's occurring on screen. The dramatic scenes can be extravagantly beautiful, with the of Maggie Cheung, Brigitte Lin, and a roll-call of HK's top acting talent chewing up the scenery. As with some of Wong Kar-wai's early work, the dialog could be more precise. 

In short, The Ashes of Time requires a forgiving attitude. Released around the same time as Wong Kar-wai's spectacularly successful Chungking Express, it's clear that the director isn't as confident working with the elements of the martial arts film. Anyone looking for tense action is likely to be disappointed. But those intrigued by the director's aesthetic will likely find this a unique experience at the very least.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

This is another film I missed out on Italian TV as a kid: notable for its quintet of ageing stars, most of whom had never made a horror film in their life (Fred Astaire, Melvyn Douglas, Douglas Fairbanks Jr., John Houseman and Patricia Neal), it deals with the men’s long-concealed past crime coming back to haunt them. It takes the form of a ghostly dead-ringer for the girl they all loved (Alice Krige) but whom they were forced to dispose of after an unfortunate incident when she humiliated their egos! Fairbanks, who was the one responsible for the deed, has twin sons (Craig Wasson) and so Krige directs her revenge upon them as well. Soon one of the latter, Fairbanks himself and even Douglas and Houseman all wind up dead. Therefore, the remaining Wasson and Astaire decide to confront the ghost at the scene of the crime where they also have to contend with a couple of sinister tramps who somehow do Krige’s bidding! I was looking forward to seeing these veterans on their last legs (Douglas died before the film had even premiered though, by that time, he had already completed another role, while it proved Astaire’s own inauspicious swan-song) but GHOST STORY went through too many changes of mood – while maintaining a sluggish pace throughout and emerging overlong into the bargain – to be anything but a failed curio. Having dollops of sex (including full-frontal nudity from Wasson!) and gruesome make-up effects muddled the waters all the more and marred the old-fashioned elegance inherent in Jack Cardiff’s (another notable of long-standing) cinematography.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This is the worst kind of film.

The plot is ludicrous, the characters are unrealistic stereotypes who never look like they believe it themselves. Are white people such monsters that they will continue to call two white child rapists in their 20s "good boys" and need to be persuaded that this might be grounds for provocation? Are black people universally inspiring? Do the Ku Klux Klan really stand outside court rooms shooting at lawyers with nobody intervening? Do judges really think that a fair trial can be conducted when the jury can hear a mob outside shouting "Kill him"? Do black people really stand shoulder to shoulder with the Klan waiting to hear the verdict? Do wives really take several months to realise that their husband might be defending a man from unfair hanging because he knew might have done the same thing? Do juries really acquit people of murder because they feel sorry for them? Do lawyers really use a defense of sanity in order to persuade people that their client was temporarily insane? 

Worst of all, any high-minded principles of this film were lost to the completely exploitative and gratuitous use of sexual crime to titillate the audience. Was the subject of rape, let alone child gang rape, really in competent hands here? Is it really a subject that belongs in Hollywood hands? And if so, why the completely gratuitous kidnap and stripping of Sandra Bullock? And the completely pointless statutory rape charge against one of the witnesses? Seems like the director didn't feel THAT strongly about sex crime after all.

This was taking the excellent plot of To Kill a Mockingbird and making a crass, shallow, tasteless money-spinner from it. Shame on them.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Taste is a subjective thing. Two people can watch the same movie with one of them loving it and the other one hating it. As it concerns 'Halloween:the Curse of Michael Myers' I fall into the latter category.

I'm of the opinion that John Carpenter, in 1978, made one of that decade's finest fright films, which despite its flaws, still holds up well into the 21st century. It reused many of the old horror film devices but utilized them in original and effective ways. It had no pretensions that it was anything other than a movie about an escaped mental patient stalking babysitters on Halloween night. And yet there were 'ideas' in the film but they were subtly introduced and not hammered into your skull. It juxtaposed the myths of the macabre festival with the reality of what was taking place in the story and it did this with a wonderful ambiguity. 

The 'filmmakers' of this 'film' probably wouldn't even understand that previous paragraph. That's why we're saddled us with this miserable and inept piece of disposable celluloid. Direction, script, acting are of the lowest strata imaginable. This is the type of film that is so mind numbingly dull and nausea inducing as to make you want to crawl back into the womb and die. It is also truly, truly sad to see veteran British actor Donald Pleasence wasting his acting abilities with this saliva puddle of a movie. He seems drained of all his energy and resigned to the fact that this may be his last film. Maybe that's what killed him.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

"Committed" is all about Graham as an irrepressible optimist who goes in search of her self-estranged husband who has gone in search of himself which all leads to a sort of kookie, upbeat comedic odyssey involving a bunch of side characters and issues. A fresh, fun, and unpredictable little flick, what "Committed" lacks in story it makes up for in good naturedness and subtle morals and maxims. If you enjoy this little chick flick, which received slightly above average reviews by critics and public alike, you might want to check out Lisa Krueger's hit Indie "Manny & Lo" (1996). (B)
What's an example of a movie review?

I watched this movie a long time ago, but I've always loved it. The story is about a young girl, Sally O'Moyne who finds out at a young age that when she prays to St. Anne, her prayers are answered, hence her missing lunch pail and a mean neighbor who tattles on her and she prays, that someone should give him a black eye for tattling. Well, a minute later something hits him and he has a black eye. Sally then believes in the power of prayer and decides to use that power for good. She is well known and loved around the neighborhood as she has copybooks/journals filled with all her friends requests to St. Anne.

Meanwhile, a local boy returns home from college (I believe) and Sally is awestruck at how much he's grown-up. Sally has a huge crush on him, but is so shy. Should she use her power of prayer to St. Anne for her own selfish desire or just watch as the most popular girls in school try to snare the man of her dreams? This is a fun filled movie with a grandfather who is so charming and Irish, brother's who are hilariously annoying and a sworn Irish neighbor-enemy who spars with grand-pop on an everyday basis. He has his own story of wanting to buy the O'Moynes property which is a little house in the middle of two huge apartment complexes (his own), in other words, the O'Moynes house is an eye-sore to his lovely buildings.

This movie is definitely worth a watch and is good enough and rare enough to add to your movie collection. I hope you enjoy!
I don't want to spoil the movie for anyone, but, this mimics life's reality in so many ways, and, if you are really honest with yourself, you will resonate with it in agreement in at least a few of the scenes.

The acting is not only believable, but convincing in a way that endears one to the characters. Moreover, it's funny, without trying too hard at it.

And, yes, I truly believe a sequel is warranted, here. See the movie, you'll understand why.

Highly recommended, especially if you like movies that have a real message.

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

positive
When the noble Hanabusa clan is decimated by the usurping Samanosuke clan, loyal retainer Kogenta (Jun Fujimaki) escapes with his lord's eight year old son, Tadafumi, and his daughter, Kozasa. They are sheltered by the priestess Shinobu (Otome Tsukimiya), who serves the Hanabusa clan's god, Majin, a vengeful spirit imprisoned in the giant stature carved into the side of a local mountain. Ten years later, Kogenta and Tadafumi (Yoshihiko Aoyama) seek vengeance against Lord Samanosuke (Yutaro Gomi), but are captured in the attempt, and sentenced to die. Priestess Shinobu, desperately attempting to save her master, threatens Samanosuke with the god's displeasure, only to be slashed to death for her efforts. Samanosuke, a vain, cruel, narrow man, orders Majin's statue to be destroyed, in order to crush any last vestiges of hope among the remaining Hanabusa loyalists. But the god Majin, who hitherto has been implacably silent, has other ideas...

Daimajin is an enthralling, timeless, deeply moving fairy tale. Lavishly produced on a respectable budget, it is a film about values: the values of nobility, of justice, of decency, of loyalty, of self sacrifice, and of love. It is about hierarchy, and rule, and of the consequences of failing to live up to the responsibility that rule entails. These are things that are not talked about much in our demotic times, except by scribbling toads like William Bennet, but are nonetheless relevant, and Daimajin shows us why. 

Daimajin is a perfect example of why Japanese cinema is so glorious. The values listed above have palpable relevance for those involved in this film, as they do for many a Japanese filmmaker. There is no lip service, no condescension, no irony here. Instead, there is an authentic effort to conjure a world where these values can once again have life, and to show what happens when they fall into abeyance. Just compare Daimajin, or the Lone Wolf and Cub series, or any Kurosawa film to the egregious Tarantino's nihilistic Kill Bill b*llshit, to see what I mean.

In a film whose contributing talent is so uniformly excellent, I would merely like to point out master Akira Ifikuba's majestic score, the talent and beauty of actors Jun Fujimaki, Yoshihiko Aoyama, and Miwi Takada; and the stunning portrayal by Otome Tsukimiya. Her death scene is one of the most moving and meaningful that I have ever witnessed.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I can't believe I even tried to watch this filth. As an avid B-Horror movie fan, I was more than riveted at the prospect of this film by popular budget horror filmmaker Herschell Gordon Lewis. Unfortunately, right from the opening of the film, I could not, for the life of me, think of a worse movie than this. Well, maybe Gigli, but I firmly believe Dr. Gore (The Body Shop) is worse when I think about it. A horrible plot that moves incredibly slow, the movie drags on with no real horror to speak of. However, I will admit to the pure hilarity of a couple scenes when Dr. Gore is mesmorizing his soon-to-be victims. The camera zooms in on his overly large, bulbous eyes, while the whole time there is this purely putrid soundtrack to add to the amusement. I laughed for the better part of 10 minutes. After he erects his "miracle woman", the movie wastes away nearly 20 minutes just showing him and his "girlfriend" as he is teaching her to speak, then they talk, frolic among marigolds, have picnics, etc. Unfortunately, there is only music playing during this whole fandango with no speech whatsoever. This portion of the movie will leave you wishing you had slit your wrists with the dull edge of a butter knife. I almost want to puke at the very thought of this movie. If you like movies that are bad, watch this one.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
When this show began it was fairly interesting: we got to see what crab boat fisherman had to go through during the crab-catching season. Soon after, however, it lost focus on the fishing and focused almost entirely on the drama in the lives of the fisherman. Episodes became nothing more than 'the captain doesn't like the new greenhorn' (this one happens way too often), 'someone is injured or sick', 'a fisherman gets word of some problem at home and is frustrated that he is stuck on a boat', repeat. I don't know how people can find the newest seasons watchable, as every episode seems to be essentially the same as those before and after it. This show should be moved to a different channel and renamed to "Crab Boat Drama", or, even better, it would have made a perfect one-time segment on Dirtiest Jobs. 

Shouldn't the Discovery Channel have learned their lesson after American Choppers?

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: By Randolph Scott standards of the 1950s, this is a disappointing and heavy-handed star western. Two or three of the characters could be dispensed with, while two or three other characters could be given more prominence. (The humour needs to be completely rewritten.) De Toth handles the action well - as always - but his grasp of the overall narrative is weak.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

Nothing special to see here, the animation has being outdated and the plot is a typical futuristic era. This film has an original story, but if it doesn't have an original plot or characters, so in my opinion it's not worth seeing. I'm not saying that the movie was bad, it was just a typical anime story and I thought I watched this movie like a thousand times. So if you are looking for something original see another thing.
The perfect 6 step recipe for a boring middle of the road movie:

1. Take one burnt-out, rogue ex-cop with a bad attitude, yet a sensitive touch as well (closet concert pianist with a pet cat);

2. Add some "cool" retro gadgets like a beat-up Porsche 356, a roaring bike, a heavily patched leather jacket and a pair of cowboy boots with holes in the soles;

3. Mix in a couple of "free-spirit" locations e.g. a trendy sea-side apartment and a dedicated diner booth for an office;

4. Spice it up with "deep" socio-romantic themes such as a post-divorce-traumatized-but-finally-remarrying-ex-wife, a secretly-admiring-and-therefore-forgiving-waitress, a pair-of-former-colleague-cops-only-one-of-whom-is-really-a-complete-jerk and a best-buddy-getting-iced-over-a-suitcase-full-of-illegal-$$$;

5. Let it simmer for about 90 minutes in a "fast-paced" though not necessarily logical or internally consistent sequence of mediocre action scenes, cheap tender moments and sluggish wise-cracks;

6. Serve with either a comfortable pillow to sleep straight through it all or something a bit more interesting (don't worry: even the yellow pages will do!).

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

negative
Write a positive movie review.

When I first watched Flatliners, I was amazed. It had all the necessary features of a good movie: the cast was superb, the plot was superb, and in the case of thrillers, there was genuine "thrills" throughout.

Keifer Sutherland offered a marvelous performance as the male lead in the piece, portraying a scientist who believes he can find the answers to life and death by killing himself and then coming back to life, essentially "stealing" death's secrets away. Kevin Bacon offers an excellent performance as the more morally decent counterpart to Keifer, while Julia Roberts offers her most convincing role. William Baldwin portrays a student who excels in class and, apparently, intercourse. And Oliver Platt, in another outstanding performance, portrays the voice of reason for the group and the most innocent.

The story is relatively simple, yet original, and the acting is refreshing-- definitely a stand out film for the genre, and one that has set the standard for measuring other thrillers for me.

8/10.
Write a negative movie review.

I was really looking forward to this movie but sadly it didn't live up to expectation.

A good movie has the audience identifying/empathising/sympathising with the main actor. Unfortunately this was very hard to do with Samantha Morton.

The storyline seemed very disjointed and didn't flow as it should/could have done.

Keifer Sutherland appeared to be little more than window dressing and made me wonder why he agreed to play what appeared to be a bit part. Beautiful scenery and the acting of Tem Morrison and Cliff Curtis was about the only plus.

Maybe by being a kiwi I set the bar higher for locally made films. Maybe the change of director/ supposedly hard to work with main actor has biased my opinion.

Maybe I'm just trying to make excuses for a movie which could have been great.

A lot of maybes which still does not explain why this movie just lacked anything special.

It could have been great, it wasn't.
I'm one of those gluttons for punishment when it comes to sitcoms these days-I still will check them out every once in a while.My observation is that most of them aren't very funny even the ones on major networks that are getting high ratings ,I just don't get who is finding them gut busting funny. While a few have made me crack a smile ,none of them made me laugh out loud,I usually change the channel after a few minutes. Now on the FOX network they churn out new shows like changing your underwear,for some reason they think they can make a good sitcom,wrong dead wrong. They have beat this dead horse so much it is to the point of hiring just anyone they can find to write a crappy pilot with bad dialog and just churn them out.Let's take a brief look at the latest piece of junk that Fox has churned out called "The War At Home"

I watched about 5 minutes of it and that was generous. In this particular episode,the daughter is mouthing off to her parents doing the I'm an adult now rant.The dad gets fed up tells her "OK fine,go ahead and do whatever you want,If you screw up it's your problem" to which she replies"Well I guess your mad but hey at least I didn't get AIDS"(cue the laugh track,no way that can be a live audience unless they have been paid to applaud such garbage)-I found the crack about not having AIDS to be in such bad taste. Well hey at least I don't have to watch any more of this crap. Take a hint FOX, stop wasting your time with sitcoms.OK well you have the Simpsons but it is now getting really old and tired as well.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
i remember watching an elizabeth montgomery movie when i was maybe 5 years old (if that) and to this day i can remember this movie (in just bits and pieces). it was the movie i remembered all throughout my life because i was sooo scared. I think i remember the story part of it and the house constantly being dark. the main part that was the most freaky to me was Elizabeth walking around the house all dark and then there was someone in the field outside. At the time I thought i was an old witch but the memory of it is now way hazy so i can't really remember who it was but it was someone definitely in a field outside lurking...and that part is what freaked me out the most. i really wish i could see this movie again. if anyone knows how to get a copy please email me at valid908@yahoo.com
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

My favourite movie of all time. This was a flawed piece of work by Coppola and seeing the documentary 'Heart of Darkness' made it even more compelling. Coppola at this point was king of Hollywood after making 'the Godfather' and 'GodfatherII' and had developed the ego necessary to even dare try to make a movie like 'Apocalypse Now'. Through sheer arrogance he went to the Phillipines with a partial script and thought he would know what he would do when he got there. Just as Captain Willard thought he would know what to do once he got to Col. Kurtz's compound. And just like Willard, he DIDN'T know what he was going to do once he got there. This is such a masterpiece of American cinema, beautifully photographed and the river is such a perfect metaphor and backdrop for the story. What I like most about 'Apocalypse Now' is that it offers no answers or conclusions. Consequently, because of this open-endedness, it infuriates some viewers who like their movies to be much more obvious. 

This movie defies categorization. Some call it a war movie which it isn't at all, really it is more of a personal study of man. The best pic about Vietnam is 'Platoon' in my opinion and if a viewer is seeking a retelling of the Vietnam War go there first for answers. 

Coppola should be commended for his take on the bureaucracy of war which he conveys quite effectively with the meeting with Gen.Corman and Lucas (Harrison Ford) and the Playmate review. The sheer audacity of Kilgore makes him an unforgettable character and the dawn attack will always be a Hollywood classic.

It is an almost psychedelic cruise to a very surreal ending which makes it a movie not accessible to everyone. Very challenging to watch but rewarding as well. I could offer my explanations on each scene but that would be totally pointless. This movie is intended for interpretation and contemplation as opposed to immediate gratification.

A little footnote, definitely if your a first-time viewer of Apocalypse Now, watch the original version first, the 'Redux' version is, I think, more intended for the hardcore fan and is more of a curiosity than a 'new and improved' version of the movie
A great movie about triumph over all the nay-sayers who try to kill your spirit, achieving the impossible. I won't go on about it, other than to say that I liked to reflect on the this film when I'm facing something particularly daunting, and realize that if Lindberg could do what he did, I can certainly face the task before me. Definitely a "feel good" movie.

See it. You won't be disappointed.

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

positive
Write a positive movie review.

This is first of all a good, exciting story, with well developed characters. But all the other details are well crafted on top of that, leading to a wonderful film. Don't let the Disney label lead you to think this is dumbed-down or only for kids -- it has a lot to offer to all ages, whether you like golf or not. One of the more impressive things is that the film manages to make a golf game look really exciting. And speaking as one of many who can't abide golf on TV, this is no small feat.

The first half of the film does a good job of laying out the basic characters with their motivations and backgrounds, enough that you end up liking all the important competitors once the pivotal match begins halfway through. Sure, you root for Ouimet's character all along, but his primary opponents are likable and interesting in their own right. The background layer is important once the golf match becomes a match using minds as well as golf clubs, since you get a good understanding for what each person's strengths and weaknesses are as the play progresses.

The computer effects are flashy, but they do help the story more often than not. The directing has all sorts of clever golf shots, and the period costumes and sets are really top notch.

There are a few small quibbles -- many of the minor characters seem a little too stereotypically cast from the class warfare mold, but this is forgivable with the major characters so well drawn.

Shia LaBoeuf playing Francis Ouimet is, as usual, callow and sympathetic. But the real standout is Steven Dillane, playing Harry Vardon. He rarely moves his face, but his intense, often sad, eyes and minor changes of expression say so much.

Ouimet's caddy Eddie Lowery, played by Josh Flitter, steals the scenes he is in. After you see the film, Google to find the actual photograph of Ouimet and Lowery at the tournament, to get an even better appreciation of how incredible this match truly was.
Not really worth a review, but I suppose it's my duty to warn you all - especially since there are some pretty good reviews of this Canadian bomb floating around out there... Bad acting and a slow moving, absolutely atrociously boring 'coming of age' tale in which 3 boys lives are turned upside down when a man on the run shows up at their clubhouse in the woods. At firs the boys make good with the intruder and at one point even view him as some sort of a role model... However all this changes... and you still won't care. You will recognize Chris Penn, whose biggest cinematic impact is Corky Romano, and a young Devon Sawa, whose career peaked at 'Casper'. I was hoping for a '12 and Holding', 'The War', or 'Lie' and all I got was a waste of time. This film struggles to keep it's audiences attention and never makes an impact or maintains a note of anything remotely interesting.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

1. I've seen Branaghs Hamlet: Branagh is too old, speaks frequently with a high pitched voice (unwillingly funny!) - not a convincing Hamlet, and his directors qualities - poor ! (see also much ado about nothing from Branagh - the funny parts of the dialogues have mostly been cut out not speaking of the directors mistakes in the dialogue cuts!) 2. I've seen Hamlet 2000: I think the scenario is an interesting idea - but such lousy actors - all of them 3. Orson Welles Hamlet is OK - but this BBC Hamlet is the best! Derec Jacobi is convincing - seems a bit of a lunatic - very suitable! and Patric Stewart - wonderful, and Claire Bloom is a very attractive queen. You believe those actors what they are saying - I think this is the best compliment.
This movie is nothing more than Christian propaganda. It started off like a good sci-fi movie and then works a syrupy sweet Christian theme into the story which is totally unrelated. I had to turn it off half way through because I felt tricked into renting it. The catholic church has officially announced that aliens do NOT contradict belief in God.

The movie is slightly entertaining despite this but the dialog is unbelievable, writing and acting is mostly rubbish and all in all, this movie is mostly a stinker to be avoided.

There was obviously some research done into the phenomenon by the filmmakers, but then you quickly realize that it is only for the purpose to debunk and inject their own paranoid religious views into a valid interesting subject. If you are a zealous religious fanatic who believes in demons and angels , you will love this movie.

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

negative
Ah, how refreshing to see a vision of 18th century England complete with mud, the pox and gibbets... and accompanied by a delightful techno soundtrack to boot. This is the story of downtrodden highwayman Plunkett (Robert Carlisle) and Gentleman-fallen-on-hard-times Captain Macleane (Jonny Lee Miller), and how they get together and rob the aristo pigs. Plunkett is a hard nut, but MaCleane is far too polite for that, and thus becomes 'the gentleman highwayman'. He falls in love with Lady Rebecca (Liv Tyler), (who to be frank is the only weak part of the whole shebang) and wants to impress her.

 The costumes are fantastic. Big, colourful, historically innacurate beautiful togs. Alan Cummings gets all the best threads, and the best lines as Lord Rochester, sporting a very non-18th century eyebrow piercing. The music shifts between swooping glorious choirs and thumping bass-laden techno, which doesn't jarr as you think it should do in a historical film. The script is fast-moving and peppered with modern-day colloquialisms; Merchant Ivory, this is not. There are hilarious parts, disgusting parts, sit-on-the-edge-of-your-seat-and-nibble-your-fingernails parts, but the whole thing chugs along and is wonderfully entertaining throughout. This is cheer-in-the-cinema stuff. Unmissable.

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

positive
Mild Spoilers

....and that's 'top ten of all time.' I stumbled across 'Two Hands' by accident (maybe that made it all the more special -- no inflated expectations) on IFC one night, and couldn't believe that I hadn't heard anything about it. Now that Heath Ledger is getting more famous in the USA, I'm sure it's more available. At the time, I was telling friends about the film, and no one could find it anywhere except the occasional IFC showing.

Anyway, in the black-comedy/gangster genre it fits in well with my other favorites, and everybody in the film really seems to end up with what they deserve. Bryan Brown is hilarious as the main gangster who makes origami with his small son and plays scrabble with his henchmen. Also hilarious is the quick-edit fate of a random car thief. Even Heath was pretty good in it. At the time, I vaguely remembered him from a short-lived series on Fox called 'Roar.' Hopefully Gregor Jordan will make another hit, but as far as I'm concerned, this is his best yet.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

We've seen a story like this before: a wife in marital troubles (played by Nastassja Kinski) engages in sex with a stranger (William Baldwin) and then wants to go back to her life with husband and girl. When she returns home she finds out that her husband has finally found a job. Everything seems bright. However, Kinski finds out that her husband's new boss is actually the stranger who still shows interest over her and seems to do anything to get what he wants. What to do? Say nothing?

I didn't really like the movie. While it wasn't just bad, it clearly lacked "that something". Maybe it should've focused more on what's going inside Kinski's head. Nothing to say about the actors themselves (I guess Baldwin was a good choice for the role of the obsessed boss) but the characters seemed somewhat stereotypical, acting the way you would see characters acting in your everyday TV films. Finally, the ending totally ruined what could have been an interesting plot.

In my opinion the movie tried to look cool, it had a bit of shaky camerawork here and there, some stills, fast cuts and glamour, but in the end I think it fits Spelling productions much better. Same goes for the music. Otherwise it didn't look that bad.

Some might like this but it definitely wasn't my cup of tea. To be fair, I don't usually watch much this type of thrillers. This one felt too long even if it was just an hour and a half long, I think it could've worked better as an hour long episode in some TV series. There was absolutely no need for some of the scenes, especially the shower scene.

My advice: Try before you buy!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Okay, so I love silly movies. If you enjoy silly sci-fi movies, over the top movies, or if you are a fan of Mr. Bruce Campbell, i would go see this movie. This movie is all that i wanted it to be. Being a fan of over the top movies, this fit the bill. Every time i thought to myself "this movie would be the sillest, best movie ever if *blank* would happen...." then just as i thought it, *blank* would happen. It's a wonderful silly 'b'-movie. If you are a fan of Campbell i'd say 'see it', bring your friends, laugh at it. It's fun. It's not classic, or anything, but if it's on TV some night, watch it. It has become, for me, a movie i would file under "indulgent movies". Movies that may not be good, but after a hard day of work, i could come home and watch, (this list also includes 'harold and kumar go to white castle', 'army of darkness', and ' Intolerable Cruelty' ) 

If you feel like a over the top, wonderfully slightly bad movie, watch this. if not, go rent "Bubba Ho-tep"

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I admit that I almost gave up on watching TV shows. Why? Because most of them are about doctors, forensics or some girl/boy, who can predict a murder by sitting on the toilet seat. But I must say I was wrong when I watched the first episode of Oz, one of the most brilliant shows on TV until today. Oz is a show about maximum secure prison and shows episodes in life of every cell - mate inside the prison and their frustrations. What I like about this show is the fact it has the courage to show the real life in prison without any annoying characters, stereotypes and unrealistic dialogs. Even thought the characters in the show are not supposed to be heroes, you became quickly attached to them and their life. Sure, their is a lot of violence in this show and some disturbing images of rape and taking drugs, but that's the point of this show; to present how brutal and frustrating can be life in prison... heck, you can't show life in prison like a "clean environment" with "likeable characters", right? Oz is perfect in every way, the actors are doing an excellent job and the whole hour of this show is going threw really really fast. The only thing that I didn't like in this show was the last season of the show, I think it became too weird and brutal and the finale was not satisfying. But overall Oz is still my favorite show on TV so far, it surpasses Sopranos and million CSI and Dr. House crap with just a main title. Brilliant show which has the balls to show what other shows are taking away from us; realism.
Determine the sentiment:

...than you easily spot the biggest fault of the movie. What was the motive? The details of the murders were used, but never explained. I guess the team got too much into the atmosphere, which is great, but the story is definitely lacking. There is no thread to follow. I guess if that was done properly, the movie would've lasted a bit longer, but it would've been worth it, at least for me.

Casting is very good, I loved Wilson as the vulnerable Vicky.

Not much more to say, really. But I really wish they've concentrated a bit more on the less obvious.


OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative