cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I saw this movie one time at a kiddie matinée at the North Park Theater in San Diego in 1959 when it was released and I was 11. It was one of three features that were shown that day.

I have not seen it since but have wanted to because I am a film buff and appreciate the terrible along with the great, good and average films.

What I remember most vividly is that the more sophisticated audience members, consisting of children between 8 and 15, howled with laughter at the tree monster.

A triple bill at a theater showing 3 adventure films is something an 11 year old does not forget, but I can't remember the names of the other 2 films. (One did star George Montgomery and David Farrar.)

UPDATE: The other 2 films in this triple bill were much better. They were "Watusi," 1959, with George Montgomery and David Farrar starring and "The Angry Red Planet," 1959, with Gerald Mohr and Naura Hayden staring. Ms. Hayden has written a couple of books on health and fitness also.
Was in the mood for a French film and saw this at Blockbuster. What a little gem it turned out to be! Not sure how I missed Gregori Derangere all these years, but he is fantastic. Such innocence and grace! I love his face and the way he moves. Isabelle Adjani was hilarious--reminded me of Nicole Kidman's over-the-top performance in Moulin Rouge. She looks the same as 20 years ago...truly remarkable. Gerard Depardieu has not held up nearly as well, but his acting continues to amaze. He's perfect in this film. Will probably buy this one, I enjoyed it so much. If you want to see another great French movie, rent Joyeux Noel. Stunning.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Doug McClure has starred in a few of these British produced genre adventures and this one has got to be the worst of the lot . I know THE LAND THAT TIME FORGOT has its critics but please at least that movie featured location filming and relatively good production values . That's the problem with this movie - The production values go way beyond " So bad they're good " affectionate territory and become " so bad I think I'll go and see what's on the other channels " 

One case in point is the first scene featuring the intrepid Cushing and McClure encountering a monster . It's painfully obvious the monster is an average sized man dressed up as a rubber monster being made to look over twenty foot tall via overblown back projection . It becomes even more painfully obvious that our heroes are trying to escape the monster by running on the spot . Have I mentioned that this is one of the more convincing set pieces ? No really this looks like it was filmed in somebody's living room with the spare change left over from that year's DOCTOR WHO budget . Even former DOCTOR WHO Peter Cushing is bland and what should have been an amusing line " You can't mesmerise me - I'm British " is delivered in a very flat way ( A very similar line is spoken by Cushing in HORROR EXPRESS ) in a script devoid of characterisation , plotting and memorable dialogue . It's not just the fact that the dialogue is unmemorable it's also infrequent and rare since the monsters don't speak . Wouldn't it have been better having the chief bad guys humanoids like in WARLORDS OF ATLANTIS so that they could explain the plot . Does anyone here know what the plot actually is ? 

A very tedious British movie that even the twin talents of Caroline Munro can not save . The whole mood of the movie is summed up by the final sequence featuring two keystone cops
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Well acted drama based on a novel by Arthur Miller. Something as simple as a pair of glasses becomes life altering. Lawrence Newman(William H. Macy)is a man that has chosen to be satisfied with his mundane life; the same job for twenty years and still living with his mother. He is told by his boss to correct his vision with a pair of glasses. Newman's life drastically changes and delves him into hell. The glasses he chose makes him look Jewish. He looses his job and becomes the object of heavy scrutiny by his Brooklyn neighborhood. Searching for a job, he encounters the attractive and outspoken Gertrude(Laura Dern), herself living with conflict because of her Jewish appearance. Soon the couple's new life together becomes a nightmare filled with humiliation and bigotry driven attacks. A very apt cast that features: Joseph Ziegler, Peter Oldring, Kay Hawtrey and of musical fame, Meat Loaf.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Sequels, well there are many reasons to make 'em but what went through Irwin Allen's mind to come up with such a boring idea is beyond all logical matters. There are so many open answers to this movie that it is ridiculous...like The Poseidon which is a monstruous ship with passengers on is drifting on the sea and just Michael Caine with his miniboat and an evil Telly Savalas discover the boat...well, at the beginning the French marine are circling above the wreck with their helicopter but as a sinking cruiseship is a daily thing, they just fly away... What am I trying to say??? Hmmm, Michael Caine goes on board with sally Field and he might pick up everything he sees (diamonds)if there wasn't a Telly Savalas who is looking for weapons on the ship...my God, why in fact am I wasting my words on here? It's ridiculous and knowing that both Field and Caine were involved makes you think what went through their minds when reading scripts....certainly not diamonds....
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is my favorite movie of all time. I just love all the trouble all the teams get into! Its great. Michael J. Fox looked so young.. but then again i guess he was!

The teams are so stereotypical you just have to laugh.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
My mom always told me to sit down and to actually watch this movie because it's one of her favorites, I never did for years until I caught one night on TV. This movie was great, I don't even know how to explain it. Not only is the cast excellent (Julia Roberts, Keifer Sutherland, Kevin Bacon, William Baldwin, and Oliver Platt) but the story is awesome. It's freaky but not too scary and it makes you think. I was left speechless after this film and amazed of how good of actors and actress all five of these people really are. Where did William Baldwin go, he's great. This film is a must see for anyone, if you haven't seen it go rent it, you will not be sorry. Amazing!

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I happened to leave HBO on last night following Six Feet Under. What ran next has left me speechless. What an incredible piece of work. I don't just recommend this, I MANDATE that you see this. It's better than anything Hollywood could ever ruin. I just hope they never get their hands on it.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
SPOILERS FOLLOW - and I haven't even seen it.

Let me guess... the murder is related to the evil property developer wanting to develop the riverside, and Dickens was murdered because he was trying to uncover a similar dastardly plot. If anybody who's seen it could let me know if I'm half right, you'll have saved me the time it might take to watch something worthwhile and the rest of us will know to steer clear of both this film and its enthusiastic reviewers. On the other hand, it *sounds* intriguing; but if it was any good would it *really* be given away with a Sunday rag? And what sort of track record does Foley have anyway?

...So, as a public service, I managed to sit through it. It's worse than 'Swept Away'. Really. I've read stories by eight-year-olds with more drama than this. Truly awful. And I was half right.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

What is he supposed to be? He was a kid in the past,... and the future? This movie had a lot of problems. Is he a ghost, or just a strong kid. Man,... what a piece of crap. I'm still confused. Also, is he supposed to be an abortion? Strange. Very strange. This movie will mess with your mind,... and it's not very scary,... just confusing. Why was he,... Where did,... What was the,... oh, who cares,... Milo isn't worth it,...

My score: 10
Somewhere on IMDb there is a discussion about the greatest director of all times (Spielberg, Copolla and others are named there). The greatest argument was around Spielberg and whether he is or isn't a great director. The problem with Spielberg is that while he is a master technician, most of his films lack depth.Saving Ryan is really outstanding from a technical point of view, but its message is dull and while its very entertaining, it doesn't make you think about anything. AN is the best movie I ever saw because it combines great shooting with a deep philosophical perspective on so many things, starting from war in general, the clash of civilizations, the condition of soldier in wartimes (is a soldier a hero or an assassin? Brando says he is neither, the french lady says he is both ...) and many others. The problem with some people is that they try to argue about whether these points are true or false. But a great movie, and a great piece of art in general is supposed to spark arguments, not to solve them ... Maybe Coppola is right, or maybe he isn't, nobody holds the truth anyway. You can watch this movie for its outer beauty, amazing scenes, great acting and memorable quotes and you will be entirely satisfied. But what really make this movie a masterpiece is its inner quality. You can't help but make a comparison with the recent Fahrenheit documentary.Both Copolla and Moore tackle similar issues, but while Copolla presents matters from an outside , objective point of view, Moore takes a very partisan position that really compromises the whole point of a documentary ... It is really a shame that a film like Fahrenheit 9/11 won a prestigious award like Cannes. But anyway, if you want to start to understand a little of the Vietnam war, the Iraq war, the second World War and any war in general, you should definitely see this movie, and not the other one ...

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

SPOILER Wolfcreek meets Texas Chainsaw Massacre....if you've seen those, don't waste your time with this one. Typical slasher movie, nothing new here except for the SPOILER "visions" which just add fluff to an already weak plot. I would recommend this movie if you have absolutely nothing to watch and it's either see this movie or stare at a bare wall for 1.5 hrs. The only semi-interesting part SPOILER is when the chick starts drinking in the empty sheriff's office, I say it's interesting because at least she made good use of that liquor instead of stereotypically using it to start a fire to kill the bad guy, although she did go that route towards the end. All in all, lame, bad, and not worth effort.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Sappy.

I liked how they went to the "Haaavaad baaa" to quote books at each other to impress the ugliest girl there.

Probably the janitor at my school is a genius too but is waiting to land that big construction job.

Just because you keep your nose to the grindstone is no reason to try to cut a steak with it. "Do you like apples?"

the guy nods or something.

"Well, how'd ya like DEM APPLES!" Wow, that IS genius.

Duh, Minnie Driver would give her number to anybody. Robin Williams can't paint and keeps the good books on the top shelf. And there's a professor who always wears a priest scarf for no reason.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
WEBS is a pretty odd movie, albeit slightly watchable. Richard Grieco plays an electrician who gets suck into a parallel Earth overrun by mutant spiders, or something like that. The film itself was made with a modest budget, which explains the limited locales, and the somewhat tedious screenplay that manages to do very little with quite an interesting premise. Basically a 90 minute episode of the TV show "Sliders", and nothing more.

4 out of 10

(go to www.nixflix.com for a more detailed review and reviews of other films in the genre)
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
From hardly alien sounding lasers, to an elementary school style shuttle crash, "Nightbeast" is better classified as a farcical mix of fake blood and bare chest. The almost pornographic style of the film seems to be a failed attempt to recover from a lack of cohesive or effective story. The acting however is not nearly as beastly, many of the young, aspiring, actors admirably showcase a hidden talent. Particularly Don Leifert and Jamie Zemarel, who shed a well needed shard of light on this otherwise terrible film. Nightbeast would have never shown up on set had he known the terrible movie making talent of this small Maryland town.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
After seeing Undisputed 2, I knew what to expect from Isaac Florentine.

The Shepherd: Border Patrol is a decent flick (not Van Damme's best, but definitely not his worst.) There is some bad acting from VD's supporting cast, but it makes sense.

The storyline and plot has all been done before, so it's nothing new. I mean this is Van Damme. We don't really expect much of an amazing plot do we? So lets talk about what we all want to watch this movie for anyway: the fighting.

Without giving anything away, I thought the way the fights were filmed and shot were well done, way better than a few of VD's recent movies such as Second in Command, in which the entire end fight is HORRIBLE. With Florentine behind the camera, and if you've seen Undisputed 2, he seems to know how to photograph fights and enjoys it. A few of the fights in The Shepherd reminded me of VD's older stuff which is what we all want to see. The fights were good, and i said "hah, awesome" out loud a few times. But I was hoping for just a bit more considering how good I thought Undisputed 2 was.

Something I found intriguing was VD's daughter in the film, I thought "wow she's kinda hot" come to find out, its Bianca Van Varenberg, JC's real life daughter. I have never seen her before so that was a nice treat.

All in all, this movie is not half bad. Yeah the story has been done before but at least JC was attempting to make a good movie. Next time though, add more hand to hand combat! I think He still has what it takes to do another big budget movie...his acting has improved since he's been doing DTV's and he really is in great shape at 47. I don't know about you but I'm one of the ones who thinks that most of his DTV's are actually good with the exception of Derailed. All he needs to do is get back into "bloodsport" shape, and make a martial arts movie...and I think people would respond well even though he's not jet Li. This movie is definitely worth the rental. =)
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

This representation of the popular children's story on film is pretty pathetic to watch. I know it is one of the earliest efforts at moviemaking, but this 15-minute picture is unimaginative and poorly shot. "The Great Train Robbery" (1903), which I also commented on, is much more creative and exciting to watch.

We see little long-haired Jack trade a cow (2 men in a cow-suit) for a hatful of beans from a merchant and later a beanstalk grows from where his mom throws them in the yard (I guess poor Jack attained the wrong kind). Jack dreams of a goose (actually it seems to be a chicken) and golden egg and the next day climbs the stalk into heaven.

There is no effort made to be creative in this film. The stalk looks like a rope with leaves on it, the giant is just a tall bearded guy in a home with nothing abnormally large in comparison to Jack and the climax to the film where Jack makes his escape with the goose-chicken and its golden egg is miserable as a stuffed dummy falls from out of screenshot in place of the giant and then the actor takes its place - rising up on his feet in a exaggerated death dance like in most early films. The beanstalk (leaf-covered rope) comes trailing down from above and coils neatly on the giants forehead.

Watch something else.
What's an example of a movie review?

Some weeks ago, at a movie theater, I saw a movie poster of El Padrino (2004) with the tag "The Latin Godfather". How lame have we become, I thought, Latin just because he is a Mexican? Let me remind you that ANYTHING Latin comes from or is related to Latium, Italy, So the original guy in the Godfather movie is more Latin than the Mexican Godfather and this is why: We are called Latin-American people because we speak Spanish, a language based in the Latin language that originated in Rome now Italy. So to place a tag in a movie poster like "The Latin Godfather", is not just ignorant, of course if we are trying to related this movie to the original Godfather, but a desperate and uncreative attempt to get some credit by copying the title of a movie classic. Now about the movie, I just hate overacting so from 1 to 10 I guess is 3 the most.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: In 1858 Tolstoy wrote this in his diary: "The political is not compatible with the artistic, because the former, in order to prove, has to be one-sided." This thought from a great mind is applicable to USA The Movie. The film might be read by those with a narrow focus as a 90 minute slam of Bush, Cheney et. al. as well as a ripping of America as an out-of-control imperialistic force that will ultimately be destroyed by its own folly and thirst for power. The more open-minded viewer will take note of the recurring images and themes that make this DVD a testament to postmodernist thought, as the main character breaks up into bits and pieces surrounded by recurring visuals of the natural world contrasted with the man-made constructions; towers, roads, video monitors, radio, vehicles. Above all the ominous threat of wars that have been and are to come smolder throughout. War and rumors of war are what is created, destroyed and recreated on the screen, in our conscious world and in our unconscious minds.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This movie cannot be serious because it has a nerdy looking kid named Curtis killing people. The other two psycho kids are kind of cute but that Curtis kid is just so ugly because he wears these huge, brown, ugly glasses. The actor probably wandered on the wrong set and he was really supposed to go to Revenge of the Nerds.

Another thing that I hate so much about this movie is that Curtis takes his sweet time shooting people. I kept my finger on the fast forward button because he took too long and what was up with his voice? He sounded like he was fourteen and not ten. Another thing I hated was that he kept smiling like an idiot and there was no point to that.

Then they put that annoying kid in the freezer and somehow he found a flashlight in there. That didn't make any sense and neither did the music. The music didn't fit any of the scenes.

This movie is slow, boring and a waste of time. Watch a different movie on your birthday.
Frank Sinatra starred in this odd little short from RKO that is now in the public domain. The film came out at about the same time the war ended and is a nice plea for religious tolerance.

The film begins with Sinatra on stage singing. After leaving the stage, he walks out into the alley and finds a group of kids picking on another because of his religion. Instead of yelling at the boys (or helping them for that matter), Sinatra delivers a nice civics lesson on religious toleration and equates prejudice with fascism. The kids seem to get the lesson but then, out of the blue, Sinatra begins singing a song that, frankly (get it?), kids would have hated. He had a lovely voice but unfortunately I think this detracted from the excellent message he gave to the kids about tolerance. It's a case of a good message with too much singing--even if the guy singing is Frank Sinatra. It's also an interesting curio--a nice historical piece that is often overlooked...plus it's quite touching even if it seems a bit schmaltzy.

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

positive
What Bergman has got here is "What if all that bad stuff happened here in Sweden, to nice people like us?" And what he gives us, in the Swedish language, with Swedish actors, on Swedish locations (and using what appear to be genuine Swedish military vehicles) is what was familiar from war films set in almost every other country in Europe-- all the confusing invasions and counter-invasions, political lies, internment camps, faked confessions, summary executions, torture, turncoats, "collaborators", and so on. As in a modern short story, it's done in the abstract, with no real names, cities, or countries used. But the stronger faction are "Nazis": they strut about self-importantly, and some wear shiny knee boots. One even whips things with a riding crop (ok, it's actually a cane). The victimized couple are named Rosenberg. Apart from the shame they feel at finding dirtier ways to survive-- and who would not do what they did?-- what all of the above suggests is that the title is clearly meant to refer to Stockholm's de facto complicity with the Nazis. Indeed, what we are shown is what Sweden might have looked like if Germany had asked for a bit more than mining concessions.

The first half plays like a black comedy. We see the "fog of war" from the point of view of a comically passive couple who ignore the troops all around, the long convoys, the bombed-out buildings, the news reports, &c. They do not even bother to find a working radio. They are the ultimate in "Not in my backyard". They talk of wine and lingonberries; meanwhile friends are mysteriously conscripted and growing numbers of troops show up in the town. They show no curiosity about the war that has been going on around them for many years.

The man (Von Sydow) is cultured, sulky, and a navel-gazer; the woman (Ullman) is somewhat more impulsive, passionate, and outward-looking. There's a beautiful scene in which the man talks about his violin: the manufacturer, he says offhandedly, fought in the Napoleonic wars, but his own interest stops with the cultural artifact in his hand-- or, more precisely, which his own warm feelings about owning it, and the security that that ownership assumes. Not in my backyard! But when war finally breaks into their bucolic idyll, the man's timidity, an irritation in good times, turns into a liability, one he ends up overcompensating for-- as is often the case-- as Bergman demonstrates subtly and beautifully. Definitely worth seeing.

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

positive
Do not see "Mr. Magoo." It is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Leslie Nielson was not funny in it. He has not been funny since the Naked Gun movies. Well it won't take long to figure out that this is not a Naked Gun movie! The movie's plot is ridiculously foolish. Nothing in the entire movie was funny. The first few minutes of the film were animated to look like the old Magoo cartoons. I wish the movie would have stayed that way.

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

negative
Write a negative movie review.

"The death of a performer at a Broadway stage play brings a theatre critic and a police detective together as an unlikely crime-solving duo. The dead performer's niece becomes not only the object of affection for our critic, but also a prime suspect in this death, and some other murders that occur at the theatre. 'The Phantom Killer' sets his sights upon the young woman as his next victim; so, it is a race against time for our heroes to catch the killer," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

Milton Raison's screenplay puts a little spark in this low-budget mystery whodunit. Helpfully, Dave O'Brien (as Anthony "Tony" Woolrich) does well in the lead role; his skills as an actor appear to be much greater than the productions employing him. O'Brien and cab driving sidekick Frank Jenks (as Egbert "Romeo" Egglehoffer) would have made a fine 1950s TV detective team. Leading lady Kay Aldridge (as Claudia Moore) and the supporting cast are also good. Unfortunately, the story becomes meandering, and anti-climactic.

**** The Phantom of 42nd Street (5/2/45) Albert Herman ~ Dave O'Brien, Kay Aldridge, Frank Jenks
Seeing that this movie was on the IMDB Bottom 20, I simply had to rent it.

SUPRISE! SUPRISE! I have no regret of seeing this movie at all. In fact, I really enjoyed it. There's a level of camp in this movie that puts cult classics of the 80's to shame. Is it stupid? yes, but Jim Wynorski proves that stupid is not necessarily bad after all.

Rent it for a laugh that seems unintended but is actually meant to be funny. Wynorski is a genius. Hope he directs the next ninja turtles movie

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

My mom and I, rented this movie. I mean, we love those type of Sci-Fi flicks, whether they be big Hollywood flicks or Indy flicks.

But oh, we were fooled!! Two journalists are investigating a UFO abduction in a small city in Texas. Halfway through, all the sudden things get all christain on us. My mom and I believe in god and Jesus and the Devil, but the way this movie was preaching it, made it annoying. All I really have to say, is that we are Christian, but even we like to have fun. So don't blame christians as a whole, just blame the christians who need to suck the fun out of this movie.

In fact you can clearly understand the directors stance on UFO's, and that is that he believes it is all demonic. Now, i could say some words, but I will not. All I will say is, that DO NOT WATCH this movie, unless you feel like being preached. In fact many times it states that we must be perfect in order to enter heaven. Well, last time I checked, the only perfect person died on a cross.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
It's hard to decide what to say about this one. It isn't totally, one hundred percent bad. Although the movie-in-a-movie is unspeakably bad, meant to be campy, but missing by a mile. I'm pretty sure that this is intentional, however. Danny Aiello is perfectly adequate here, and more or less nails his pathetic character. Dyan Cannon was good in a small role. Clotilde Courau was impressive as the latest twenty-something girlfriend. And Linda Carlson had a brave topless scene that she pulled off very well.

So, it's not totally bad, but I don't believe that this one accomplishes its goals. All in all, it's probably worth passing on.

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

negative
Rowan Atkinson delivers an unforgettable performance as the clueless Mr. Bean who never goes far without his Teddy Bear. The appeal of Mr. Bean is largely his childish behavior and innocence. We don't know if he came from the sky or another planet. He is the kind of strange character that you can't make up quite easily. He is often alone and used to it. He has a hard time communicating through speech which might be why we only hear his grunts at times. There are other characters who speak to him and he responds. The character of Mr. Bean is a mystery and still is. He lives alone and does the unthinkable when he can do the sensible thing. Mr. Bean is rather an odd man out who does not mind it much. He rather live a simple life with his yellow car and teddy bear and hopes to get to work on time.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
By mistake, I ordered a series from the BBC, their new version of Robin Hood. Very disappointing in comparison with RoS. Terrible costuming and backgrounds. While I enjoyed the Sheriff, who took cues from the Nick Grace character, the rest of the cast left much to be desired. As a "for instance", Marion's costuming looked suspiciously like it came from Walmart. And Sir Guy, well, he looked a bit like a character from an outer space movie! RoS has stolen the spotlight, probably forever, in the telling of this tale. Cast, costuming, story lines, scenery, filming and soundtrack by Clannad are all superb, as is evidenced by all the continual feedback some 26 years on. RoS is a timeless classic. My thanks to all who made the series.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This movie dethroned Dr. Giggles as the best horror movie I've ever seen. The plot was great, the plot twists were even better and the cast was great. It's hard to believe that they compiled the most unknown people 8 years ago and they would be big names today! 

The plot is simple. 4 teenagers wreck their car in the middle of nowhere. They stumble on this campsite and do what everybody who is in an accident should do. Build a fire and tell scary stories.

1. "The Hook." Great opener. Anyone who is in High School has heard variations of this story on Prom night. But they do it real good in this movie.

2. "The Honeymoon." OK, this was not the best of the 4. It was pretty good and you get to see some boob. Emphisis on the word "some." It's just your basic creature in the woods story.

3. "People Can Lick Too." This is a cautionary tale of what happens in internet chat rooms all across the country. This segment alone should be required viewing for parents whose children have access to the internet. 

4. "The Locket." Now this is the best story in the whole movie. A guy on a motorcycle breaks down and goes to this mute girl's house. Very good plot twist.

The main plot, "The Campfire" has the biggest and best twist in the whole movie. I won't tell what it is cause I don't want to ruin it. I was never this shocked during a movie in my life!

Plot: A+ 

Acting: A+

Writing: A+ 

Directing: A+ 

Music: A+ 

Overall: A+ 

I recommend it to anyone over 13 with the exception of "People Can Lick Too." Any parent who's child has access to the internet needs to watch this one with their child.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

What makes this movie so damn bad? Is it the lame sub-par juvenile humor? Could it be the horrid "trendy" suck ass music? Perhaps the uninspired go nowhere story? Or maybe even the fact that Traci Lords gives her worst acting performance ever and to add insult to injury keeps all her clothes on throughout the length of this steaming turd sandwich. Regardless no matter what the reason this film sucks, the fact remains that it really REALLY does. I have never wished I could be watching a movie with Dean Cameron in it instead of what I was watching in my life, but "Ski School" is a masterpiece of comic genius compared to this travesty.

My Grade: F 

Eye Candy: Nikol Nesbitt, Buffy Tyler and Suzanne Stokes all unleash their Tupperware tits

Where I saw it: Starz on Demand
I had a VERY hard time sitting through this film. Unless you really are very pro-adultery and like to hear people ENDLESSLY talking about their sexual exploits, I can't see how you could enjoy this film. Geez--most of the main characters behaved like rutting weasels and their bragging about their MANY infidelities grew tiresome. About the only element of this I appreciated was the DISGUSTING scene where the one character was urinating and blood was splattering everywhere because he'd picked up an STD---BIG SURPRISE!?! Hmm.

If you want a GOOD film, watch the sequel, Barbarian Invasions. Despite the general unlikable nature of many of the characters, the sequel is VERY involving and more realistic--well worth your time.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I understand the draw and appeal to such a different type of movie and I am a huge admirer of movies with little dialog but all the same this one absolutely terrible. I've been to the Scottish highlands and found the lack of Scottish accents in the characters disappointing. This plot was strong enough in theory but the cheap sets and lack of a single realistic character kept this film from getting off the ground. I feel the use of silence to create atmosphere only works when you have actors who can exude some sort of presence without speaking and these actors certainly cant. If you want a silent movie that captures that presence try (Le Dernier Combat). There have been very few movies that I couldn't even manage to finish and this was one of them. Absolute dribble!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Trite and tiring, the one-liners almost made me cry. My 4 year old left the room and ended up doing a puzzle. I don't know what age group this was written for, but the writer himself/herself didn't even want credit. As for the song, it's mildly amusing. At least it was a decade ago. There are many Christmas movies to watch. Although I've seen some many more times than this, they are still enjoyable. Whenever this comes on, I try to encourage my child to watch something else. One positive note, that allowed a vote of 2 instead of 1, is that it encourages good moral values. That would have been encouraging, if anyone were watching.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

"Subspecies," like many other horror films, gets a raw deal on IMDb. The majority of movie-watchers have a hearty contempt for horror, and when they occasionally rent horror films, they either want to laugh at them or cringe at excessively gory scenes. Unfortunately, "Subspecies" is not particularly laughable, and not that bloody, so it gets a low rating. That's too bad.

Of course, there's plenty to criticize here. The non-actors are flat, the subspecies are a poor special effect, and the nighttime scenes are too brightly lit. But what do you expect? For a straight-to-video horror film, "Subspecies" boasts decent production values and more integrity than you might anticipate. The film's Romanian setting is virtually unique (I believe it was the first American movie made in that country, post-Communism), and the locations, both interior and exterior, are beautiful. The script has moments of intelligence, especially when it delves into local folklore (all bogus, I'm sure). Somehow, the location filming and smartish script work well together - "Subspecies" has its own very distinctive world. To risk damning with faint praise...it could be a lot dumber.

Fans of the more gruesome aspects of horror will no doubt get a kick out of the blood-drooling vampire villain, Radu. He's pretty effective in this movie - powerful, with a memorable raspy voice - but I like him better in the sequels, when actor Anders Hove gives a more self-parodying, campy performance. A totally sincere Radu is somewhat silly. Other silly aspects include gratuitous nudity and the subspecies themselves, who are clearly only in the movie because producer Charles Band has a fetish for evil little creatures (see also Puppetmaster and Demonic Toys).

But I linger too much on the movie's flaws. For what it is - straight-to-video vampire horror - "Subspecies" is perfectly fine. The sequels boast better production values, more violence, and somewhat more thoughtful story lines, so I recommend them even more highly. Still, this isn't a bad start for the series.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Good cinematography, good acting good direction...cannot justify a story that is not and cannot be acceptable to any society. Amitabh has often used the media to make this junk sell able by saying that -- if such an incident happens...then what? I would like to ask him if such a thing happens for your own child or your grandchild (say girl child) then what will you do? I think every parents will have to take special care before interacting with any 60 year old neighbor if you have one -jia- with you. Such films should be banned and discouraged otherwise you inspire more more Nithari cases. Such acts are villainous and villains in films are punished..that should be the moral of the story and not glorify their act or them.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Some years back, this film had been scheduled for broadcast on TCM UK as part of a Tod Browning retrospective  but what they actually showed was the 1937 remake!; my brother had watched it (and, in hindsight, it followed the original pretty much scene-for-scene, even down to the set design)  though no classic, he said it was a far more satisfying viewing experience than the incredibly creaky earlier version 

This being the first collaboration between Browning and Bela Lugosi, I had high hopes for it  but these were quashed when it became evident after the first reel of tedious conversation that the film's main concern was to appease the still-novel sound technique, and consequently the result is stagey and extremely static. The thriller plot isn't exactly exciting either; even less appetizing is the ostensible British-Indian setting (with the characters' affected accents and upper-class demeanor  not to mention the over-use of corny idiosyncratic idioms such as "I say", "rather" and "now look here"  rendering the whole risible more than anything else)! 

Apart from this, there are a few unintended howlers: Margaret Wycherly (as a fake medium) pleads with Police Inspector Lugosi (if anything, his undeniable screen presence is already evident) to give her some time to 'work out' who the culprit of the double-murder really is (the evidence points to her own daughter, played by Leila Hyams!)  she hears a tapping and is deluded into thinking that the spirit world has genuinely made contact with herbut then Lugosi enters the room and, in his unmistakable accent, straight-facedly tells her "I knocked twice  you didn't hear me!", at which my brother and I almost fell to the floor in convulsions of laughter!!; the editing is really sloppy, too: during one high-angle shot of the main set, a mike is seen being rapidly pulled up out of camera range  and even worse are a couple of instances where a person walks off-screen, ostensibly into the next shot, to another part of the setbut each shot is held on the other actors for an absurdly long time, so that it appears to take forever for this person to walk just a few paces!! 

THE THIRTEENTH CHAIR marks the third non-horror Browning Talkie that I've watched  even if both this and MIRACLES FOR SALE (1939) deal with murder and occultism and could, therefore, still be linked to the genre. Much has been said about the director's apparent slackening with the coming of Sound: however, flawed though they may be, the 4 straight horror films he did throughout the 30s are infinitely better than the rest  which I've always found stylish and bizarre enough to suggest that Browning wasn't as much at sea during this period as has been suggested
Hmmmmmmm - cheerleader massacre. Let me think - high school girls get sliced up, except the cute one survives. Got it. Next movie.

I was actually surprised this one was made in 2003. I really thought they quit making these movies in the 80's. This was truly your run of the mill slasher movie with teenage eye candy, dumb male horn dogs, even dumber male adult, and hot teacher. It continues on the list of dark and stormy night and abandoned cabin in the woods. We have seen it all before.

However this one had a few interesting plot twists that places it above the normal me-too slashers, so if you have got a few brain cells to fry and 2 hours to kill - you could do worse.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Five years after she teamed up with James Cagney in "The Public Enemy", Mae Clarke makes another appearance, this time as his fiancée with Cagney's character on the other side of the law. It seems like she was calling more of the shots in their relationship as well, trying to get Johnny Cave to be a little more practical with his money and his career. You had to figure they'd get back together after she gave him the boot for challenging her crooked boss; those things have a way of working out in pictures.

I got a kick out of watching Cagney in this one. I usually do, and here he looked like he might have auditioned that characteristic shoulder shrug move that he used to good effect in "Angels With Dirty Faces" portraying Rocky Sullivan. It was right after he threw Cavanaugh (Robert Gleckler) out of his office during the first attempt at bribing the new Weights and Measures boss. He turns to the camera and hitches up as if entirely pleased with his response to the crook - very cool.

It's my understanding that this wasn't one of Cagney's Warner films, but it might as well have been. Warner's often took up the cause for the common man, and the expose of crooked merchants and the politicians who protected them would have been right up their alley. You also have those great New York City street scenes depicting cars and shops of the era, with home made signs pricing flour at eighteen cents a pound. Hey, how about the furniture store selling the living room set for a hundred eighty nine dollars, you might get a single stick chair for that price today.

Best part of the picture just might be that meat counter scene when Cagney, James Burke (Aloysius) and the butchers play catch with an underweight chicken. One of the film's lighter moments, but you get an idea how tense people can get when they're caught cheating. Same with the truck driver who's pressured by Johnny into signing for an accurate delivery; he just wasn't used to doing that.

All in all, a nice diversion from Cagney's more typical gangster presence, even if not up to the standard of his feature films. It's easy enough to obtain as one of a handful of public domain Cagney pictures out there, and often found in relatively inexpensive compilations.

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

positive
This is a very realistic movie. It's the most realistic I've seen on urban youth. The actors were great. I will look out for more films by Gomez. I had never heard of the film until someone mentioned it recently. I bought it on DVD. I was impressed. I haven't seen anything come close to life as I know it in Philadelphia. This comes real close - in fact, one scene where there is an accident (I won't spoil and give details), reminded me of a nearly identical situation in Philadelphia. At first I thought Gomez took the scene from that real-life event, but then I realized that he made the film a few years before that situation. I also agree with the point that this film didn't try to broaden its appeal by putting in Hollywood crap. Gomez also directed "Laws of Gravity" - I am eager to see it.

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

positive
Write a positive movie review.

This is a multi-faceted, insightful and bold story about the people in the life of a schizophrenic patient, their (and our) perception and realities. Although the main theme revolves around a delusional young woman, the story delightfully flirts with physics, medicine, religion and even politics as it questions our perceptions about what is true and what is real. Konkona Sensharma beautifully conveys that the world Mithi is living in is as real to her as ours is to us. Within that world, she is logical and her thoughts are internally consistent, not the gibberish that they seem to us in our world.

Here are a few outstanding scenes to look out for while watching the movie (don't worry, these are not spoilers). I absolutely loved the way Aparna Sen wove these commentaries into the story.

- The references to quantum mechanics and relativity intermingled with the witch-doctor ("ojha" in Hindi) performing his religious rituals that he believes will drive away the "ghosts" sitting in Mithi's brain. 

- The doctor prescribing shock-treatment as a solution that is "believed" to work 

- Windows of perception - The scene about the review of Anu's book. 

- The allusion to illusion in a conversation about a director looking for "maya". 

- News footage of George Bush telling the whole world that there is "no doubt in his mind" that there are WMD in Iraq (now, that is not as much about Bush's perception, who I suspect knew the truth, as the gullible public's perception about WMD in Iraq.)

- One of the best scenes in the movie is where Mithi tells Anu "Charu sent this man to beat me" and Anu dismisses it as a matter of course. Konkona did a fantastic job, bringing out the strange mix of muddled thoughts in a schizophrenic's brain when her world and the real world clash.

Aparna Sen was bold, but not bold enough to pose one big question: Is nearly all of mankind delusional to believe in God? She could have inserted some scenes about "normal", "healthy" people praying to and sacrificing for a Being that no one has ever seen or heard from in all of human history (The ritual/exorcism scene doesn't go far enough). That would be the ultimate question: What is normal? Who's reality is right, the Believer's or the Atheist's?

IMHO, this movie is a far more intricate exploration of the schizophrenic mind than "A Beautiful Mind". It looks at the minds of not just the sick person, but also the healthy, and does so from many different angles and illuminates our understanding of our own minds and our world. If the former got 4 Oscars, this deserves more - At least one each for story, screenplay, direction, Konkona, and Shabana Azmi. It was truly a treat to watch this movie and I'm glad I bought the DVD for my collection. 

This was a story very well-told indeed.