cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Oh yes, I have to agree with the others who describe this as appalling. The acting in this four hour feature is uniformly bad, so bad to the point that I find it impossible to believe any of the actors in this production could possibly earn a living as an actor. I still wonder who did the casting. Each delivers their lines without appearing to have any kind of engagement or emotional investment with any other character. None appear to have a true relationship, family or otherwise, with another. The direction is also appalling and any action scene is laughable and unconvincing. Were the film editors asleep?

The costumes appear authentic to the Regency period but the fabrics look 20th century and colors (especially the blue colors!) are jarring and I don't believe were available in early 19th century fabric except perhaps in silk. 

Also the hair: the men have obvious 1970s haircuts, and the women have "big hair"---especially the woman playing Anne Elliot.

All the female characters, young and old, are quite lovely but this doesn't make up for the lack of acting abilities. The actress playing "Anne" looks as though she is in her forties while Anne Elliot is supposed to be 27 years old. I mean, where was the makeup and lighting crew if we were to find the woman playing Anne believable? She spends much of her time gazing pensively with her eyes at the level of the horizon whether indoors or out. I wonder still what that was suppose to convey. Regret perhaps? Yes, this production is regrettable!

The actress playing Louisa was truly appalling. She screams, squeals, giggles, and leaps around like an ill mannered twelve-year-old (my apologies to anyone twelve years of age reading this) that I found myself eagerly awaiting the moment when she knocks herself out. How this behavior is suppose to attract an adult male is beyond me. Most would back off when she first opened her mouth to giggle and shriek.

The actor playing Captain Wentworth portrays someone so bland and colorless one wonders why any woman could pine over him for eight years.

The rejoining of the pair at the end is not convincingly done or explained. How did they get together again? Not because Louisa was in a coma; that is certain. No, there has to be more than that and it is not explained in the film. 

I rate this production two stars: one because it is Austens' work, and the other because some of the outdoor scenes were lovely. The only reason I could watch the entire production is that I was off sick with the flu and I got it from the library. 

If you enjoyed the book see the 1995 version with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds. I would recommend this film even if you have't read the book.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I hadn't planned on watching O12 because I didn't like O11 that much. I thought O11 was a nice but slightly boring little bank robbers movie with a sensational arsenal of stars. Anyway I was talked into watching O12 one night and I regretted it a lot. The plot is not only boring but also senseless. I honestly don't even know what it was all about. I left the movie after 3 quarters and got some coffee with another girl who didn't like it. Much more pleasure I can tell you that. But even the guys who stayed till the end later reported to me that the plot continued being awful and useless. My advice: Don't watch. Go watch Team America (hilarious btw;-)) and forget about Ocean's Twelve.

In my opinion the most boring and senseless peace of crap to be on the screen in years.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

For their credit, this is one of their more competent pieces of trash, and that's because there's considerably good gore, and an interesting take on ripping off "Snakes on a Plane." But, if there's any more of example of the inconsistency behind Asylum's newest rip-off it's the two characters at the beginning whom are illegal immigrants and can't understand nor speak English to a Texas man sneaking them across the border, yet when they get on a train and meet a friend, they begin understanding and speaking perfect English.

Aside from being a pretty bad depiction of a Hollywood formula, "Snakes on a Train" is utterly boring. At least, with "Snakes on a Plane" we were given the chance to watch actors wax comedic and attempt to be remotely interesting. The Mallachi Brothers installment features some of the most boring characters I've ever seen, from an electrical engineer (gee, I wonder how he comes in handy later on), to some stoner surfers, right down to our two main characters attempting to fight off the snake curse that lurks in the husband's wife.

"Snakes" is never entertaining, and even when it's very gory, it's still never as good as it has the chance to be, because "Snakes" could have been a funny short film, and instead just takes itself much too seriously, and never camps it up at any moment. Instead of taking their small budget and making original films that can set a precedent, they instead force their small budget to work against them in these knock offs. While the Mallachi brothers seem to be trying, the train just looks incredibly artificial.

It seems almost like a stage play with these inconsistent and awfully bland set pieces that try desperately to look like actual train cars, while every so often it shakes, the background of the windows are blurred, and the sound effects go off every now and then to let us know they're actually on a train; not to mention that in such a large extended train there only seems to be about ten passengers on it. And beyond the train fight, and a drawn out sex scene, we're forced to be subjected to a plot that makes zero sense. And not even the directors can work around the fact that the "lethal" snakes that go on this train look far from venomous or dangerous.

The rest of the film staggers onto only about a minute of snake carnage and a bad subplot of an ex drug agent trying to molest a passenger. All of this dull exposition ends with a really ridiculous climax in which a poorly computer generated snake (I saw better animation on the Super Nintendo) completely swallows the train whole, and is then dispensed in a method that should have been exercised from the very beginning. Asylum scores again.

Asylum scores yet again with a hackneyed, lazy, horribly directed, and boring rip-off of another better film. "Snakes on a Train" takes itself way too seriously, and that's why it's never entertaining or memorable.
What's an example of a movie review?

I agree with most of the critics above. More yet, I was shocked by the presentation of the love scenes with the homosexual couple. Why? because while they --the director, the producers?-- didn't have any compulsion whatsoever in presenting the different heterosexual couples in the most passionate embraces including nudity and super close-ups of French kissing and all sorts of nude contortions in bed, completely unnecessary in their length and in the story, when the moment came to show the same experiences with the homosexual couple, they only dare to go as far as an excruciatingly painful hug, almost among scholarly giggles, with two very nervous actors. So, in reality, the makers of this film found homosexuality to be UNNATURAL, as one of the characters says in some scene. What a difference with the Spanish cinema!! I remember being at the projection of an Almodovar film in an Italian cinema in Rome, and being completely amazed at the total lack of reaction from the Italian audience, they were afraid to have a reaction!! when in Spain people would fall down from their seats laughing at all the risquè situations and fabulous Almodovar wit and flair. Obviously in Italy there are dark forces in its history that impedes the free manifestation of some very normal and natural emotions. Pity. I must add that I was quite surprised to find that this same comment was censured by another correspondent. It's very bad and dangerous when we cannot be allowed by the narrowness of others to express our opinions about certain matters. Where is freedom of speech? I don't know if that censor will approve of the changes I was forced to make in this comment, and I hope he won't receive the same treatment from some other narrow minded judge. Pity again.
(Only light spoilers in here)

Stealing Sinatra is a half-slapstick comedy about dimwit kidnappers, dimwit victims, and a few other side-stories thrown in to eat up some time.

You will see some poor performances all around in this movie. The drama is forced, and the humor makes no sense. Whether you're watching the kidnappers threaten the victim who won't shut up, or a victim's father responding to the criminal's death threat with "Care for some tea?", none of it is believable. This quite comfortably fits into the "wannabe movie" category.

You will also be listening to a repetitive goofy music track throughout pretty much the entire movie. It's quite unprofessional, and adds nothing. It's really just a sad attempt at making an achingly unfunny movie seem somewhat witty.

However, if you're able to look past all of this and suspend a lot of disbelief, you might be entertained by the adequate storyline.

I voted 4/10.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
As an adult, I am grateful to have caught this movie by chance when I was a teen. During the time, I was experiencing familial problems. This particular movie managed to capture what I was seeing from a closeted world. How much peer pressure is too much? I actually had to purchase this movie because it reached me on a level unlike most films try to reach an audience. How far might an individual go for social acceptance? Who is the "bad" crowd? Teenagers do struggle trying to find out the answers to these questions, but ultimately...who is the "pack leader" if there must be one? Is it the strong? The beautiful? Perhaps the person we just all seem to like? Could it be the moral character? As far as the movie goes, the cast worked together as if it were predestined. I only hope that more directors and producers try to create a piece of work that reaches all of us like this particular movie reached me. I wish I could vote higher than ten because this particular title deserves much more.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Lots of scenes and dialogue are flat-out goofy, but when you add it all up, i.e. Machine's daily cycle from depressing walkup to depressing bar to depressing burlesque hall to depressing smoke-filled poker games and back home again, you get a weird sense that somebody, somewhere is trying to give a faithful depiction of the junkie's life circa-1955. Whether it's Sinatra, who obviously would have bumped up against this type of character growing up in Hoboken and working in numerous bands, or Preminger, who uses the soundtrack and the Frankie-Zosch subtext to slip the addict's interior worldview past the Hays Code cage, you get a good companion piece to On the Waterfront, which was filmed almost exactly the same time. Sort of a faux-realist work that leaves you realistically wondering how deep the drug culture is embedded in American life.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

I really liked this movie. I watched it last night on the Public Broadcasting System. The part I liked about it was the fact that they dealt with issues of today not in the future or the past. They basically had some terrorists take a van or two and rent them out to be car bombs. I think what the movie could have showed was people in different countries at the same time. It did show the fact that England, or any other country, isn't prepared for an attack on the magnitude that they showed. I have never heard of any of the actors or actresses in the movie so I can't really say if they are normally their parts. After the movie, they had this panel of experts talking about if something like that could happen here in the U.S. It was a thought-provoking discussion!
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Disclaimer: During my ventures into foreign cinema, I have taken a liking to a wide variety of movies that span different genres that include horror, action, drama, comedy, and romance, to name a few. Thus, I have enjoyed the thoughtful, serious tone of dramas as well as the mindless, popcorn fun of action films. With a wide array of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean movies under my belt, I am confident in my ability to recognize bright spots in movies to appreciate and complement. Unfortunately, Ashes of Time has nothing to recognize. It is one of the worst Chinese movies I have ever seen.

To start off, this overrated swordplay epic showcases the infamous "slideshow" action sequence throughout, which is nothing more than an ultra-cheap and pathetic form of action choreography. One simply needs to show a series of close-up pictures of grimising faces, swords, legs and/or arms, and then a dead body. Bravissimo! You now have an action sequence for Ashes of Time. The problem lies not only in its poor quality but also in the fact that the scenes are so chaotic and disjointed that the viewer has no idea what the hell is going on.

The dramatic element of this film is nonexistent, as it relies on the characters telling the viewer that they love someone or hate someone instead of actually developing and showing such elements on screen, which renders all characters generic and colorless, leaving the viewer completely indifferent to their actions. In fact, the storyline itself is an absolute disaster, introducing way too many characters way too quickly with way too many plot devices. Plot complexities in films can be used very advantageously (i.e., A Tale of Two Sisters), but Ashes of Time becomes exploitative trash when it does nothing more than convolute a very simple plot for no apparently good reason.

In fact, this entire movie acts like a series of smokescreens to cover up its deficiencies. Horrible action choreography is covered up by "slideshow" tricks and chaotic camera movements. Non-existent character development is covered up by the characters overtly saying how they feel. And a thoughtless storyline is covered up by confusing the viewer with convolution.

As if this weren't bad enough, this movie was extremely boring, seeming more like 150 minutes instead of the actual 95.

Rating = A rarely given 0/5 Stars.
Determine the sentiment:

This really is by far the worst movie I've ever seen in my whole life (I'm approaching 47)! The description on the back of the cover equaled the scrolling text right at the begin of the movie. The further plot was nil and even a bunch of corpses would have shown more life in their "acting". I viewed the full length of it and was really relieved when the final character's death signalled the end of my suffering! The location was either some kind of vaults or a grimy beach. I suppose, that home-video equipment served as camera and the lighting was sub-standard. The dialogues were uninspired and devoid of meaning. As were the actors faces. Which brings me to the topic "make-up": By the looks of it they got it as gimmicks in some teen-ager's magazines "my first own make-up" or similar. What made me buy the DVD was the name "Lovecraft" printed on the cover. The only connection with this brilliant mind's works was the use of the name "Necronomicon", which was wrongly translated as "Book of Light". The 4,70 EURO I paid for this DVD were a complete loss, for the DVD went into the recycling box without any further ado.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Without a doubt, this is the big momma of all music videos!!! Unlike most music videos that are either "dance videos" badly storied and/or badly interrupted lyrics this was done right. Jackson was co-writer and by evidence of VH1 heavily choreographed and directed this masterpiece. In fact you could say Thriller is creepier then most horror movies with that last second sparkling eye. To me this music video is what you judge all other music videos on. You can easily see the ominous influence M.J. had on early break-dancing with the zombie march number. Because of the dancing, comedy, storyline, and yes horror. I give it a 5 of 5.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
First, what is really great about this movie: 

- Ryan Reynolds, great acting! There are very few actors I really like and for now he is one of them. He has an amazing skill to impersonate characters. 

- The soundtrack! Very good music played at the right time. 

- The idea of a nine lost in his own world, incapable of leaving. 

Still, I give it only a 3 out of 10 for certain flaws: 

- Horrible second part. It seems that the director was very eager to make something new, but despite of the efforts it was really boring 

- Very annoying character Melissa. I couldn't stand the scenes with her - i.e. it was constantly annoying. She represents everything that is wrong with American woman. 

- Terrible explanation of the numbers. The director was so busy with character development, that he completely missed the point of a good story.. excuse me koalas? brr... terrible!

This movie had great potential. The filming is nicely done, the music is really good, but nothing more.

See it only if you are a fan of Ryan Reynolds, or have a lot of time to spare.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Computer savvy John Light (as John Elias) goes from Stanford drop-out to successful young Dotcom-era tycoon. But, Mr. Light's sneering success could be short-lived, with partners like ambitious Jeffrey Donovan (as Robert Jennings). Mr. Donovan used to bed down with Light's girlfriend, Megan Dodds (as Lisa Forrester). Donovan wants Light to know that binge drinking and casual sex don't have to end in college. After reading a naughty Internet sex session, Ms. Dodds shines Light on. He may lose is "Digital Dreams" Internet empire, too! Veterans unsuccessfully trying to lending dramatic gravitas include red lollipop-sucking Mia Farrow (as Anna Simmons) and quick-drawing, computer-hating Hal Holbrook (as Tom Walker). Ms. Farrow looks sweet with her lollipops.

*** Purpose (2/21/02) Alan Lazar ~ John Light, Jeffrey Donovan, Mia Farrow
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Actor turned director Bill Paxton follows up his promising debut, the Gothic-horror "Frailty", with this family friendly sports drama about the 1913 U.S. Open where a young American caddy rises from his humble background to play against his Bristish idol in what was dubbed as "The Greatest Game Ever Played." I'm no fan of golf, and these scrappy underdog sports flicks are a dime a dozen (most recently done to grand effect with "Miracle" and "Cinderella Man"), but some how this film was enthralling all the same.

The film starts with some creative opening credits (imagine a Disneyfied version of the animated opening credits of HBO's "Carnivale" and "Rome"), but lumbers along slowly for its first by-the-numbers hour. Once the action moves to the U.S. Open things pick up very well. Paxton does a nice job and shows a knack for effective directorial flourishes (I loved the rain-soaked montage of the action on day two of the open) that propel the plot further or add some unexpected psychological depth to the proceedings. There's some compelling character development when the British Harry Vardon is haunted by images of the aristocrats in black suits and top hats who destroyed his family cottage as a child to make way for a golf course. He also does a good job of visually depicting what goes on in the players' heads under pressure. Golf, a painfully boring sport, is brought vividly alive here. Credit should also be given the set designers and costume department for creating an engaging period-piece atmosphere of London and Boston at the beginning of the twentieth century.

You know how this is going to end not only because it's based on a true story but also because films in this genre follow the same template over and over, but Paxton puts on a better than average show and perhaps indicates more talent behind the camera than he ever had in front of it. Despite the formulaic nature, this is a nice and easy film to root for that deserves to find an audience.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Junior and his dad start a new life in a new town. It's the same life because Junior hasn't changed one bit. He is still the same rotten brat as before only he's gotten bigger. This time he has a pal named Trixie and she is only slightly worse. Junior doesn't like his dad dating and messes up every opportunity that he has. Then grandpa moves in and the dog comes along. I thought that the two of them would have made it a good movie but they didn't even become buddies until the end. This is a movie for the most immature people. It has diapers, farts, doggy do do, and toilet humor in it. Only someone under the age of twelve would find this to be super hilarious. I hope when I have a son, he is exactly like Junior.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

What a pleasure. This is really a parody. Only french people can do that kind of thing without being coarse. And as a result, you spend a really good time watching Jean Dujardin playing the dumb. Most of the movie stands on his shoulders, and he has them wide enough to make this movie a good one. He has the perfect way of overdoing the James Bond kind of guy that he is no match for Mike Meyers in Austin Powers for example. The dialogs are also good enough to keep up the attention of the spectator, with a lot of stupid jokes, that's really perfect. Both of the women having the main parts in the movie bear the comparison with the main character, and that was a challenge. There is no really plot in this movie, but that's not what is expected in this kind of movie. You just wish to laugh one hour 40 minutes, and that's precisely what the movie manage to do. It deserves the success it has in France
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
A demon, from a tree, removes itself in the form of a human man to make love to a young fair maiden only for her to die. The demon's eyes freeze, two drops of blood fall onto a bed he had specially created for his object of desire. The bed consumes the blood and it's hunger remains..anything that comes in contact with the bed is consumed! This is explained to us by one of the bed's victims, a painter whose soul is trapped "inside" one of his last works, the artistic rendering of the his final resting place(..he was dying of consumption, coughing up blood, deciding to die on the death bed). You see the painter, who we are able to see as if he were trapped in a small room looking through his painting, unfortunately a spectator to the bed's meals. The bed has a dark sense of humor, and we see this through it's allowing the painter to live, even giving him jewelry and other possessions once owned by eaten victims. One victim's skull grows bright red flowers not far from the basement housing the bed. The film features three young women who come across the mansion which holds the basement containing the death bed. The painter(Dave Marsh)might just have a method to destroying the death bed but it will include a human sacrifice in order to resurrect the body of the one whose death caused it's hunger in the first place. Patrick Spence-Thomas provides the soft, depressing voice of the trapped painter, narrating the film, lamenting about his current situation, telling us about past victims, and often scolding the bed of it's predatory nature.

A definitive, genuine cult film..I expect it's status to soar now that DEATH BED:THE BED THAT EATS has found it's way to an audience(..such as myself)who appreciates the bizarre and grotesque. The bed itself contains a liquid type of acid with an apple-cider hue where we see the objects and humans(..struggling for naught) consumed. Many might recognize a young William Russ(BOY MEETS WORLD, THE UNHOLY)in curls, seeking after his runaway sister, finding her in the basement, zombie-like and traumatized(..of course, Julie Ritter pretty much was this way the whole film, in a trance, barely uttering a word)with them both trapped. In one of the film's most demented scenes, Russ attempts to stab the bed only for his hands to get caught in it's grip, the flesh acidified with only skeletal bones remaining, the cartilage deteriorating. There's one lengthly attempted escape by a victim whose legs were caught in the bed, almost out of the basement when it's sheets snatched her back into it's belly where she belonged. The film feels almost completely surreal as if we were watching a macabre nightmare unfold. Director George Barry often features gags regarding the victims who find themselves in the most unfortunate position choosing the death bed as their place of refuge..the painter gives us a recollection of all the various people who were eaten. There's really nothing like this movie anywhere, it's definitely one of a kind.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I saw this film some years ago and promptly bought the soundtrack because it was simply excellent. Bacharach's music is endearing and should be given the recognition it richly deserves. The cinematography is awesome. Critics hated it, but they hated HOME ALONE too. I haven't found it on video but welcome anyone who can find a copy.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

A pretty transparent attempt to wring cash out of the thriving British club scene, Sorted is a film that shows promise in certain departments, but does very little else. A perfunctory thriller plot (which is there merely to string the club sequences together), variable acting and a pretty ludicrous script, all stop Sorted from being the showcase that director Jovy obviously intended.

However, although Jovy is sometimes over indulgent (especially when using the often ill-fitting dance music) he does show potential, and the lack of an anti drugs message is enormously refreshing. Overall however, the film is a wasted opportunity, and the prospects for a great clubbing movie remain out there somewhere. Watchable nevertheless.
Determine the sentiment:

This movie is somehow showing 6.2 stars, It seems inconceivable that the director has that many relations. I am at a loss to explain this.

Avoid this movie at all costs. You have only a certain number of hours on the Earth, don't waste 1&1/2 of them on this retarded steaming heap of Guano!!!

There is no story as apparently the director "wrote" (and I'm guessing with a blunt orange crayon) the next day's script at the completion of the day's shooting. The "story" has been called whimsical, no it is aimless, there is maybe enough "story" to fill a commercial. Don't you hate ads?

Now while both leads can act they obviously decided not to here. And similarly the writer/director can actually both write and direct as evidenced by his next work "Toy Love" 

So to recap, even if you get this movie for free, even if you're paid to watch it avoid it.

To paraphrase Monty Python's Search for the holy Grail, "Run flee!"
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I watched this series on PBS back in the eighties and still watch the old tapes every couple of years or so. Very atmospheric and creepy sometimes. This is a very good show as the characters are all well defined and acted. You are drawn into the plot and come to care for these people. The villains are almost laughably evil, especially the Sheriff of Nottingham. Man, I would love to beat the s--t out of that snotty little bastard. Nicholas Grace does an excellent job and must have had a great time being the Sheriff. His whipping boy, Sir Guy, is equally hissable but is also pathetic. Lots of murder and mayhem in this series, along with tons of black magic and Devil worship and things of that nature. I noticed it got an award for children's television which is surprising. If I had kids, I would not let them watch this. Outstanding use of locations in this show also. It is now on DVD, so go out and buy it.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This show should be titled, "When Bad Writing Happens To Good Actors" considering most of the players have demonstrated immense talent in other venues, e.g. Andre Braugher in Homicide: Life on the Street and David Morse in St. Elsewhere. I'm hoping that the frenetic pacing of the show is adjusted as the series develops along with the obvious cliches and dialogue so absurd I wondered just how stupid the writers imagined the core audience to be. We're beat over the head with the main points of this show instead of being left to gradually figure it out, almost as if the writers feel that they must spell out that the main character is some sort of avenging angel, sentenced to redeem himself from sins, both venial and mortal, via butting into his cab fares many affairs. Watching the premiere required much suspension of disbelief, that Mike Olshanskey's fares would so rapidly spill their guts and he would feel driven to intervene in the lives of utter strangers. That he possesses those "Super-Cop" abilities, to be all things to all people, weapons expert, martial arts master, psychologist, father-confessor, locksmith, and so on, ad infinitum. Pure drivelesque fantasy. What is it about recent televisions shows based in Philidelphia that they all seem to be imbued with a nasty ex-wife and a very disrepectfully bratty child? Overdone. I wanted to like this show, really I did, because it had the virtue of having a premise slightly different than many of the clones appearing in this season's fare and it stars some of my preferred actors. But I'm afraid this is just another possibly good idea ruined by careless execution.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I was amazed about this early performance of Clint Eastwood. I had not read a summary of the film, when I decided to watch it on TV. Due to Mr. Eastwood, I expected some nice shootings and no deep story. I was quite mistaken. I found a couple of topics unusually explicitly addressed, and until the end, I couldn't make up my mind about who's good and who's bad. This movie is definitely not typical Eastwood, but surely worth watching.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This movie has too many things going on. Another reviewer comments on the disjointed, episodic nature of the film as reflecting the director's memories - that's fine, if that is how it was written and performed. Instead, what we get is straight-forward narrative - some of the time - that jumps around, under and over, leaves us dangling in some instances, interrupts the flow with unnecessary digressions in other instances, and otherwise simply doesn't work. 

There are also some plot details that just don't work. For example, why drag a body onto a beach in an urban area in broad daylight, as opposed to night time? Why leave your flat sheet on the body? Why would an artist who knew the Joe character for a brief time decide to leave him "everything" (even if it wasn't much)? This sub-plot was poorly developed to make that point work. For that matter, why even have the man be an invalid or an artist other than to provide the money and the gratuitous nude posing scenes? He could just as easily have been a photographer, or a opera composer? For that matter, how does someone rate an apartment in an Opera House - particularly without some clear connection to the Opera? The coincidences are also both too obvious and to unclear and unexplained. Why would the guys take everything in the warehouse and "disappear." If Tim was a 10 year old school mate in a town as small as Bangor, how could Joe lose track of him for 8 years, especially if they knew each other well enough that one would recommend the other for a job. 

Some of the other subplots (like the mother and her boyfriend(s) and the sister wanting to escape felt like padding. There's some good ideas that might have made a feature with full development or could have been interesting shorts. As completed, this movie made little sense and offers even less.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: On the face of it this film looked like it might be really good - it isn't.

The cast is pretty good, but most of them seemed embarrassed by the whole thing. The real disaster in this film is not the flood, but the script. It attempts to include every cliché in the book, all done incredibly poorly. The ending is very abrupt, but this is a blessing in disguise. Congragulations if you make it that far.

All three main male actors (Carlyle, Courtney and Suchet) would surely agree that this is the low point in their careers. I hope they got paid a lot of cash, because none of their reputations come out in tact.

The special effects are quite good, but the same thing was done to much better effect in The Day After Tomorrow.

In short, a pointless exercise. Don't waste your time.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This movie is about a very delicate argument and if you are searching for something that makes you think here you are right. Tim Robbins has made a wonderful job and the result is a kind of docu-drama that should be shown in schools (for the strong themes treated). What about the actors? Well, they are simply great; Susan Sarandon is truly 'the face of love' and Sean Penn is unbelievable as almost always. An absolutely must-see!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I love camp movies, believe me and the usual technicolorian gore of Gordon Lewis don't bother me at all, but this is just one of his most stupid movies, even more than BLOOD FEAST, i'm not kidding. THE GORE GORE GIRLS is about a mad person who kills a lot of go(re) - go(re) girls of a night club. A detective and a reporter tries to find out the big secret. Maybe the performances here are slightly better than the usual average acting H.G Lewis films, but that is not saying much. The camera work is even dreadful.

But at least is kind of watchable with the go go girls acting ... you going to pass a good time with it, and the killings are just absurd in a very, very bad way: A girl is killed with a wooden hammer punching in her butt (!) and just don't let me talk about what it does with the nipples. You going to laugh like anyone with this. But the better of all this mess is a scene that i only love of it's campness: the go-go girl before being attacked by a lot of feminists dancing in a very American way. Though is important to note that this was one of the first films that got an X rating because of it's violence.

ONLY if you want lo laugh and pass a good time (But only with a lot, A LOT of beers).
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Writing about something so wonderful is completely hard. Actually, it's almost impossible to describe the peculiarities of this movie. This is a marvelous story about sex and gender, and it's almost unbelievable that we have not to deal with obscene scenes of sex. Feeling, this film was made for people that like to feel, and just to feel, life in all its complexity in a gorgeous simple way. We look at it, and something starts growing inside our minds, even our hearts: it a pure poem. I've watched some "gay" movies, and I almost always got really unsatisfied with unnecessary scenes of sex, not because I don't like scenes of sex, but generally they are so pornographic that I'm forced to think that the director or the producers or the writer of the script thinks that homosexuality means perversion. Nagisa no Shindobaddo is totally different from that ones. Three are the main characters. We have Ito, Yoshida and Aihara, two boys and a girl in a peculiar love triangle. Ito likes his best friend Yoshida, Yoshida likes Aihara and Aihara likes Ito. Imagine what this could turn in unprepared hands? But in the contrary, Hashiguchi makes a magnificent story which goes profoundly in the philosophy of life, adding a question in our mind that made me think, astonished, in the end of the movie: Why? And that why expanded in multiple questions inside of my brain and inside of my heart. The scenes, actually, sometimes tending to be boring, are moments of the most delightful poem which we are able to feel, but totally unable to write down in words. And maybe because of that, we are unable to understand the question in the end of the movie. I'm sure this movie was not made for us to discuss every piece of it Some people want to understand a film almost dissecting it. Others are so used to common "American gay" movies that can't appreciate the real value of this master-piece. Watch it, close your eyes in the credits and feel, everything, feel yourself, feel the wonderful song. For all this and much, much more, I give a nine. And I just don't give ten, because ten of ten is perfection. But I confess I almost did it.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I managed to see this at what I think was the second screening in the world, a few days after its opening at the Dublin International Film Festival. While I was attending another film two nights later at the same theater, I saw Brendan Gleeson, Paul Mercier and the rest of the cast & crew at another promotional screening of Studs.

I have to say that I was bitterly disappointed with the film, I was by no means expecting a masterpiece, but what was presented to me, I believe lacked all the crucial elements of the genre it had set itself into. Before I continue, two things, I accept that some filmmakers like to subvert generic expectations, here this is simply not the case. Secondly, I know that it was based on a play (which I haven't read but have been informed that it isn't a shimmering piece of literature), but this does not excuse the massive narrative problems that permeate the film.

My main problem with the film is the script, forget that it was based on a play, as a sports comedy it simply doesn't work, the down and out team are trying to win a football cup, few of the games are shown (when they are, it is very short) and we are not given any satisfaction due to any of their sporting achievements. Having read so far, you might assume that it is not a strict sports film but a psychological study of the relation between a "charlatan" of a manager and his hopeless team. It certainly does not achieve this, I'm not even sure if it was aiming to. Any attempt to shed light on the history of any of the characters is hackneyed and peripheral. Overall, I found the script lacking in many respects.

I do think the performances and the music were good and technically, the film was well made. But aside from those points, which should be expected from any Irish film at this stage, I left the theater feeling very disappointed.

My judgment may seem harsh but I do think there is some hope for a strong national Irish cinema in the near future and this simply does not back that argument. As Studs has become a recommended Dublin Cineworld film (I was part of the audience at that screening), most people would seem to be disagreeing with me, so that means you should probably make your own judgment of the film.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

My website (theflickguy.org) lists "Michael" as one of the worst films of the modern era. The following is an excerpt: 

"Everyone slums some time in their lives, this was Travolta's turn. I still don't know what the point of this terrible film was. Nora Efron has proved to be a competent writer and director, so what the hell happened here? The Archangel Michael takes a new spin here and is portrayed as a ham-fisted, chain-smoking sugar addicted fornicating slob whose biggest contribution to humanity (after sending Lucifer to hell) was that he invented "standing in line". Yes, how funny and charming. I don't find this offensive, I find it stupid. In its defense, I can say that the ending was ever bit unsatisfying as the rest of this painful attempt at story telling."
A blind person could have shot this movie better...seriously! The director is clearly a novice. He must be Dennis Hopper's coke dealer or something to convince him to be in this movie. I felt so embarrassed for Dennis.

To John, the director...PLEASE retire from directing. Your contribution is not needed nor wanted. The medium of film is stronger without you. You are terrible at directing. Stick to bagging groceries or something.

This movie should've bypassed "straight to video" and gone "striaght to the trashcan." I'm a dumber person for having seen this movie. DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE IF YOU RESPECT YOURSELF AND RESPECT THE ARTFORM OF FILM!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: What is night vision? Well according to the star (Williamson) let's see...one package store owner says to him 'it's getting dark outside' to which he replies 'it makes for better.........'night vision.' What in the hell does that mean? In fact what in the hell is this movie trying to say? It has plot holes that you could drive the killer's van through. Not to mention a cop on duty drinking, Robert Forster sleepwalking through this bizarre attempt at cashing in on the serial killer craze, and a killer who videos his murders. That's actually all I remember.

The film took place in Texas, had a few car chases, and a clichéd ending. Perhaps if one watches this film with their eyes closed - it might be good? After all, without being able to see it....it would make for better.....night vision. Did that make sense? Nope. And neither does this film.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
That's pretty much all I can say about this flat and uninspired remake of the 1979 Carol Kane vehicle. Camilla Belle isn't much of an actress, and she brings no energy and vitality to the role of Jill Johnson, the babysitter harassed by an anonymous phone caller.

But if you're looking for some great home architecture and interior design ideas, this movie provides more inspiration than anything you'll see on TLC or HGTV. Jill spends nearly 90 minutes wandering through the house of the rich doctor and wife for whom she's providing her sitting services, searching for the origins of strange sounds and things that keep going "bump" in the night. As she lurks around corners and peers down hallways, we get to see a beautiful master bathroom with his and hers sinks that look like Roman tubs, a huge kitchen with incredible back lit glass shelving, and the piece de resistance, a self-contained aviary and coy pond that feature a self-watering system.

Because the movie isn't compelling enough to draw us into Jill's fear, we're distracted by the grandeur of the house, which isn't something you should be doing when you're watching a thriller. Even as Jill is pursued by the faceless maniac, we cringe because she's breaking valuables and messing up the coy pond, not because she's about to get murdered.

The movie plods along as predictably as most teen slasher movies, and the ending is anything but original. By the time it was over, I just wanted to find out where the heck that house was and if it was real. Never mind Jill and the kids she was babysitting.

2 stars - both for the house.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Bardem is great. Actresses are great. But Amenabar did not have to do it like this. It is OK that he defends his position on the euthanasia, an extremely delicate issue. But doing it like this makes him lose his point: the movie is a false, offensive to the intelligence, full of tricks and even sometimes extremely boring. Some scenes are advertising material, more than a movie. Women are incredibly attracted to this mind-sick man who wants to make someone to kill him, not understanding the implications of that. He seems not to care about no one and thank them for their caring, love and attention. I think that Amenabar might have make people think about this issue in a different way but the way he chose to do it I believe is not correct. He could have make his point more powerful exposing the other side of the coin without mocking it.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Mario Racocevic from Europe is the only user who has posted a comment so far and covers the major points to the film.Yet again another difficult film to purchase in the UK.I had to go through "Midnight Video" who have a Swedish branch.I went to the post office and bought by mail order this and a similar title at only SKR30 a title.

This film goes under many "a.k.a's" depending on when and where it is marketed.I had previously purchased "The Bloodsucker leads the Dance" (which you will find if you search on Imdb under "people" and input "Krista Nell").The actor who plays the Count on his private island in the latter film had his words dubbed from Italian into English by an actor with an unmistakably mournful and rather tired sounding voice.I smiled when I heard this same voice dubbing on the English soundtrack as the police inspector who is investigating the murder of the prostitute killed in the copse in the subject film.My choice of course was to see another outing by the delicious Krista Nell.

There are quite a few rather inconsequential sub plots in the movie involving blackmail/extortion, sleazy affairs with girlfriends' mothers, a motor cycle chase resulting in a gangland hit, a gangrape by a "client's" motorcycle friends, sleazy photography, cross dressing by transvestites etc. which give a flavour to this film summarised in a word - SLEAZE, (but artistic sleaze).The aforementioned contributor liked this film but the lowly rating suggests other Imdb fans did not albeit without explaining their "wheres and whyfores".Personally I thought there were too many subplots and not enough put into the main story and the relationship of these subordinate characters to the central plot and the development of their screen characters.Also a professional film editor was sorely needed as some of the scenes appeared to last far too long, having made their point, so that the film appeared to drag in places; e.g. the scene of the dancing transvestite.Krista Nell appears in one fruity scene with a client but this too is but a vignette and I was left wanting more from her, the director and the screenplay.

I love the political incorrectness shown in older films (this is 30 years from its making) e.g. smoking in offices and the way some characters react to each other in the office!I would suggest 4/10 as a more realistic rating and I have awarded it as such.
Some of the reviewers here have foolishly judged this silent film by political-correctness standards of today. 

"Battle" was an excellent film for several reasons, correctly noted by more rational reviewers: Superb cast, lots of action, innovative editing and photography. 

Its stars were in effect the D.W. Griffith stock company and to this silent movie fan, that is inducement enough to watch it and to enjoy it. 

I saw it many years ago and just watched it again at YouTube; that was a very poor quality print, but coupled with my memory of a good print in a real theater, I can justifiably recommend this to reasonable people and film historians.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
An absoloutely wonderful film that works on several levels. It's a story about a great architect, a son seeking his father, about very loving relationships, and about loss. It's also a great flm about architecture.

Very intelligent and very moving. A real treat.

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

positive