cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
A strange relationship between a middle-aged woman and a transsexual who gonna be a woman soon. Charlotte and Venorica, both trapped by their inanimate lives and don't know how to get out of them. Charlotte is an owner of a beauty clinic, she has broken up with her aggressive ex-husband, moved into an apartment alone with all the furniture packed except her big bed. Veronica lives downstairs with her poor dog, She's sensitive and desperately bothered by her mother's visiting and the bad relationship with her dad. Her only hope is that the upcoming transsexual operation will turn her into a real woman and then everything will be fine. All she can do now is waiting for an approval certificate.

Then these two individuals meet by chance and gradually they are all involved into other's lives, there are some sparkles between them, but no one is brave enough to face the truth because they are not willing to accept the change as most people do. Eventually the ending is quite satisfying and leaves some imagination for us to think about it.

The director's great work gives me an great impression, she handles the development of characters very well, the emotional atmosphere is quite full and intense. Also I am so obsessed with the gloomy lights all over the apartment, Delphic but full of desire.

Two main characters are played by Trine Dyrholm and David Dencik, they are amazing in their roles, a very impressive performance and the chemical reaction between them is genuine and convincing.

This Swedish indie film is about encountering and change, no matter you're homosexual or heterosexual, male or female, the oddness of life exists everywhere, whenever you fall across it, you'll be hesitate and bewildered, but at least don't be afraid, follow your heart and choose the right way.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
You may not believe this, but when the credits to this movie rolled, I looked for the director's name. When I saw it, I burned it into my memory and I never forgot it. This movie is beyond terrible. It makes Ed Wood's films look like Orsen Welles. At least B movies are entertaining, this was a soul deadening experience. The quality was so bad, I began to wonder who allowed this to happen.

I hear Uwe Boll runs fourteen miles a day. This is because wherever his movies are viewed, the people must run him out of town with flame and pitchfork. The script was terrible, the lighting was like that of a high school football game, and the cinematography was just above the quality of Roger Patterson's Bigfoot video. The acting was executed by people too ashamed of the production to say their lines with any credibility. In the end was a film Alan Smithee wouldn't have put his name on. I learned that day to avoid any movie by this man despite the circumstances. From what I hear, this is not a bad thing to do.

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

negative
Write a positive movie review.

I watched this film in a Singapore theatre yesterday (4 February, 2006)and came away with a better understanding of what schizophrenia patients and their loved ones go through.

Ms Aparna Sen must be congratulated for not only taking on a difficult subject, but also treating the mentally challenged with a deep understanding of their predicament that is necessary to help them cope with the trauma of disorientation, hallucinations and the storm of turmoil raging in their minds.

We have had Hollywood movies on this subject such as "One flew over the cuckoo's nest" where Jack Nicholson carried away the honours. Since then research has helped provide more insights into the problem and clearing some misconceptions about treatment. In "... cuckoo's nest," for example shock therapy has been portrayed as barbaric, but in "15 ..." the point has been made that it is not as bad as it has been made out to be.

The other misconception is that abuse in childhood is a cause for schizophrenia. But scholars such as Dr. E. Fuller Torrey have emphasised that studies have shown that childhood schizophrenia is a brain disease and is thought to have some genetic roots.

It is now established that schizophrenia can be treated like any clinical ailment and its advance can be checked if detected early. Even in fairly advanced stages regular medication and counselling can be effective.

The same understanding shown by Ms Sen is evident in the way the actors play out their parts. In keeping with the gravity of the theme, the acting is controlled throughout with Ms Konkana Sen-Sharma's evocative silences and eyes mirroring the helpless confusion of a disturbed mind speaking louder than some of the rantings we are used to in most of the movies that have included mentally challenged characters.

Like me most of the audience in the theatre appeared confused at the abrupt ending. It leaves lot of questions hanging in terms of the plot.

Has Meethi's search ended? Why is she not found in No. 15? Were children actually playing when Meethi strode past the gates with her eyes sparkling with recognition? Can anyone sort out this jigsaw puzzle?
Determine the sentiment:

Well,i'm not a movie critic or something like that.But I have my opinion for this movie.I think that the best in this movie was Amanda Bynes,she played her roll for my look very well,i have watched many her movies,this I liked most!When you are watching this movie,you just can relax,come down,and watch it.You don't have to try to look for subtext or something like that.You just watch it. Movie is really great. Maybe I liked it for actress,maybe for all the scenery,but i liked it.The whole atmosphere that was created.In one moment I just felt like I was in that university,in that room.It is not another drama movie that is made to win Oscar,it is just nice movie to watch in your free time.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Just what is the point of this film? It starts off as one film, then changes track, cheating us of a resolution to that film and ends as another movie which is nothing but a pale, pale imitation of so many other schlock-horror flicks you've ever seen. The overall impression is confusion in every respect and a great deal of hubris. Screenplay by Tarantino, direction by Rodriguez, two guys who have previously shown talent, but who now seem to believe their own hype and assume that whatever they do must be good merely because THEY did it. But it doesn't quite work that way. You're only good while you continue doing good things. There are so many questions to ask: Just what are George Clooney and Harvey Keitel doing getting involved in such pointless dreck? Clooney initially makes an intriguing bad guy  utterly ruthless and efficient  and it would have been interesting to see where that was going. But, of course, we never do. And the Clooney of the vampire film changes into a completely different character. That's not clever or witty, that's just bad, bad work. Keitel looks thoroughly ill at ease throughout, and no wonder. Did no one in the studio take a look at the script before this project was given the go-ahead? Tarantino is utterly unpleasant as a murderous sexual deviant (and why did he, as writer, assume we would find the rape, gruesome murder and butchering of an inoffensive hostage funny). On every level  except the technical  this film stinks. Avoid.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This is not a 'real' James Cagney vehicle since his screen time is unusually slim. Frankie Darro plays tough kid Jimmy Smith, the leader of a gang of street thugs that is sent to reform school with a few of his hoodlum friends. Cagney plays Patsy Gargan, a gang leader himself, who is given a token position as a deputy commissioner. When he finds out first hand of the brutal treatment dished out at the reform school, he is compelled to make some major changes with the help of the reformatory nurse(Madge Evans). 

THE MAYOR of HELL is fast paced and is still entertaining after all these years. The cast is well rounded featuring: Dudley Digges, Arthur Bryon, 'Farina' Hoskins, G. Pat Collins and Allen Jenkins.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Born in 1946 I was about eight years old when first viewing this movie and it left a deep impression.Not only scary ,for lack of a better word this movie haunted me for more than 50 years.The mob goon played by John Larch was terrifying.The only scene that stuck out in my mind during those 50 years was the killing of the little girl and the uncaring policeman referring to her as a "little n----- kid".Those words were replaced when the movie was shown recently on TV,maybe there are two versions of the movie or someone felt compelled to alter a little bit this heart breaking scene.Accurate or not the film went a long way in formulating my opinion of the South and still till today the closest I've come to visiting a southern city is El Paso.That stand may seem extreme but there is a little bit more to the story.When the movie was shown recently it became clearer why it haunted me for years.With the newsreel like beginning this movie gives the impression that what is being shown is fact.The film is made supposedly only one or two years after the depicted incidents adding to its realistic credibility.The terror in the movie isn't provided by creatures or space aliens but by persons living in our society at the time.Re killing of little girl:The recent viewing helped make clearer the impact it had on my 8 year old mind.When this movie came out the only school I had ever gone to was attended by mostly African-Americans.The victim looked like a girl in my class,it was like seeing an actual killing.It made a horrible scene that much worse.Maybe no one will find this review helpful but it helped me.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

I saw this film via one of the actors' agents, and it surely conforms with a great deal that comes out of Sth. Australia in terms of the overall *tone,* which is rightly dark and moody.

I thought the little boy in the film was excellent. Mostly kid actors are *hammed up* and embarrassing but not in this case. He was really very good. In terms of the *surrealism* thingy mentioned by jingo, well, I just think this film is plain 'weird.' It's a real weirdo film, with weirdo locations, storyline, weird stuff going on the whole time. But 'good' weird as opposed to 'bad'.

Its hard to think of other movies like it, but its not at all like CARS ATE Paris, maybe more like a REPULSION, but actually I think more like a Hammer movie from the 60's. Its certainly has an interesting mind working behind it.

JINGO, My question is also about the title. Why Modern Love?? Anyone? Also, jingo, what did you mean by "god Forsaken" when you were talking about Australia, hmmm? Just curious
If you watched this film for the nudity (as I did) you won't be disappointed. I could have done without the bumbling crooks or the bear though. Some bottomless nudity could have be shown but for what it was I think H.O.T.S. has to be the best of its genre.

It is not the sort of film that could have been made today which is a pity because it is the sort of film that is worth watching in these times.

I would take mindless nudity over pivotal plot points any day.

It is a shame that the DVD doesn't have any extras but as they didn't have DVDs when this was filmed that is understandable. I would have like to know more about the shooting of the film especially where they shot the football match at the end.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Before I forget, let me say the artwork in here is outstanding. From garbage cans to the huge cruise ship, the drawings are beautifully done. If this wasn't animated, critics would be lauding the "direction" in here, because it's really good.

To the story: Sylvester is picking through the garbage at the shipyards but the pickins' are slim. While brooding at the dock next to a big ship, in a porthole he spots Tweety in his cage. Tweety spots him, too, and you know his first comment - the same one he always makes when he spots the cat. Anyway, Sylvester runs over, opens the porthole and says, "Hello, breakfast!" Tweety slams the porthole window on his face and says, "You bad old peeping tomcat!" The cat falls into the water.

The undaunted Sylvester quickly sneaks back aboard ship, tiptoes into Tweety's cabin, grabs him and is ready to leave when - wham! - there's "Granny" at the door with her umbrella. Sylvester takes a beating as the old lady protects her pet bird once again. But, "flippety gibbet," says Granny, "I've dropped my glasses. I can't see a thing without 'em. Heavens to Betsey, where are those cheaters."

Now Sylvester has the upper hand....and the normal cat-trying-to-catch-bird shenanigans are on again, like Granny's glasses. Sylvester's most clever act was to take her glasses and paint a picture of Tweety on them, so when she woke up and put them on, she'd see the bird and think it was okay.

Overall, a very entertaining animated short that was a lot of fun to watch. As you can tell by the quotes, I love the dialog in some of these old cartoons.
Child´s Play made a new genre of horror,THE KILLER DOLLS,Some of this films has not got too much money for make it but I think that the only film that make shadow to Chucky is this.Ok it´s a tipical product direct to video or direct to tv but Pinocchio is not real and the killer is the little girl.The imagination of children are too big and this film play with it.The roles are good and Candance Mckenzie is great.


What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
After the wife of a plastic surgeon dies, he gets his hunchbacked assistant to help him bring her back to life with various parts of other nubile, young, girls. This film wants to be a Hersel Gordon Lewis-type romp, but fails miserably. The acting is beyond bad, the gore effects atrocious (no, not in the good way), the plot almost none-existent and no fun to be had. Skip it. You want to know how incompetent it is? At one point you can actually see a movie slateboard quite obviously.

Eye Candy: Candy Furr gets topless and again in a flashback 

My Grade: F

DVD Extras: Commentary with Jeffrey Hogue and Cynthia Soroka, A second feature "How to make a Doll"; Alternate Title sequence with Hershel Gordon Lewis intro; 2 shorts ("Quest of the Perfect Woman" and "Maniac Hospital"); Cover art gallery with music by the Dead Elvi; Trailers for "Dr. Black Mr. Hyde", "Boots and the Preacher"; "The Doctor and the Playgirls", "the Gruesome Twosome"; "Wizard of Gore"; "Awful Dr Orlof"; "Wacky world of Doctor Morgus"; "Proffessor Lust", "Monstrosity"; "Fanny Hill meets Dr. Erotico"; and "I, Marquis DeSade" 

Easter Eggs: Theatrical Trailer; a scene from "Just for the Hell of It"; and a trailer for "Axe"

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

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

"Destroy All Planets" winds up settling for 'destroy all Tokyo' by film's end, as a space monster resembling a giant squid falls to the reptilian furnace known as Gamera. Actually, Gamera is saving Earth right from the get go, knocking out Varian Space Ship #1 even before the first set of film credits roll. The scene switches to a Japanese scout camp where we meet a pair of meddlesome young heroes, Jim and Masao, who take part in Gamera's exploits after being kidnapped by the aliens and beamed aboard their ship in an electrified bubble shield.

It's pretty startling to see the boys convince a scientist to let them operate a newly invented submarine that might be defective. Previously boy genius Masao had wired the unit to run in reverse direction of it's controls, but Dr. Dobie didn't think about checking that out as a possibility. At least that prepared the boys for interfering with the alien space ship's controls by playing switcheroo with a bunch of triangular blocks.

When boss alien Viras says 'Activate the Videotron', hang on to your seats for rehashed footage from earlier Gamera movies where he battles Barugon and Gyaos. These take up quite a bit of screen time, but are no match for the fast forward button if you want to get on with it. For the longest time Viras addressed an invisible crew, and when they finally appeared, they were Orientals who could fly - imagine that!

Seeing as how these movies were made for a juvenile audience, it's surprising to see how gruesome some of the scenes are. Gamera drawing blood comes to mind, and how about the pair of space crew members being decapitated. When squid tentacles started emerging from the headless bodies I made a connection to the 'Alien' films; having the individual units merge to form the giant Viras was a neat device.

I guess the appeal for young kids might reside in identifying with the two young heroes who make friends with a giant monster, move around pretty freely on an alien space ship, and get to have whatever they want with the help of alien telepathy technology. Seeing as how the movie was presumably made by adults, it could have been a simple case of wish fulfillment.
Don't waste your time. The plot drags, the characters are wooden and uninteresting, the motivations of their actions are completely indecipherable. Kept waiting for the "romantic" or "comedy" to occur, and nothing happened. Worse yet, the love letter isn't even romantic, but sounds like it was written by someone desperate to make a deadline. Did I mention that the "plot twist" which we saw coming from 15 mins into the movie was "Hollywood clever", meaning it is intended to shock, but given the Hollywood mentality- does nothing of the sort, and instead is vaguely offensive.

It's not even worth the $2 to rent. Don't bother seeing it.

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

negative
Write a positive movie review.

The Further Adventures of Ma and Pa Kettle almost seamlessly picks up where The Egg and I left off. For the first solo adventure of the Kettles a new writing team and director is introduced. Leonard Goldstein, associate producer of The Egg and I, was producer of The Further Adventures of Ma and Pa Kettle. With many of the characters played by the same actors and actresses the focus from the MacDonalds to the Kettles works very well. There is a reference to Ma beating Birdie Hicks for first prize at the fair for her quilt, an import scene in The Egg and I. The prize money from the quilt contest was to be used to send Tom Kettle to college. In this movie Tom is returning home as a college graduate.

There are two plots intertwined in this movie. One is the comedy of the simple mountain family moving into a state of the art modern house. The other is a light morality play on how environment affects children as they grow up.

Pa Kettle (Percy Kilbride) wanted a free tobacco pouch for entering a contest, and ended up winning a house. His disappointment at not getting the free tobacco pouch is played for laughs quite a bit. When Pa plays with dynamite he is totally oblivious to the explosion. Kilbride never flinched in the scene as the debris from the explosion fell around him. He played the part to perfection. In his autobiography, Jack Benny mentioned how impressed he was with Percy Kilbride's deadpan delivery. Kilbride took that comedic device to a high level of perfection.

Ma (Marjorie Main) and Pa move into the new house with modern conveniences that confuse Ma and Pa almost as much as they help them. Ma adapts far more quickly than Pa. Included with the modern conveniences is a television, a very new household item in 1949. Moving walls, hidden beds, and plumbing fixtures are used as comic props, but the attention is on Ma and Pa, never the props themselves.

Tom Kettle (Richard Long) meets Kim Parker (Meg Randall), a magazine writer who feels that hygiene and environment are essential for children to realize success as adults. Tom is a bright, self-made man who contradicts the theory that success can only come from a pristine environment. This subject is briefly discussed in a couple of scenes, but left to subside. It was also the only serious discussion in this otherwise whimsical movie.

Seeing the Kettles moving out of their run-down old house to move to a new house would almost be a disaster if it were not for the characters staying true to themselves. Ma was the practical one, just as she had been in the The Egg and I. Pa was the fish out of water that provided the best comedy. He never felt at home in the new house, but the actual location of a comfortable bed would never be of concern to him.
I saw this film on 19SEP2009 at the Cambridge Film Festival. 

The Beagle's only in a couple of short flashbacks, the whole thing is about Darwin's life from 1841 to 1859, when he was ensconced in Kent with his growing family, 200+ pages of Origin had already been drafted and he was wondering whether to complete the book. 

The script is based on Randal Keynes's book Annie's Box (Annie, Charles's daughter, died when she was 10). It is mostly a family drama, but does include sex scenes - however, the participants are married, both on and off screen. Not too exciting, not much science but a well-made film that's pleasant to watch and pushes the right emotional buttons. A bit of a romantic weepie, actually. I suppose the conclusion is that you can be an agnostic free-thinking scientist from an atheist family background and still be an emotional romantic as well as an excellent father. 

Some of the characters and Darwin himself state or wonder whether he "killed god" but the viewer is able to doubt that. What is beyond doubt, given the deadly struggle for survival and the web of predation on the meadow-bank (well-known before Darwin and completely uncontroversial) and the failure of Darwin's prayers is that the idea of a kind, providential god who loves "his" creatures is untenable. 

I really cannot see many Americans objecting to it very much. Some may have problems with the title, which is probably the most controversial thing about the film, or with the fact that Bettany does not have horns, a tail and a pitchfork.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Anybody who goes to the Manhattan Hospital Center is taking his life in his hands. That includes the staff of The Hospital.

I had never seen The Hospital before and I was intrigued at how similar the characters and situations of the plot were to that other Paddy Chayefsky masterpiece, Network. There are elements in George C. Scott's character that have both Al Schumacher's and Howard Beale's.

He's the administrator of The Hospital and he's mad as hell and not going to take it any more. He's completely estranged from his wife and kids. It takes a Faye Dunaway type character in the person of Diana Rigg to make him snap out of it. One roll in the hay with her and he's shocked back to reality and the fact he still can contribute in the world.

But first he's got a real problem. Someone is out killing hospital staff, four of them in a 48 hour period. And the nice part is their deaths can be attributed to in large part to the general incompetence of a medical bureaucracy. That's where the comedy comes in.

There is an actual Howard Beale type character in the person of Barnard Hughes, Diana Rigg's father. His end is not quite as dramatic as Beale's though.

Back in my working days it was part of my job to pay medical suppliers. Some of them could be as big creeps as you'll find portrayed in The Hospital. The black comedy satire had some real bite to it for me.

George C. Scott was nominated for Best Actor, but having won and refused to accept the previous year's Oscar for Patton, he wasn't about to get a second chance. He lost to Gene Hackman for The French Connection. Still his handling of the role is unforgettable.

Try viewing The Hospital back to back with Network and see how many similarities you spot.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
As a late-going patron of the drive-in thearers (1970's-1980s), there are many movies that I have seen & forgotten. This is one I could never forget. Despite its low-budget, exploitation-style of movie-making, the STORY was very well done. The isolated therapy-asylum, where patients act out their fantasies in order to help cure their phsycosis, the accidental murder of the head doctor just as the new nurse arrives on the scene, the (supposed) assistant doctor taking over, the various crazy paitents, the revelation that the assistant doctor is actually a patient herself, and, finally, the rescue of the young nurse by the simple-minded Sam, who killed everyone else in the house so she could escape unharmed, made for a great STORY, which held the film together. I emphasised the word STORY because that's what makes a good or great film. No matter how much blood, gore, nudity, sexual matter, or outrageous behaviour you put in a film, if the STORY is not good, then the film is not good. The film credits show clips of all the actors, including the old hag with the final line telling you to get out & never come back, which is a great ending to this film. If it is out on video/DVD, see it & enjoy it.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: The movie is made in a style that resembles Lock, stock and two smoking barrels, with lot's of subplots, fancy camerawork, cool music and that great tongue-in-cheek Aussie type of humor you'll find nowhere else. How this movie has escaped the European and American audience is a mystery!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

This story starts at the end ! So the film's opening credits advise us. Unfortunately that's not true as we then are treated to around 70 minutes of a typical B science fiction movie of the 1950's. The story is dreary; the plot is very weak and has clearly been filmed on a low budget, as was often the case in those days.

The story could have covered any situation where people are taking refuge in an isolated house and being threatened by someone outside. it just happened to be adapted to fit round a sci-fi story.

The scenery consisted of a few rocks, bushes, and smoke. - Oh yes there was a pool of water as well. Someone wore a rubber mask with a beak like face and what looked like feathers.

Written by Lou Rusoff, who penned several sci-fi stories around that time including The She Creature and It Conquered The World The filming was completed in a matter of days, not allowing the actors time to develop their characters to better advantage. The low budget restraints also prevented this film reaching its potential. It could have been a much better film than it turned out to be.

Mike Connors and Richard Denning brought some life to the film, but even they could not lift this film into the category where you could say- 'I enjoyed that film' Richard Denning's acting career began in 1937. He starred with Gregory Peck and Deborah Kerr in An Affair to Remember and later became more well known on television in the series Hawaii Five-O and The Flying Doctor series.

Directed by Roger Corman who has many films to his credit both as a director and producer. He has made some good films and is still making them. He became very well known for his direction of films from the stories of Edgar Allan Poe, often starring Vincent Price. He also made other low budget films; some were good and entertaining for one reason or another, and most were much better than this.

I would not recommend this film to anyone.

Darnmay 

10th September 2007
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This ultra-low budget kitchen-sink yawn is the kind of film that can only be made in the UK in that, anywhere else in the world the fact the a market would need to exist before a green-light would be given. Most probably self funded this is clearly an attempt to redress important issues but ultimately undermines its point of existence in that the question needs to be begged, who would ever put money into distributing this and secondly if a market audience doesn't exist to watch, buy or rent this film, why would anyone bother in the first place? My opinions may sound unfairly harsh on a first time director but, this is the kind of film that only goes to undermine the commercial viability and quality standards which have only just kept a British film industry in existence. Reviewed in Edinburgh. 2 out of 10.
Here's what's good about "The Slaughter Rule:"

--Ryan Gosling, Clea Duvall, and David Morse all give great performances. Gosling is, as always, pretty darn outstanding. The locales are often breathtaking.

Here's what's bad about "The Slaughter Rule:"

--Everything else. The script is horribly muddled. And while I can certainly appreciate a non-"feel good" movie, this movie is just boring. Great performances can't make-up for a movie with a stupid premise and a script that is filled with throw-away lines that often don't even make it sense. Just getting through the first hour became a chore.

I stuck with it because of Gosling, but eventually I did myself a favor and changed the channel. Spoilers on here relayed the ending to me. I didn't miss much. Do yourself a favor--if you want a good Gosling flick, check out "The Believer."

My score: 2 out of 10.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I'd read all the negative reviews for "Anna Christie". You know, the gripes about the static camera, out-dated acting and wordiness of the screenplay. But when I viewed it yesterday I found it remarkably affecting and enjoyable. Yep, Clarence Brown's camera remains stationary for the most part, and I'm pretty sure one of the microphones was concealed in the ship's light. Yep, there's a lot of dialogue and no spectacular action sequences. It's an early talkie with primitive technical aspects. But... then there's Garbo, Marie Dressler, George F. Marion and Charles Bickford, all proving that great acting is timeless.

I believe "Anna Christie" is still one of Garbo's most iconic performances. And it's a wonderful performance from the Divine One, in a role that is really quite atypical for her. Yes, we've seen Garbo weary and almost beaten, yet never with bags under her eyes or her knocking back shots of whiskey. Garbo played so many (delightful) costume roles, that to see her play a contemporary woman is fascinating. She's not weighed down by heavy dresses or make-up. This performance seems quite raw from Garbo.

The plot, from the O'Neill play, follows weary Swedish ex-prostitute Anna, and her reunion with her boozy, seaman father. Anna's had enough trouble for any girl of twenty, as she tells drunken, slovenly Marthy (Dressler)in a bar. She finds solace in a life at sea, and romance with a rough-hewn, but good-hearted, fisherman (Charles Bickford). But her past threatens to ruin it all.

Charles Bickford is overlooked in Garbo's long line of (largely inferior) leading men. He's one actor who can actually share the screen with her and not get swallowed up by her magical presence. The pair have great chemistry together and seemed to enjoy working with one another. Dressler can never be accused of underplaying, and once again the grand dame is up to her old tricks, but she's terrific and convincing in her role, never annoying as in the dreadful "Dinner At Eight". I've never really heard of George F. Marion before, but he was wonderful as Garbo's father.

This is Pre-Code, and rather gritty and dark by MGM's standards. I really enjoyed it, and while it may creak in some places, it's still wonderful.
You're Dead is an indescribably awful attempt at a British gangster film. It has not got a single original idea in it, being an atrocious copy of various elements of Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels, The Usual Suspects and Pulp Fiction. The acting and dialogue are absolutely excruciating, the plot is ludicrous and utterly predictable despite constant attempts at plot twists, and contains nothing but one dimensional stock characters and clichés. It has some good actors in it, but they are off-form, and unable to do anything much with the dreadful material they are working with. It is absolute torture to sit through this drivel.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This is the only Pauly Shore movie you should ever see. O.K., it's the only one I've ever seen, and I think I've made good choices. I normally find Shore's shtick kind of tired, but he is very funny in this movie. Actually, the script is pretty funny, and Shore doesn't overwhelm the other actors with his ... what do you call it? Tomfoolery? Anyway, this is a funny, if ultimately forgettable film. --Frink-3
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
With the Nazi rise to power in Eastern Europe in the late 1930's, Charles Chaplin turned his attention to creating a reaction to it. The catalyst may well have been a propaganda publication referring to Chaplin as a Jewish sympathizer. In The Great Dictator, Chaplin created a dead-on parody of Hitler that is as funny as it is frightening at times. The film traces Hitler's experiences in the German army from World War I up to the present day. Simultaneously, Chaplin plays a Jewish barber who dresses like the tramp who comes out of a hospital after a long long time, only to discover how different the world is under Nazi rule.

Paulette Goddard, Chaplin's wife at the time, plays a young Jewish girl whose family is oppressed in a Jewish ghetto. Jack Oakie has a great, Oscar-nominated supporting role as a Mussolini look-alike (Benzini Napaloni) who gives Chaplin's Hitler character, Adenoid Hynkel, a lot of fits. Henry Daniell is his usual staid self as Garbitsch, chief adviser to Adenoid Hynkel. Chaplin wrote and directed the film and received Oscar nominations for his screenplay and his acting. The film was also nominated for best picture.

Chaplin made the film under tremendous pressure for some obvious reasons and some not so well known. He financed the entire film himself at great risk because of the subject matter, and there were no other major films made regarding Nazi Germany up to that time. The film spent about twenty-one months in production with Chaplin even rebuilding a set and re-shooting a scene to get things right. By the time of the film's release in October of 1940, the war in Europe was well under way with Hitler conquering one country after another, so the film became much more topical at its release than when production first began.

There isn't much plot in looking at the film in retrospect; the film seems more like a series of comedy sketches and/or mishaps strung together to get to a purpose independent of the film itself. Several examples of this occur in the last third of the film with the meeting between Hynkel and Napaloni. The scene is very very funny, but it leads no where in terms of the plot. Likewise, the escape of both the barber and Schultz simply leads to the mistaken identity of the barber for Hynkel in order to give Chaplin (through the barber character) an opportunity to pontificate to the audience at the end of the film. On the other hand, what better way to make a point about the misplaced narcissism of Aryan superiority than to have a Jewish Barber mistaken for Hynkel? 

Still, the film contains many high comic moments, such as the rally speech, the new war developments (bulletproof uniforms, etc.), the dancing globe scene, the coin in the pudding scene, and the entire scenario between Hynkel and Napaloni (including the barber chair scene) to highly recommend the film. One can also not forget the risks Chaplin took in making his first talking film, an anti-Nazi film, and financing the film himself. ***1/2 of 4 stars.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
A disturbing film, this, climaxing, as it does, with an intensely intimate reunion between a naked man and his young son, but in its confused structure it contains a poetically imagined visual exploration of the innocence of an idealised amnesiac.

The plot follows two threads, the weaker of which is the gradual revelation of Graham/Pablo's condition. Wound through this, though, is a beautiful description of his condition, and his meandering path towards a partial awakening, driven by his affair with Irene.

The affair is the strong thread, while the specifics of the plot are carried by a seemingly tacked on collection of characters: Graham's best friend, who can reveal the cause of his condition in a clunking flashback, his manipulative boss and his comic book mad scientist psychologist: all of whom have an interest in keeping him lost and dependent.

The failure of the film lies in the conflict between the two threads. One is visual, meandering and sublime, while the other is structured like an inept thriller, all expository dialogue and unresolved patterns of symbolism.

Nevertheless, I enjoyed Novo. It keeps flirting with the abyss of taboo and shying away into something beautiful, as in the quarry, with the double bassist and the two women, when a setup for a scene of cheap pornography becomes a segment of peace and rejuvenation. I still don't get the tooth, though.

Odd, clunky and a narrative failure, but with an almost redeeming beauty.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

**May Contain Spoilers**

The main character, a nobleman named Fallon, is stranded on an island with characters so looney and lethal he might have been better off drowning. Count Lorente de Sade (pronounced "dee-SAYd") talks to his own hallucinations and sees all intruders on the island as invading pirates. He routinely beats mute servant Anne and tortures his unwilling guests in the dungeon. Inadvertant laughs are provided by giant "Nubian" slave Mantis who talks with a Deep South accent and helps de Sade hunt down trespassers in the style of THE MOST DANGEROUS GAME. De Sade's crazed wife, ravaged by leprosy, provides some truly scary moments as she prowls the dungeon and embraces a helplessly chained prisoner. (This scene was viewed on late-night TV by many kids who carried the memory into adulthood.) The one nearly-normal person in sight is Cassandra, who has self-deprecation down to a science. ("I used to be a nurse, now I'm not much of anything.") She and Fallon plan their escape and ultimately encounter an enemy more fearsome than de Sade and Mantis combined.

	This movie was shot in San Antonio and directed by a man more competent at drawing horror comics than making horror movies. (I'll say this much for Mr. Boyette--he does showcase his fixatation with contagion here, as he did in his comics.) It's rather like an Andy Milligan melodrama minus the meat cleavers. The period wardrobe, library music, abuse of the handicapped and all-around misanthropy makes one wonder if Andy wasn't called in as a consultant. However, Milligan made better costumes and wrote better dialogue. Technical gaffes are too numerous to list here but you know this flick is in trouble when you see the opening shipwreck, which looks like it was shot in a fish tank. Also, a film made in Texas should have had real spiders and snakes rather than rubber ones. Glorious Eastmancolor gives this melodrama the garish look it so richly deserves. Fallon's initial encounter with the leprous Countess is truly horrifying, as is the movie's parting shot. If the rest had been half as harrowing, THE DUNGEON OF HARROW would have been a terror classic. Instead it's a funny piece of schlock that trash-fiends will love, for all the wrong reasons.
LATTER DAYS 

Aspect ratio: 1.85:1

Sound format: Stereo

Trouble flares when an LA party boy (Wes Ramsey) falls in love with a handsome Mormon missionary (Steve Sandvoss).

A huge hit on the festival circuit and on limited theatrical release, this likable movie - the feature debut of screenwriter C. Jay Cox (SWEET HOME ALABAMA) - is an exercise in 'opposites attract', in which Ramsey's shallow-minded character is changed forever after falling hard for vulnerable beauty Sandvoss, who is constrained by the dictates of his religious convictions. Here, the path of true love is paved with hardship, not least of which is the reaction of Sandvoss' fellow Mormons to his newfound sexuality, which results in his excommunication from the church and the wrath of his indignant parents (Mary Kay Place has a small but devastating cameo as the boy's outraged mother). But Cox's script focuses chiefly on Ramsey's path to redemption, as his hedonistic lifestyle is thrown into disarray by Sandvoss' influence, and by the responsibilities which emerge as a consequence of his developing maturity: He volunteers as an outreach participant, delivering food to AIDS patients living at home, leading to an unexpected friendship with former party boy Erik Palladino (TV's "er"), whose illness provides Ramsey with a much-needed wake-up call.

Cox's script is laced with juicy one-liners and various pearls of wisdom (on Mormonism: "Your church doesn't like alcohol or homosexuals? Well, I'm definitely not joining - I can't imagine heaven without both!"), and the characters are surprisingly complex and well-drawn. Ramsey has the showier, sexier role (he's first seen doing something rude to a willing participant!), but it's Sandvoss who has become something of a gay icon, with his sensitive portrayal of a sweet-natured innocent whose journey from Darkness into Light leads to a startling revelation about his place in the world around him. He and Ramsey are well-matched, and their inevitable sex scene (brief but memorable) is followed by a compelling sequence in which Ramsey describes a childhood trauma which has defined his life to date.

Filmed on hi-def video and transferred to 35mm for theatrical exhibition, the movie's meager budget places limitations on the scope and grandeur of Cox's ambitions, though the characters and situations are strong enough to survive this minor drawback. Jacqueline Bisset shines as a worldly-wise restaurateur at the diner where Ramsey waits tables for a living, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt ("Third Rock from the Sun") steals everyone's thunder as Sandvoss' fellow Mormon, opposed to his friend's relationship with Ramsey on religious principle... but ONLY on principle. Though a little stilted in places, the movie aches with romantic longing, and deserves plaudits for its honesty and compassion. Best seen with a crowd of like-minded viewers, preferably with a loved one by your side.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
It has started quietly. If your are looking for an action-packed movie this is absolutely not the right choice. All characters are slowly depicted on the scene. Stroke after stroke on the scene canvas. None can take away his hands to the priest and so the sisters lifespan devotion can only remain into the village. Philippa and Martina know their destiny, belong only to the village. So when you understand that, you are on the movie scene, in the village that becomes the whole known world in that time. When, no technology can let you imagine anything else than the campaign, the village, the sea. You feel the rhythm of that ancient village's life. Watching the movie in a cold snowy late afternoon can cause you to approach this evening dinner with some sumptuous expectations ...

The final sentence that give a title to Babette's sacrifice far from Paris: An artist is never poor.

Superb photography. Many situations depict portraits and landscapes as they were styled on canvas there, in Jutland, in 18th century.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
A classic 80's movie that Disney for some reason stopped making. I watched this movie everyday when I was in like 6th grade. I found a copy myself after scouring video stores. Well worth it though. One of my all time favs
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I first saw "Signs of Life" on PBS as an American Playhouse presentation. It's a wonderfully written, ensemble production with terrific performances by Michael Lewis as Joey and Vincent D'Onofrio as his brother, Daryl. Arthur Kennedy, in one of his last roles, is also excellent as an aging shipbuilder whose family business is about to close. The rest of the cast which includes Beau Bridges, Kathy Bates and Mary-Louise Parker give remarkable clarity and substance to their characters.

The direction is subtle and effective. I've watched this movie several times over the years and would very much recommend it. A beautiful piece of filmmaking.
Determine the sentiment:

Spoilers ahead JEEEEEEEESUSSSSSSSSSS.... I have a saying: "Insecticides kill insects and Moronicides kill morons..." The "ghost" in this movie kills morons. Several of the people who get killed in this movie are actually ASKING to get killed, by running into abandoned houses, going after ghosts, etc...

On a strictly cinematic aspect, this movie sucks real bad. The three story lines are shown to be parallel and suddenly, we learn they are separated by at least a few days. It's a cheap shot...

Also, the "thrills" are so cheap, they are laughable. Even "Nightmare on Elm Street" didn't sink so low as to show someone being attacked by his own sweater... it's pathetic.

Save your money, stay home, and you won't have a grudge against the filmmakers..
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

for a movie like this little hidden gem to come out in the 80s, its shocking how not a lot of people know about it.

this movie is definitely worth a look. it has all the things you need for a horror movie. especially the good old chills.

i remember watching this movie for the first time about 15 years ago, but i couldn't remember the name of it, so i came to IMDb a few years ago to ask for help on finding the title. i eventually got the name of the title, and bought the movie. i still love it as much as i did all those years ago.

buy this movie!!
Write a positive movie review.

It is depressing that many people don't understand this movie. To get caught up in the peripheral elements is to miss the true meaning of this film. This film speaks to the minority of people who actually believe in love and truth. It points out that in todays society too often people say what sounds good at the moment with no intention of backing things up when things get rough. as someone else stated that is evident in the number of divorces. Some people actually believe marriage is forever. Forget about stereotypes or anything else, but rather focus on what is important following your heart and fighting for who you believe in. I liked the ending because it would have been easy to go with a sappy one but came instead with the reality that committent is great, and you should fight with everything you have, but sometimes that still isn't enough. Too often people just give up and forget about the magic of love. late.
Susie Q is a great romantic prom Movie. Amy Jo Johnson (Susie Q) is a great Actress. I think she did a great performance. I hope that sometime that the Disney Company could put this movie on DVD. I think it's kind of cool and a little bit hilarious. It's kind of sad when Susie Q dies in a Car accident in the beginning at first it makes you want to cry or sob. But in the middle when no one suspects Susie Q it gets kind of funny and surprising. There is a little bit of mystery in this movie but not much. But still I would recommend this movie to the whole family if they enjoy comedy, mystery, or romance type of movies. It's Great! I think that Amy Jo Johnson as Susie Q is Cute.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive