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

As someone who loves baseball history, especially the early 20th century in which Cobb was a main figure, along with a ton of colorful characters, I was looking forward to seeing this baseball film. Well, it wasn't a baseball film, which was disappointing. No, it was just a sportswriter's account of being with Cobb in the ballplayer's later years while the two collaborated on a book. Even at that, this could have been a more appealing movie than they made it.

Granted Cobb was anything but a nice guy, an extremely talented player but brutal in that he would do anything to beat you....and he was viscous, intimidating and had a lot of demons to fight. He was so hated his own teammates tried to hinder his chances of winning a batting title one year. Nonetheless, this an over-the-top portrayal of the man. It makes him into something almost cartoon-like. 

Watching and listening to an old man rant, rave and profane for two hours is entertainment? No, it isn't. Some day, I'd love to see a real biopic of Cobb showing him in his ballplaying days and if they want to portray him as an evil guy, so be it, but the way they did it here with just a bitter, blasphemous old man making an ass of himself in front of a reporter is not fun to watch.
I usually spend almost as much time writing my reviews as I do watching the film, but with Today You Die, I feel that doing so would be a criminal waste of my time.

So here is a five minute rant about how bad this film is.

There was a time in the mid-80s when a single look from Steven Seagal was enough to crack your ribs; a full on scowl could knock you off your feet. If he actually got a hold of you, he would snap you like a twig.

These days, although he is still capable of doing considerable damage, he no longer looks the part. He's gone to seed and just doesn't know when to call it quits. He walks like he's dumped in his pants yet somehow still manages to look constipated, and he has put on weight. His trademark long ponytail has gone, but his hair still looks stupid. How this man keeps on working in the movie industry is beyond me.

Today you Die is the usual Seagal mix of bone crunching fights, car crashes, gun battles and pyrotechnics. Seagal mumbles his way through the dull script, delivering his lines with zero enthusiasm or believability. In this third-rate action flick, he plays Harlan Banks a thief trying to go straight, who is conned into partaking in a $20,000,000 robbery. He gets caught, goes to jail, escapes, and seeks revenge. Yawn.

There are some pretty good car chases and gun fights which intersperse the boring stuff (of which there is a lot), but reading other comments on IMDb has revealed that these were actually borrowed from other better movies. Seagal is also body-doubled an awful lot in this one.

Seagal turns in one of the most dreadful performances of his careerand that's saying something, considering the lousy 'acting' in some of his recent efforts. Most hilarious is his totally embarrassing attempt at Ebonics (African American street slang). 'I da man, fo' sho'no, actually Steven, you sound like an arse! With a ridiculous script and plot lines that go nowhere, this film is a waste of time, money and effort. And the final moment, where Harlan Banks saves a Children's home from closure is enough to make you blow chunks.

Damn, I just looked at the clock. I was enjoying trashing this steaming pile of dreck so much, I went way over my five minutes. It's time to post this comment and get to watching something decent.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

During my struggle to stay awake during this borefest, I fought through my near-dosing off to discover some silly plot regarding fraternity schmucks, quite incredibly obnoxiously annoying, running into trouble with a psychotic , radioactively damaged half-human/half cyborg named Splatter who sends his soldiers after them for the murder of their prestigious, politically vocal leader(..for whom Splatter killed himself, setting them up to take the blame so he could become the leader). These face-painted freaks form a group who express their feelings anarchically, though non-violently, living on dilapidated streets abandoned by the "civilized world" voicing their concerns regarding nuclear disarmament. Anyways, most of the film has these five frat goons running throughout darkened streets with graffiti walls, as Splatter and his punks pursue them. Thankfully for these guys, they find a punk chic to assist them on their journey out of this rather ugly terrain with which they're unfamiliarized. This territory the frat guys are immersed is a veritable labyrinth of streets and alleys with the idea of an exit out most difficult particularly when crazies and Splatter's bunch occupy nearly every turn.

Yeah, I was duped like others thanks to the HR Giger poster which is most excellent. If only he had been the designer of this dreck..this is not the case and we, the viewer, are left a film modeled after, of all movies it seems, Walter Hill's THE WARRIORS, except this film doesn't have the style or grit that film has. The film has a plethora of unfunny bits and lame confrontations between the frats and the punks with hand to hand combats often laughable. The setting is rather interesting, and there are some atmospheric uses of neon light, but it's not the environment that's the problem..it's the plot and characters within the environment that grow tiresome. The saddlebags under my eyes weighed heavier every minute this movie continued. Yes, Texas CHAINSAW stars Edwin Neal(..quite a funny voice-man, who has an entertaining interview on the DVD I rented for this flaming turd of a film)and Marilyn Burns have "key" roles as opposing members of their faction against the government resulting in the final conclusion within a building complex at the end. Neal's character Splatter uses these metal spikes which emerge from his metal arm to kill his victims.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
On this site I've often lambasted the Americans for not knowing how to write comedy, BUT, while they've never produced anything of the quality of 'Fawlty Towers', 'Blackadder' or 'The Fall and Rise of Reginald Perrin', they have also never (to my knowledge) made anything as bad as this: the nadir of British comedy.

On my Richter scale of comic awfulness, it rates only behind the truly execrable 'Are You Being Served' as the worst comedy show in the English language, with bad acting, annoying characters and humour that I'd grown out of before I left primary school. Unfortunately, it was part of a large crop of shows back then, along with 'Dad's Army', 'It ain't Half Hot Mum' and 'Allo, Allo' that relied on ridiculous situations and familiar catch-phrases to keep audiences "amused".

Michael Crawford proved later on that he's a talented performer, but personally, I'd rather be sentenced to a month of watching 'Rhoda' than endure a single episode of this drivel, which makes me ashamed to be British.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

If you like to watch movies because they are pretty, you should be okay with this one. If you like to watch movies that start out with a good guy trying to catch a bad guy, then reveal clues to the motives of each throughout the movie, skip it. At the end of the movie i still didn't know why Stargher killed the women the way he did. When you set up such a ritualistic serial killer it would be nice to know where the rituals originated from. In Dreams was a similar pretty movie with a serial killer which also wasn't the best, but at least the whys of how he killed the girls was explained. They also hinted at a dark background for Vaughn's character but didn't explain, didn't really say why Lopez's child psychologist was so much better suited for this task than the rest of the people they interviewed, didn't give much of an explanation for the little kid's problem, etc. If the rest of the story is compelling, I don't care about details like how Stargher afforded all the fancy electronic equipment and underground chambers or why the FBI wasn't checking to see if he owned any other property or had access to out of the way places while they were waiting to see if the whole entering the killer's mind thing would work, but I do like to have a sense of what motivates the serial killer in a serial killer movie when he kills in such a complex manner.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

gone with the wind and scarlett are two different films they were never meant to be compared obviously the original actors in gwtw are all passed away and deserved their own separate award and praise i loved gwtw and never really expected a sequel to be made or ever live up to half the praise of gwtw but to my shock scarlett was just as well written directed and acted as gwtw scarlett in its own right deserves just as much award i now can honestly say i don't know which i like better i think the script for scarlett was a- number 1 perfect' as a sequel. Bravo! writer director producer and all actors Bravo! AS sequels rarely live up to their name sake this one runs equal to its predecessor. To those who don't like it you miss the point and a great ending to phenomenal beginning
Determine the sentiment:

inspite of many movies dealing with great artists or a genius, chihaweseon pointed out the real dilemma in which an artist is capted...

the decision whether to ease the demands of the popularity or to create something new and to define ones' own style.

Chiahweson's desperate seek for inspiration and broadening his conscious led him to live the way he did, restless, outrageous, and yes very drunk! 

But still he defended and retained the most important ethical rules for an artist: respect to his Master, respect to the nature and the gradual seek for improvement and to perfection.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Seeing the cover of this before I watched it, my expectations weren't high, especially since it was amongst those other crappy horror movies at blockbuster (alongside films like Junior).

Alright, not only does this movie have the brainless stereotypical characters (the rich douche bag, the bitch, the sheriff, the localer that knows what's going wrong in the town, and so forth), but has such god-awful dialogue, acting, directing, and cg effects. The Jeremiah Stone dude was hilarious. (*SPOILER*) I'll never understand why he bit his finger off out of nowhere when he was holding that chick up hostage.

The premise for the movie is just as atrocious as the other flaws. From what I could get from it, Jeremiah Stone was a gold digger during the Gold Rush, and a notorious outlaw. He had a crapload of gold, (*SPOILER*) and put a curse on anyone who went after his gold before he was gunned down by the locals after he killed some girl, but not only did he survive, he bit off his own finger and ran off. So, present day, a group of clueless morons find out about this gold mine, and of course, they are warned by locals about "The Curse of the Forty-Niner". And what do they do? As expected, ignored the warnings and greedily sought for the gold. They get the gold, and all sorts of s**t goes on. Thankfully, (*SPOILER*) the bitch gets her head cut off.

That's about it. Looking at the cover of the film, you can tell what kind of movie it's going to be. It's just so terrible it's hilarious.

1 1/2 stars out of 5.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The original WASC isn't by any means a must see movie in the genre. In fact, if it weren't for it's chilling first 25 minutes there wouldn't be any logical reason for watching it. The remake takes those 25 minutes and turns them into a mediocre 85 minute teen Horror flick. 

Now, I don't have anything against PG-13 Horror movies but the tendency surrounding them is getting lame. When you see the PG-13 rating you expect a movie filled with false scares, teen t.v. or music stars, and a plot that has been used for several times. Don't even ask for gore or violence. 

I know that it's not correct to compare both the original WASC and the remake, but I think that it's necessary to do it because the whole idea of the new one is based on the beginning of the original. The tension that is felt through the first movie is not present by any means in the remake. Not even with the amazing settings or great use of lightning. No tension, suspense, thrills...nothing. The movie goes too slow before it gets a little "interesting", and that's when the stranger appears. The chasing sequence is probably the best part of the movie because at least there's a feeling of "what will happen next?". But that's it. The situations that set up for the climax are predictable, boring, and lack of suspense. The original has merits for having suspense in the most important scenes, and also, for a chilling climax for the most important scene of the movie. 

Now, I understand that this is a PG-13 Horror movie but, if you pay respect to the original. Why change it's most important situation? The children are not supposed to survive! After the ending I felt like this movie was pointless. So the baby sitter was playing cat and mouse with a wacko...that's it?. Then, the sequence at the hospital was plain stupid. And worst of all, it means that a sequel may be on the way. 

Camila Belle is the best thing about the movie. She delivers a cute, believable performance. She needs to pick better projects although this role will gain for her thousands of teenager fans. 

Please, don't watch this movie. Some people say that in order to support the Horror genre we are supposed to support any movie that comes out. I don't necessary agree. If we ignore movies like WASC then the producers of Horror movies will understand that we won't accept CRAP. We want good Horror movies, not lame flicks filled with false scares. 

Watch the original "When A Stranger Calls" instead because it's first 25 minutes are WAY BETTER than the whole (pointless) remake.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Detective Burt Williams has been on the trail of the infamous Poe killer for nearly three years.Burt's daughter Kris Williams,a homicide agent for the FBI along with her partner Sean Michaels take over.Burt reluctantly steps down from the case and retires.For the next seven months the "Poe Killer" continues his murderous rampage until Kris discovers that the killer uses internet chat rooms to seduce his prey.She logs in as Annabel Lee and is quickly captured by Poe killer.It's time for Burt to find the sadist and free his daughter before it's too late.Amateurish and supremely braindead horror flick with no suspense and a bit of nasty gore.The acting is hilariously terrible,the characters are painfully dumb and the killer is not menacing.Still I have seen worse indie horror flicks.3 out of 10.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This film revival right march in a bad film industry and Saudi Arabia, I want to know how the director was able to stand in front of people of the industry after he making this film, work was so very bad, we do not know how cinema Saudi companies such as Rutana and other does not support yang Filmmakers in KSA like UAE We hope in the future to prosper film industry in Saudi Arabia But without such intervention Fools traders and idiots make us bad movies do not benefit the reputation of cinema in Saudi Arabia is like the Roman and Iranian cinema At the same time, please makers simple experimental cinema in Saudi Arabia such as Abdullah alayaf And others to achieve the dream of a good film industry to participate in festivals world away from the major companies interventions stupid
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Critters 4: This movie was continued after the 3rd critters movies. This one was released in the same years as critters 3 was released in 1991. Critters 4 takes you in space as they hunt for the humans in a space ship. I doubt if there will be a Critters 5 because the ending for the 4th was quite a good ending, which brought the end to the critters as there was no more left. I give this movie 10 out of 10.

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

positive
Write a positive movie review.

I am sorry to see that SURFACE has not been picked up for the NBC 2006-2007 season. I guess market demand for inane game and reality shows on broadcast television, a reflection on our sense of culture, has conquered a good story. I hope and pray that some network picks it up so it will continue on as does STARGATE and it's spin-offs.

I also hope the producers find a venue where they can produce the level of Post Production they wished for in a TV Guide interview. Right now the reruns on Sci-Fi, marathons, will have to do. I for one would love to see where the story goes after the tsunami that ended Episode 15. I would like to find out the mastermind of the efficient effort to obfuscate the real identity of the creatures.

FYC Morningbear
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

hair, the movie based on the broadway hit,fails to achieve any redeemable cinematic qualities. you cant really take the play and make it a movie. whether one is so tempted by the rock music to see this movie, it really detracts from the quality of a broadway show. worse than seeing sitcom reruns. musical fiasco, and cant believe others rated it so high.
This film is supposedly about three young idealistic people, two of whom join the Naxalite movement and blah blah. It is really just another film about some beautiful, rich people trying to decide who they should bed next; the peasants and naxalites and the political struggles of the era merely serve as a picturesque backdrop. Literally, as we don't hear the villagers say a word, never mind learn anyone's name, thus they occupy the same 'role' as the 'natives' in old Hollywood films. The movie is also dull, and the story does not actually get us anywhere - except to various bedrooms. We are apparently supposed to admire the artsiness of it all, which merely means no good song and dance routine, which would not have saved the film of course, but might have at least alleviated the boredom.

My friend Japna was annoyed at the immorality of the whole story, not the bedroom bit but the whole pointlessness of the story. The message seems to be that ideals are not worth pursuing.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I have been watching movies from i think last 10 years , and I must say that i never felt that bad, which I felt after watching this extra large bore movie, it was bad, very Bad. There were songs & songs. Nobody should watch this movie. The director has shown Germans speaking English which is so rubbish. Germans does not speak English. & in one scene there was a white girl who asked Himesh for autograph. (Obv that he must have gave some money to her) In the promo they have shown prepare for Laughing riot. But i could say there was only one scene where that Himesh was laughing for no reason may be he thinks he's funny. Hansika is very good. she is like an angel. But too young only 16 yrs old. If you have plenty of time and don't know what to do then you should watch this movie or else its waste of money
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Alfred Hitchcock shows originality in the remake of his own 1934 British film, "The Man Who Knew Too Much". This 1956 take on the same story is much lighter than the previous one. Mr. Hitchcock was lucky in having collaborators that went with him from one film to the next, thus keeping a standard in his work. Robert Burks did an excellent job with the cinematography and George Tomasini's editing shows his talent. Ultimately, Bernard Herrmann is seen conducting at the magnificent Royal Albert Hall in London at the climax of the picture.

James Stewart was an actor that worked well with Mr. Hitchcock. In this version, he plays a doctor from Indiana on vacation with his wife and son. When we meet him, they are on their way to Marrakesh in one local bus and the intrigue begins. His wife is the lovely Doris Day at her best. She had been a well known singer before her marriage and now is the perfect wife and mother. The film has some good supporting cast, Brenda DeBanzie, Bernard Miles, Daniel Gelin, Alan Mowbray, among others, do a great job in portraying their characters.

Although this is a "light Hitchcock", one can't dismiss it as a failure. "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is a change of pace for Hitchcock's fans.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Dear Mr Dante, 

Dude, seriously... the title of the show is "Masters of Horror". And be that as it may, it is supposed to be an opportunity to show of your horror chops, to show the world why you deserve to be called a "master" of the genre. Appearantly you misunderstood the exercise. Appearantly you thought it was your opportunity (or worse, your duty) to educate the American public on your political beliefs. And your attempt comes off as disgusting, overbearing, and above all preachy.

The only reason ANYONE marked your short as a high score is because their political views match yours and they are the type of people that don't mind having that sort of politics shoved down their throat.

I, on the other hand, don't give a damn what you believe, they believe, or I believe... I just want such obvious (not subtle) and unfunny (not satire) messages out of my horror. And while there were certainly other "Masters of Horror" that were big time disappointments or where I was just generally confused why that director (william malone?) would be considered a genre "master"... yours fails far beyond the rest for just missing the entire point of the series.

So next time... can you please just keep your preachy politics to yourself?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I'm sure that any legitimate submariner would happily ship out on the USOS Seaview (yes, SOS...) Why, you could play full-court basketball in the torpedo room, it's so large. And how 'bout the bay windows in the bow, the better to see giant squids or minefields that appear out of nowhere? Did I mention the colorful mess-cook with the parrot on his shoulder? And the Admiral's stateroom with what appears to be a loft? Big bleeping sub...

OK, OK...it's never gonna win any prizes for authenticity. And if the sub is laughable, the plot is even worse. Somehow the Van Allen belts of radiation, hundreds of miles in space, have "caught fire" are going to make global warming look like a weenie roast. Pompous Admiral Nelson (Walter Pidgeon), along with his sidekick Lucius (Peter Lorre, looking suitably uncomfortable) hatch a scheme to put out the fire by firing a missile into its midst.

There's plenty of intrigue (sic) along the way, with a born-again survivor (and his little dog, too!) two "dames" who can never leave well enough alone, a passel of "red shirts" who are expendable, and plot holes big enough for Godzilla to walk through. Thrill to the Seaview being chased at what looks like 60 miles per hour by another sub -- no need for advanced sonar when you can follow from 100 feet astern.

The movie careens from one cliff-hanger to another; the payoff is so anticlimactic as to be pointless, certainly not worth the 1 hour and 50 minute wait.

The technical adviser for this shipwreck must have been a 14-year old boy with a stack of Popular Mechanics magazines. Worth watching, if only to riff upon.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I have a problem with the movie snobs who consider Americans to be uncouth semi - literates unable to appreciate the subtlety of the more sophisticated Europeans,les Francais,les Italiens...just about anybody from le continong to whom English is a foreign language.If the humour in "My Father the Hero" is different from that in "Mon Pere ce heros" it is because the French sense of humour is different from that of the American.Not better,not "more clever",just different. If you think it is crass for Hollywood to "borrow" from the French cinema just consider how much the French cinema has borrowed from Hollywood in the first place.Where would Belmondo and Delon have been without Bogart?Truffaut without Hitchcock?Jerry Lewis - not known for his subtle and cerebral style is idolised in France.Go figure........ Monsieur Depardieu is exceptionally good as the hapless divorced father of a precocious 14 year old daughter on holiday in the Bahamas together. Unbeknowst to him,she presents him to the other people at the hotel as her lover so as to make herself more interesting to a boy she has her eye on .Not surprisingly,complications ensue. There are "hommages" to "Green Card" and "Cyrano de Bergerac" amusingly inserted and M.Depardieu goes along with it all very good - naturedly. He does a good Maurice Chevaler impression with "Thank Heaven for little girls" which is in fact funny and rather poignant as his audience,all of whom believe him to be the lover of a 14 year old girl,get up and leave two - by - two as he warbles away,blissfully unaware of what is happening.When he turns round at the end of the song to acknowledge the expected applause the expression on his face is priceless. Without him the movie would be very average indeed.With his huge shambling figure dominating the screen it is a lot of fun.No pecs,no six pack - just a real proper human - type being.Formidable!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This film is a mediocre, low-budget flick. I've seen much worse on MST3K, let me assure you, but this is still a pretty crappy film.

The film is about Clonus, a top-secret government facility in which clones are used to give organs to politicians. It's an almost Orwellian society, actually: almost (but not quite) effective.

The film starts to roll downhill when the head clone (Tim Connely of `Emergency' fame) falls in love with a female clone (Paulette Breen, who appeared in this and at most four other films {and this was not her first film}). They begin to suspect something. After finding a beer can in the nearby river, the plot starts to unravel. The clone receives no answers from either the head scientist (Dick Sargent from `Bewitched') or the `Confessional', a computer which supposedly knows everything, so he breaks into the main Clonus building and (in a scene hilariously destroyed by Mike and the Bots) finds out the truth (including a clone video which, eerily, shows the exact same method that was used to clone Dolly five years ago . .. and this film was made over twenty years ago . . .) about Clonus. He breaks free, pursued by two guards. He has one hell of a time breaking through the two-foot high fences, though he has a considerably harder time climbing up some boulders. From there it continues to slide. Also appearing are Peter Graves (`Beginning of the End', `It Conquered The World') as the Presidential candidate and Keenan Wynn (`Dr. Strangelove', `Piranha', `Once Upon A Time In The West') and Lurleen Tuttle (`Ma Barker's Killer Brood', `Psycho') as the elderly couple who help Clony after he escapes.

The MST3K version was priceless; one of the best episodes ever.

Four stars for the film;10 for the MST3K version.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: While not quite as good as A Murder is Announced, which was not only delightful but almost surpassed the book, this is an excellent adaptation. And you know what, it is a huge improvement on the Geraldine McEwan version. Now I don't take pride in bad mouthing the Geraldine McEwan adaptations, two or three of them were surprisingly good, but others started off well but ruined by either a poor script, a confusing final solution or both. The Geraldine McEwan version suffered from a plodding pace, and both of the above problems, and I would consider second worst of the ITV adaptations, worst being Sittaford Mystery, which even on its own merits turned out dull and confusing. This adaptation of the book Nemesis is a huge improvement, it not only respects the book, despite a few liberties, but it pretty much rectifies the problems the ITV version had. Despite the added character of Lionel coming across as rather irritating, more to do with how he was written than how he was acted, and one or two moments of sluggish pacing, this is solid as an adaptation of a decent book. It is beautifully filmed, with nice photography and period detail, and the music as always is excellent. The performances are wonderful this time around, and make the most of an in general well-done script, with Joan Hickson brilliant as always as Miss Marple, and solid turns from Liz Fraser, Helen Cherry, Joanna Hole and Anna Cropper. Margaret Tyzack is outstanding though in a chilling and moving performance as Clothilde. Overall, well worth watching, better than the recent version in pretty much all departments. 9/10 Bethany Cox
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
There was no need for this movie, plain and simple. The original, although hated by some, was something I found to be actually really entertaining, mainly because it was before Jim Carrey started to really lose his touch, and Cameron Diaz was, well, "Smoooooookin!" 'Nuff said. So why make a sequel/prequel thing? Honestly? Knowing that Jim Carrey wouldn't do it should've been clue enough that it didn't deserve to be created. But then they just make mistake after mistake. Jamie Kennedy. Why is this man still allowed to breathe? The writing and story: terrible. Why would I ever want to see a baby wearing the mask? Moreover why would I want to see it fly? Ever? HOW DID SOMEONE THINK THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA?! The acting is despicable, in fact nearly everything about this movie is. I'm trying to keep calm, or IMDb probably won't let me post this. Bottom line: don't watch this piece of trash. Pick up the original, see how good Cameron Diaz looked and how Jim Carrey used to have a career, and laugh. Don't waste even a second of your time on this.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

have just got back from seeing this brilliantly funny film.

granted, part of the reason i loved it so was because i could point out people and places i knew ('i walk there everyday!', 'i work there!', 'i've had drinks there!', 'hey! that's our postman!' etc...). but, still, if you're out for a 'feel-good' with a bit of spice (excuse the pun) - this is just the right answer. relationships, culture and, most importantly, love are all woven together within the plot.

with preston (where the film is set) recently being made a city, it is good to see this work featuring the place and adding to the feeling of uprise. it is also a brilliant representative of the many cultures in this part of the north.

fabulous!
What's an example of a movie review?

I think this programme is a load of rubbish. All they do is argue and slap each other across the face and they call this acting?! These people get paid lots of money for this and most of them can't even act to save their lives. Also, the story lines are awful and after watching it for a few minutes, I am bored with it. I like the way that Harry Hill takes the mickey out of it on his TV show 'TV Burp' e.g. the weak joke "The Princess and the Pea isn't exactly Shakespeare is it?" that had Sonia and Naomi in stitches. I don't see how that is funny. I think this is a waste of everybody's money for their TV licence so this can be shown 4/5 days a week. Isn't there anything better than this?
Determine the sentiment:

"No one really knows how the Power came to be. Not even the Book of Damnation recorded its beginning, but those who mastered it have always been hunted The families of Ipswich formed a Covenant of Silence bla bla bla" After this intro, we suddenly see Take That. Or was it N'Synch? The Backstreet Boys, perhaps? Well, I don't know which of these they belong to, but one thing's for sure: the descendants of Salem are a boy-band. Can you tell them apart? I couldn't. If you can tell me which is which, I'd very much appreciate it. These boy-band boys looks so damn alike! Seriously now. Is this a horror movie or a film for teenie-boppers? It's sad that the (anyway weak) horror genre has been kidnapped by teens. And this is one of the teeniest I've seen so far. The movie is visually solid, but the cast is so bland, the acting so awful, that it was a trial finishing the movie. As bad as the cast was (after all, boy-bands and fashion models are rarely good actors) the absolute "stand-out" in this regard was the guy playing the villain, Sebastian Stan. This guy's overacting is right up there with the worst in the history of film. I have rarely seen someone make such annoying and silly grimaces in such a short space of time. What's worse, he has the most baby-face of all the boy-band baby-faces in the entire cast. I mean, it's a joke.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

A beautiful woman, a backwoods, inbred monster man, a super sweet monster truck, a road kill zombie brother and 2 friends...one anal retentive, overly sensitive nerd and the other a foul mouthed, adolescent slob. Throw them all together with a dash of Jeepers Creepers, Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Road Trip and you've got Monster Man. A hilarious horror/comedy outing that never sets out to "say something". It's a simple, straight forward laugh fest. Unpretentious and well made, this horror/comedy is at its heart, a buddy flick. This film offered some hilarious and sickening set pieces. I highly recommend this to fright fans looking to be entertained.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

*Please note: (The below text is taken from the Irish DVD Release). Some of this summary MAY be wrong:

Edge-of-your-seat chiller, in which The Legacy of an ancient Witch and her bloodthirsty coven causes a deserted island hotel to become the embodiment of evil two Centuries later.

When an inquisitive photographer (David Hasselhoff, Baywatch, Knight Rider) and his virginal fiancée (Linda Blair, The Exorcist) creep onto the island to research its gruesome history, they are joined by an unwit- ting estate agent and his prospective buyers.

Gradually the group find themselves falling victim to the ancient evil that lives on in the mysterious old woman who roams the hotel, seeking fresh victims for Satanic rites, human sacrifice and demon- ic possession...

Check in at the Witchcraft hotel... we hope you enjoy your SLAY!

Additional Info. on the movies contents:

Violence: Some gruesome, sexual violence - VERY STRONG!

Sex and/or nudity: Some strong, as well as innuendo.

Bad language: Some, strong.

Other: Some drug use and references.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: THE DEATH COLLECTOR is truly a wonderful film. Labeled as a MEAN STREETS ripoff, it has some really great stuff in it. A lot of the stuff in this movie would later be used by Scorsese himself, including the actors - Joe Pesci, Frank Vincent, etc.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
STEAMBOAT WILLIE is an amazingly important film to our cinema history. This second appearance of Mickey Mouse (following the silent PLANE CRAZY earlier that year) is probably his most famous film--mostly because it was so ground-breaking. This is because it was the first sound cartoon. While you don't yet hear Mickey speak, there are tons of sound effects and music throughout the film--something we take for granted now but which was a huge crowd pleaser in 1928.

Now if this were just an important historical film, it would be worth seeing--especially to lovers of animation. However, after seeing the short again after about 25 years, I was amazed at how timeless the film actually is. While Mickey and Minnie behave a bit odd compared to the characters we have grown to love (thanks mostly to the kooky mind and talent of animator Ub Iwerks), there is an infectious charm about the film. It's just adorable seeing Mickey playing "Turkey in the Straw" in a highly imaginative (if occasionally cruel) way. Clever and a real crowd-pleaser--this film still ranks among Mickey's best films even after 80 wonderful years.

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

positive
Firstly, this movie works in the fact that it is disturbing. I really did not like seeing all these scenes where people get cut up alive, etc. The weirdly erotic introduction gives one a sense of necrophiliactic wonder. It is somewhat... distastefull to me personally. But the movie really works in that respect, and it is suppposed to be scary, so I give it credit for that. Yup, a few points there for those scalpels and....well, damned disturbing idea of getting disected alive.

But what this movie lacks is an interesting plot, characterization, or real surprises. The whole teen-flick horror genre usually goes in a very simple, predictable way. Lots of 'tense' moments, creepy guys who are insane, and the big question of all: is the boyfriend the murderer? This movie fits into the category of "Scream" and countless others which have spawned over the 90s. Well, I won't spoil it for you, but it's not exactly interesting who is the killer. We find out who it is half way through... and from there on, the movie drudges on, trying to fill in some time... rather boringly to say the least. I was looking at the clock a bit on this movie.

The lead actress is great, as usual, but the carboard acting box she is placed into makes one groan in pain... the college girl who is a detective who everyone thinks is insane, but she is the one who really knows whats going on. And the cops? Ahhh, they just laugh and eat donuts. Very predictable, flat, disturbing at times, and most of all, boring and dull... It's like an American film company took a flight to Germany to shoot a movie to make it foreign..... hmmm..... or did they?


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

negative
I've enjoyed watching Lost from the beginning and endured a few bad actors in poorly written episodes because when Lost is good, it's really good! But this episode that features Mr Echos demise had so many drawn out scenes with lingering closeups of bad acting that I found myself tapping the fast forward button. This episode stood out so far as by far the worst. In fact, the variation in quality of Lost has been so inconsistent, I find myself often wondering how many writers they are using.

I will continue to watch but hope things get better and hope I stop secretly wishing for the sub-par actors in the series to die off.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Dear friends, I've never seen such a trash movie as NIGHT OF THE DEMONS (1988). It seems that the director Kevin Tenney had the intention to copy classics like THE EVIL DEAD by Sam Raimi (1978) or George A. Romero's RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD from the same year. The cinematography was lousy, the movie was very dark, so I had to turn the brightness control to the maximum. Indeed, horror pictures have to be dark, but not the way like NIGHT OF THE DEMONS. The entire movie was ridiculous, no suspense, worse actors except Alvin Alexis in the role of Rodger, and horrible make-up effects. An average vote of 5 stars for that movie? I can't believe this. Perhaps the users were pleased about the tits, asses and pussies of the actresses, they were indeed worth 5 stars. Regards, Hans-Dieter

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

negative
This film is an embarrassment. Nothing works on any level. The direction, screenplay, acting , and editing work together to repel your eyes from the screen. Everything is inappropriate and incoherent. At first you can sit there with and groan, wince, and laugh at it, but very shortly the whole effort of watching just becomes too ponderous.

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

negative
I saw this movie only because Sophie Marceau. However, her acting abilities it's no enough to salve this movie. Almost all cast don't play their character well, exception for Sophie and Frederic. The plot could give a rise a better movie if the right pieces was in the right places. I saw several good french movies but this one i don't like.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This movie was a low point for both Jason Robards and Sam Peckinpah. Major plot points are taken directly from Sergio Leone's masterpiece "Once Upon a Time in the West" (released two years earlier and also featuring Robards): A man finds a watering hole is found in the desert, being the only water for many miles in every direction, he plans to build a 'station' around the hole and to ensure there's a love interest, he falls in love with a prostitute. To this add an intemperate preacher, bad music, silly fast action shots, even sillier T&A shots - and there you go. There is little question why it failed at the box office. The real question is "how did it make it that far?".

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

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This lame Harold Lloyd sound film has nary a laugh in it, and makes one wonder if this Lloyd is even the same one that made all of those delightful and hilarious silents.

Lloyd's boyish likability becomes fey and limp when we can hear him talk, and a sluggish, restrained pace replaces the zany antics of his silents. Lloyd plays a young son of a missionary who grows up in China and then finds himself transplanted to contemporary New York City without a clue as to how life outside his Chinese village works. He finds himself an unlikely victor in a mayoral election and quickly draws the ire of all the government organizations because he refuses to look the other way in the face of rampant corruption. When he's framed in an attempt to bring him down, he decides to play just as dirty as everyone else, and stages a fake execution of every crook in NYC as a scare tactic. This darkly satiric ending feels out of place next to everything else in the movie, but it's the only part of the film that comes remotely to life. Everything else is a dull bore.

I don't like having to admit that a Harold Lloyd movie fails, because I like him so much, but I don't have a choice with this one.

Grade: D
This is one of those movies when you are watching it you wonder whether it is documentary or fiction. After the movie, Ramin Bahrani answered many questions and we learned that the movie has a script.

Bahrani's camera is silent, he is not judgmental, he almost erases director from the movie by purpose, background is not organized to make the picture pretty, however don't get me wrong; there is a lot of preparation for this movie. Starting on personal level, being the part of environment, being to be ignored when you film.

Main character is a 'real' actor in every sense.

I would like to thank all crew for this movie, showing us another country within NYC. I strongly suggest it if you like stories of others.

Bora Kizilirmak

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

positive
This movie spends most of its time preaching that it is the script that makes the movie, but apparently there was no script when they shot this waste of time! The trailer makes this out to be a comedy, but the film can't decide if it wants to be a comedy, a drama, a romance or an action film. Press releases indicated that Shatner and Hamlin made this movie because they loved the script (what were they thinking?). If you like William Shatner (I do) see "Free Enterprise" instead.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
1st watched 2/9/2008, 4 out of 10(Dir-J.S. Cardone): Sexual political thriller that doesn't really succeed in any of these areas very well except early on where there are some interesting soft-core scenes. The movie starts off portraying a couple exploring their sexual fantasies amidst their work environments or wherever and whatever suits their fancy. The couple takes an excursion to a retreat and bathhouse where they run into a woman that's willing to be a part of a three-some and fulfill some of their fantasies. At this point, we only know that this couple is well off but we don't know until they return that the fiancé is part of a well-to-do political family. The man hopes to be on the rise to the point of possibly getting a congressional seat after the marriage. They then receive a package in the mail from an anonymous source with explicit pictures of their encounter at the bath house and their qwest begins as to how and why they were filmed, who sent the package, what they want, and how to clear their names before any of this gets out. This qwest becomes an obsession that leads them deeper into seedier worlds and takes a lot of their time, to the point where their friends & family wonder what they're doing all day and why they look rundown all the time. This movie is interesting at times but drifts into ridiculousness as they personally seek out the problem instead of getting the police involved early on because of their pride. This mistake, of course, keeps the movie going. The performances are fine despite the no-name cast but the lunacy of the situation overrides and the movie starts to become ho-hum about ½ the way through. And of course, they throw in a twist at the end that defies and challenges everything that happened prior(as is the norm these days when they don't know what else to do to spice up the movie). This doesn't help this movie one bit, though.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I see alot of movies at the cinema (103 so far this year) and I have to say that this is by far and away the best film I have seen this year, even though it was released back in 1954!

I sat in awe and watched this work of genius and felt quite ashamed that I had never even heard of it before my local art house cinema decided to show it for a week on what looked like a new print. 

The best part of the whole movie has to be the 28 minute break in where there is no speech and no music, merely the sound of the men carrying out the heist. Pure quality. 

Although really dark in places it is lightened with the dry humour.

Not many films score 10 out of 10 but this does and also gets a gold star for effort!! 

If you ever get a chance to see this movie, please do not hesitate, it's a classic. 


OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Went looking for this movie after i read Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" novel. Timeless masterpiece about 13th century Russians being invaded by the Germans. Movie was made in 1938, under orders from Joseph Stalin to warn Soviets about Hitler and Germany. Battle scenes are wonderfully done, showing that you don't need computer animation to make a great fight scene. Probably Sergei Eisenstein's greatest work. Also see 'Battleship Potemkin'. Any history buff or poli-sci major should watch this movie. 10 out of 10.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Chen Kaige lost his sense of tempo. I envy Europeans and Americans who can watch the film without following the dialog with their ears, because it is painful to do: slow, unnaturally heavy, and over-deliberate. But Westerners, on the other hand, suffer from the poor quality of subtitle translation, which manages to lose all the subtlety and double meanings that make a careful study of the film so much fun.

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

positive