cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
I realize most people don't know who Solomon Kane is and that the film is pitched at that much larger audience. But then why bother to call it "Solomon Kane" in the first place when the name has no marketable value? The characters certainly has NOTHING whatsoever to do with the R.E. Howard character. Except he has a big hat. That's where the resemblance ends.

It's always a bad sign when any superhero/fantasy/sci-fi movie lingers over an origin story, but when you invent one whole cloth like this for a character who didn't have one at all, you've already missed the point completely. Kane is no longer even the fanatical Christian warrior of the stories, but rather a formerly bad guy who is trying to save his soul (this part is in the opening scene).

With the most basic character elements changed or simply ignored, the use of the name Solomon Kane is simply perplexing. Is it just so they can say "From the creator of Conan" and hope to plug into a budding franchise if the new "Conan" movie gets off the ground? Ignoring the complete departure from the stories, the movie is competent if utterly generic for the first half but then devolves into sheer stupidity in the climactic scene which involves multiple super baddies (think three "boss levels" at the same time), none of whom is the least bit interesting or menacing.

If I wasn't a Kane fan who was disappointed that they completely ignored the source material, I'd probably give the film a 3 or 4 instead of a 1. Even for the (majority of) viewers who will come into this knowing nothing about Kane, it's pretty thin gruel.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Surprising, witty, funny and totally engaging, the film grabs a little-known reality: that of the student that goes studying in an Erasmus program. The beginning is great, as the story kicks off, of course it has a few lulls on the midsection, and the story drifts sometimes away from the main character, but the viewer won't bother - the movie is young, fresh, and light-hearted, even though I don't agree with the notion that when you do Erasmus and you come back you no longer make part of that universe. But that's just me. The movie is deep, and at the same time very light. Cool and recommendable.

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

positive
This film easily rivals the emotional strength, the dramatic impact and the top-notch performances of "12 Angry Men". I rented it on a whim and was amazed that I had not heard of it before.

I do not know if this was Emilio Estevez's directorial debut, but the pacing, the interplay and development of the characters as well as the some clever camera work surrounding the character Estevez plays all suggest a natural eye.

The interplay between Martin and Emilio contains the same wonderful chemistry we saw in Wall Street with Martin and Charlie. Kathy Bates is wonderful in her characters subtle desperation and escapism; a variation on her characters in "At Play In The Fields Of The Lord". She is irritating and yet one can empathize with her at the same time.

There are some moments where I feel the plot slows a touch and the moments between Estevez and his ex-girlfriend almost seem written for another film, Estevez comes off as another character all together. But those are minor complaints.

This film must be based on a true story or must have been written by someone who lived these experiences. I rate it 8 out of a difficult 10.



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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

First I must confess that A Separate Peace is my favorite book. So of course, I have some bias against any attempt at adapting it for a feature film or television movie. But as I began to watch this film, I was more than willing to give it the benefit of the doubt. The original version from the early 1970s, though shot at Phillips Exeter Academy where the book's author attended school, and though it stayed as faithful as it could to the book, lacked any real depth of feeling and failed to capture the essence of the characters. The original seemed to simply go through the motions. Reading the trivia about the movie, you discover that it was cast mostly with non-actors. Thus, the original has an amateurish feel to it and it ultimately fails.

This new version, though I will grant that it captures the look of the period better than the original, seems to have thrown the book out all together. Scenes are rearranged, characters imposed where they don't belong, characters created that were not in the book, and no attempt was made to delve into the deeper conflicts that make the book so compelling. And the cardinal sin of all: the tree is not treated as the vital, almost central character it is in the book. This is an inexcusable oversight on the part of the film makers. How could they downplay the role of the tree? Why was it not introduced immediately? Why the Dead Poet-esque beginning? And what in God's name was up with Gene's accent? This film is, to be blunt, garbage. A Separate Peace should not be a difficult book to adapt for the stage or screen. John Knowles wrote it in a perfectly fine, linear style. The film makers should have trusted the story as it was already written; make changes, sure; embellish here and there, sure; take some mild dramatic license, sure. But destroy one of the pearls of American literature in the process? What were they thinking? In their corruption of the story line, they cut any possibility of suspense or drama. The whole movie falls flat and fails miserably.

If you are a high school or college student assigned to read this book and you are thinking of skimping and just watching the movie...don't even think about it. This film will be of no help to you.

Alas, we shall have to wait even longer before a version of this story comes to the screen that truly does it justice.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

This BBC series is astonishingly good fun. I'd only seen a few minutes before I knew I had to own it and watch it again with all my friends. I wouldn't recommend this to anyone prudish, but almost anyone else is going to enjoy it--from the cinema snob to the entertainment-hungry masses. The lead character is a lesbian, but it's still worth watching if that's not your thing.

Rachael Stirling is incredible in a lead role that stretches her into a dazzling assortment of emotions and situations, some of a bizarre nature. No one who saw this series would ever say she can't act. She makes us laugh, cry, get turned on and slap our foreheads in amazement.

You can't really compare this story to anything else. It's not a rehash of style or plot. It's entirely it's own beastpart comedy, historical drama, erotica, coming-of-age tale, musical and more.

Gotta praise the BBC for making this story. I can't imagine anyone in the (overly prudish and formulaic) U.S. ever doing it. So, stop reading about it and go buy it.
I am a fan of Ed Harris' work and I really had high expectations about this film. Having so good actors as Harris and Von Sydow is always a big advantage for a director but if the script is bad what can you do? I really think that Needful Things is the worst movie of Harris' filmography and that getting involved with it was a huge mistake. Anyway, I've seen much worse movies in my life but Needful Things was a disappointment because of the waste of acting talent. The story as an overall seems too unbelievable and fake. I don't know if that is because of the book, 'cause I haven't read it. But if the script was so bad, I can't see the reason for filming it. Maybe it was the commercial success of King's books, or the need for low-quality movies for the VHS era of the 90's. Whatever the reason was, though, this movie was a very bad choice for anyone involved.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I rented a copy of this one from Netflix -- big mistake. The DVD version titled "The One-Armed Swordsmen" was produced by madmen who thought that the fighting sequences would be appreciated better pasted all together in one big chapter than as part of a consistent, sequential story. Some of the story was left in separate chapters, which you can select from the main menu, but the DVD is still a mess. Don't rent or buy it. Not that there was anything wonderful about the original story, an absurdly complicated piece of nonsense. Much as I liked seeing Wang Yu in his prime again after all these years, this one is an utter waste of time. I've had dish detergents that made a better film than this. What the chopped-up DVD version shows us is that no matter how silly a Chinese script may be, you have to see some sort of story to care about how the fighting sequences turn out.

But "The One-Armed Swordsmen" does offer you do the chance to see both Wang and Shaw Brothers stalwart Lo Lieh beating up smirking pretty boy David Chiang -- it's always a pleasure to see that happen. Lo plays a sort of second-string villain here, and serves as a prime example of why some people really need orthodontists. he film is also graced by the participation of Taiwanese actor Chang Yi as the magistrate. 

Another comment above mentions the obligatory fight-in-the-inn scene (there are two, in fact) where Wang and Chiang are attacked by a pack of comical barbarians using what look like cavemen weapons, making Bruce Lee noises while they fight. None of this makes any sense, but that's okay if you're not expecting any clarity or common sense. It was fun to watch anyway.

Another peculiarity of this production is that there are no significant women characters. There are a couple of female roles, but they play no serious role in the action or the plot.

If you can find a copy of the original Shaw Brothers One-Armed Swordsman movie, the one which explains why he has only the one arm and why he uses a broken sword, go for it.
What's an example of a movie review?

Look as being Anglo-Irish I assure you this reviewer is anything but Bias. But I assure you this is very much an Irish Film - and not English as the last comment seems to have suggested. This film was written by Neil Jorden and Conor McPherson and directed by Conor McPherson too - both Irish. The Cast is almost entirely Irish - it was shot in Ireland with an Irish crew. Even Michael Gambon was born in Ireland - I remember him joking about it in an interview about this film.

Michael Cane was evidently brought in to boost Box office takings abroad.

Loved the film, I just wanted to correct a totally uninformed comment!

Now on with the review - I loved Dylan Moran, have always been a fan of his, himself and Michael Cane formed a surprisingly good double act. It was great to see Morans range as an actor as he plays several different made up characters during the film. I would recommend this film to anyone with an interest in comedy - as it represents a fresh, quirky and inventive turn in Irish feature length chuckle films. I laughed a lot. what more could you ask for?
Determine the sentiment:

I wasn't expecting "Citizen Kane" but I was hoping for some extreme guilty pleasure! The script is bad, but the school exterior shots were obviously done with the same 5 extras on the same day & the dorm exterior shots were easily shot during a hurricane.

The wardrobe was swapped around so much, I hoped the wardrobe mistress had some good strong soap to wash the panties. I know the budget's time but do you think they could have bought a couple of DIFFERENT styles of underwear? What oversexed up vampiric hot chick would wear boy-leg panties under latex trousers? I was relieved to see one appearance of thong in the penultimate scene.

Good points: the actors were all *very* attractive, and the girls had natural boobs. Too bad they never took the bras off.

The special effects were neither effective and could only be describes as special, if they rode the short bus to the edit bay. The final scene in particular is horrifically, laughably bad.

-Lizzzzzzzz
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

This film is a powerful commentary on family life in North America today. The story is so well constructed, it almost feels like its happening across the street, right now! If you are connected with your family and community in any way, this film will grab you and transport you to the Travis' home and not allow you to leave until the credits are done.

Our imaginary heroes, through a myriad of innocent circumstances, often unwittingly, lead us down a path of sorrow, confusion and isolation. The Travis family, after a terrible tragedy, invite each of us; father, mother, brother and sister, into their respective lives to share their experience in a dynamic set of circumstances that just doesn't quit. We see all of the above and eventually the joy, in powerful performances by the major players and the rest of the cast, making this film a movie-goers absolute treasure.

In a film so well done as this, it is usually difficult to to find something special, but Sigourney Weaver's portrayal of Sandy Travis was outstanding. I would be surprised if others didn't recognize it as such.

Clearly a 10. Well done!
Determine the sentiment:

A holiday on a boat, a married couple, an angry waiter and a shipwreck is the reason to this films beginning.

I like boobs. No question about that. But when the main character allies with whoever happens to have the most fish at the moment, mostly by having sex with them and playing the role of the constant victim, my anger just rises to a whole new level. Take two guys (a husband and another man), put a pure bombshell woman in the middle of them, ad a deserted island, subtract all her moral issues, ad a whole bunch of moral issues to the men and mix it in a big bowl of arguments, fish and a zippo lighter and you will come up with a piece of junk movie like this. 

The acting is, I would say, good. There are some bloopers but not many as far as i could see. The main female character makes me sick. This is due to her lack of moral values. The man with the most fish get's her attention. Even though one of them is her husband, she sees no problem with being unfaithful with (Manuel) the other man because "I must do it to survive". How can you justify having sex with another man for fish when your husband is 30feet away? And he won't even benefit from it? The female character has absolutely no problems to justify anything that she does. If she doesen't get approval for her actions, she's a victim.

I recommend everyone to see this movie. This is the kind of movie that will make just about everything else you see this year a pleasant movie experience.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Having seen only once and in the dawn hours, I can't seem to forget this haunting film. A mix of mystery, suspense, and heartbreaking romance it reminds me of Vertigo.The actors, though not that well known are good especially Joan Hackett in one of her best performances.You believe in her, in her love,in her newfound quest for freedom brought by her love, and in the end in her overwhelming pain.The plot is ingenious and compelling and does not stretch credibility. The direction and technical stuff certainly could be better but they do not compromise the overall effect. And it has one message: don't let revenge blind you, you can became its last victim.A real pity it has not been remade, but perhaps it is a period piece better left alone.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
First off, the initial concept of a lost fortune in gold bars discovered in a New Zealand lake, inside a downed World War 2 plane is a great opening. What follows is nothing but cartoon like drivel. Men chasing men, cars chasing men , helicopters chasing men, helicopters chasing boats, boats chasing boats, for the better part of an hour, the most boring nonsense, with absolutely no advancement to the story. Special mention must be made of the chop shop editing, as many scenes seem to have been spliced together in random order. The acting by all concerned is an embarrassment. One last thing, the picture quality and sound quality is so bad on this DVD that you will be appalled. - MERK
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I would bet a month's salary "The Magnificent Seven Returns" (MSR) was made-for-TV. Other reviewers attest that MSR was a theatrical movie, and I'll take their word for it. The logical answer must assume it was originally shot for TV, and after a change-of-studio-heart, it was released theatrically instead. Every actor is primarily a TV actor: Mariette Hartley, Michael Callen, Ralfe Waite, Stephanie Powers... TV performers all. Lee Van Cleef split his time between TV and theater screens. Stephanie Powers has only made 3 or 4 "real" movie appearances in the last thirty years of a very prolific television career - proof positive this was shot for TV. Minor players are veteran small-screen actors who can be seen on old reruns of "Gunsmoke", "Wild Wild West," "Streets of San Francisco," and so on.

The ho-hum sets are identical to the Universal Studios Tour sets, often seen in old episodic TV. And the editing betrays the one-or-two-takes-hurriedness of TV, with limited camera movements, positioning, cutting, and lighting. The sound track, exclusive of the original Berstein themes, are straight from seventies television. Yep, I'd bet money it was shot for TV.

That's an important point in evaluating MSR. Initially I watched MSR on cable assuming it was an old theatrical release. In comparison to the original "Magnificent Seven", it's a joke, a cartoon, an amateurish attempt at movie making. Acting, lighting, writing, settings, action, cinematography, music (exempting the Berstein themes), editing, pacing,...on and on....all pale in comparison to the classic "Magnificent Seven" which is close to the perfect 60's western, and one of the great action movies of all time. 

However, viewed as an early 70's made-for-TV movie, as I suspect, the film is actually better than average. Those unfortunate enough to live through the 70's as an adult, know what I'm talking about. MSR would have competed against "Alias Smith and Jones" and similarly bland network shows. During the seventies, "Gunsmoke" was a quality show, concentrating on character development rather than action, deemphasizing gun play to two shootouts a week. The first shooting, usually a murder, sets the hour's plot into motion - the second shootout climaxes the episode by killing the guest star, his nemesis, or otherwise resolving the conflict with Marshal Matt Dillon. MSR has more action than a whole season of "Gunsmoke." In this light - in this frame of reference - MSR is passable entertainment, a cut above the TV fare from that decade.
"Everything is Illuminated" is like viewing a fine piece of museum quality artwork. It absolutely inundates the emotions through a very broad spectrum. Jonathan Safran Foer is played with candor by Elijah Wood. He is in search of his paternal heritage in the Ukraine. His travels bring him in contact with Alex, played very well and with extreme humor by Eugene Hutz. His grandfather is the most emotional tie to this film and he is aptly portrayed by Boris Leskin. If one finds little humor in the human characters in this cinema, then one has only to turn to Mikke, a real dog who is called Sammy Davis Jr. Jr. by Alex and his grandfather. They also call him the "seeing eye bitch". The cinematography is spectacular. The colors are a very important part of the patchwork of the film. It is a film worth the time and emotional investment.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
At first the movie seemed to be doing great, they had the characters profiles set...the plot seemed to be going in the right direction... however, as the movie progressed it seemed the director focused on the wrong kind of things...or just a lot was edited from the movie. The characters' identities changed for the worse within the movie. Also, there seemed to be a lot of implicit meaning -- in other words -- they had things within the movie that didn't seem to fit the movie itself. AND the title... no where in the movie does the title fit the movie...I suppose the title works for the previews.... Actors did well with what they had.....if they had a better director and writer, maybe this would have worked out better. But it didn't. So now there's a new terrible movie coming out this Friday.... My opinion!....don't waste your time or money.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Susan Sarandon and Natalie Portman play Adele and Ann August, a single mother who's the working definition of the word "dreamer" and her solemn, pragmatic daughter. Adele, wanting to make a fresh start in a big city, moves them from Wisconsin to California.

Decent, if not exceptional or particularly memorable, with some serious and sad moments. It pushes some emotional buttons, that's for sure. Best thing it offers is a solid cast, and Sarandon and Portman are quite good in the leads - even if their characters are one-dimensional at times.

Could be better, could be worse.

I gave this one seven out of ten.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Scanning through the comments, there doesn't appear to be a lot of love for this movie, and it's not very hard to see why, it's rubbish.

Now, I will start by saying that the finished product was hurt, in any number of ways, by the death of Donald Pleasance (Dr Loomis) in post production. This required a re-jigging of the film's conclusion with Loomis buying the farm and took away what was supposed to be a double twist at the end with Micheal swapping places with mysterious "Man in black" and I do not mean Johnny Cash.

Now to the story. The fifth movie ended rather unsatisfactorily with Micheal Myers escaping from jail with the mysterious man in black. It turns out (aggh) that this man knows the origin of Micheal's evil and is also a colleague of Dr Loomis named Dr Wynn. They also kidnapped Jamie Lloyd (played by Danielle Harris in parts 4 and 5 but here played by JC Brandy). Jamie, pregnant, escapes from Dr Wynn's lair and so Micheal follows her and kills her. But she'd had the kid so now he needs to track the baby down so he can kill his great nephew.

We hear some ludicrous explanation to Micheal's evil involving Gaelic curses down bloodlines and mysterious symbols. A radio show is broadcast from Micheal's home town for some reason, which gives Micheal some more hapless victims.

In the end the movie, just like this review is vague, confusing and directionless with a very anticlimactic ending.

Some sex scenes and nudity. Poor plot, passable effects, with some good run of the mill slasher kills, but severely lacking in motivation. For what was supposed to explain everything, this only stirred up some new questions, made parts 4 and 5 pointless and was a poor way for a great actor in Pleasance to end his life and career.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
For all intents and purposes, Showtime was the worst movie I have ever seen.

Why? Because having Deniro in the cast adds immediate credibility and makes you want to watch the movie. I had also made the mistake of watching 48 Hours and Beverly Hills Cop recently before seeing Showtime and for some strange reason thought Eddie Murphy was still funny. Well he's not. In fact it almost seems like he has been neutered. As I watched this movie I was in amazement that Deniro decided this was a good enough script to lend his name too. No chemistry between him and Murphy whatsoever. Horrible writing, horrible jokes, a movie that you THINK is supposed to be good can't get much worse than this. Not too long after sitting through the wretch that was Showtime I happened to watch National Security starring Martin Lawrence. The movie had its funny parts but wasn't that great. But still it was 20 times better than Showtime. Please if your a Deniro fan DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!

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

negative
"May contain spoilers" Sadly Lou Costellos' last film has the distinction of being slightly better than Abbott & Costello's last movie together "Dance With Me Henry". This movie isn't all in all outright terrible it is an amusing career misfire. Dorothy Provine is nice to look at and makes the movie somewhat bearable. You can't blame Lou Costello for this because a major studio released it which meant somebody had to give it the "green" light. In my opinion Lou Costello was getting over problems of his own losing his son a few years earlier and the unwarranted attacks from the IRS. If you look at the last 3-4 Abbott & Costello movies you can notice the magic was gone. Check out "Dance With Me Henry" now that's a painful movie to watch.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

Once you can get over Nic Cage playing an Italian soldier who loves opera and believes in making love, not war, you can get down to enjoying this beautiful-looking film. This could be used as an advert for tourism in the Mediterranean. John Hurt is great and Penelope Cruz isn't bad, as you might expect. Christian Bale's character is somewhat one-dimensional, which is a shame.

The main drawback of this film is the adaptation from the book - having been told subsequently the differences between the book and film plots, I feel cheated out of a much better and more convincing storyline.
I don't understand why so many of the comments here seem to indicate that this is acceptable entertainment. The eye-popping horror of this cinematic monstrosity cannot be overstated. Me and my girlfriend just watched it together, and I'm not sure we'll ever be able to have sex again. I'm not sure what was worse, the scrawny, unattractive cast, their supremely unphotogenic genitals, the rancid attempts at humor, the screeching noises that claimed to be songs...

No, I know what was worst of all. The girls in the green leotards, with green facepaint, licking Alice to dry her off, then proposing, in broken childlike speech, that they suckle milk from her breasts. That was the worst.

Also, what was with the nurses, and why do they seem to have so much trouble finding each other's vaginas? Why are all the male actors gay? Why does Humpty Dumpty waggle a dildo in the air and pretend that it's his penis? Why did my eyes have to see this? There are no words.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Unfortunately a boring flick, and obviously the only way to see it is the butchered bootleg Public Domain version, which is so blurry and dark that at times you have hard time making out where the screen is. The leading actors are a nuisance. The man spends most of his screen time trying to appear nonchalant, charming and sexy, forgetting totally what the film is about and that he is a murder suspect because of some dame who played him for a goose to start with. The dame herself merely walks through the flick, being dignified if she's not busy appearing cute. It's a rather badly written stuff, never interesting or witty. No good camera work, no memorable soundtrack, no glamorous actresses or atmospheric sets. It only scratches the surface of the genre, and nothing happens if you miss this totally missable flick.

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

negative
Onstage John Osborne's adaptation of "Picture of Dorian Gray" is a fine tribute to Oscar Wilde's talents as both novelist and playwright.On screen with some editing it becomes a bit sloppy due to the cutting of 3 crucial scenes from the play (one being an important scene between Basil and Henry showing that time has passed.)The acting however is brilliant. Sir john Gielgud return's to his Wilde roots as lord Henry,and although about a decade too old for the role,he totally becomes the enigmatic,life loving cad and cynic that Wilde brought to life so meticulously in his novella. Jeremy Brett is also strong,offering a touching portrait of the anguished artist Basil Hallward.Peter Firth,while not originally my vision of Dorian, handles the role with style and grace...and later with a convincing strain of cruelty. The supporting cast is equally fine, Gielgud's former 'Importance Of Being Earnest" co-star Gwen Francon-Davies plays his philanthropic Aunt Agatha with dignity and Judi Bowker makes a touching Sybil Vane. The wit,pathos and tension of Wilde's work have been remarkably transferred to the screen. My only other qualm is with the hair styles. Many of them seemed out of place,looking more like 1970's versions of Victorian hairdos rather than the actual style. Overall however,the acting and writing elevates this production to a high level of small screen excellence.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
this movie is sooooo bad that it forced me to create an account with IMDb just to warn others about it.

i have been using IMDb for a long time, and many movies have come close to making me want to register to either praise or bash them, however none have ever been that worthy. Until now! 

I am a huge Matt Dillon fan. all i could ask myself throughout this movie is "how did Dillon choose this script"? really. i mean there are holes in it larger than Vredefort. 

i mean it is a modern day heist movie, not one set in the seventies. For crying out loud, even a child knows that armored trucks have gps tracking and the sort. makes you wonder what it takes to get a script produced in Hollywood.

i could go on for ages, but i wont. believe me when i say this. save yourself the time and give this a skip.

Sorry Matt, I'm still a fan, but this movie sucked.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

This is one of my favorite T.V shows of all time, Rowan Atkinson is simply a genius!, and it's only fitting that i chose this to be my 1000 review!. I can't begin to tell you how much i love Mr. Bean he's the man, and what amazes me, is how he gets out of these incredibly difficult situations, and he is always so creative,plus Robyn Driscoll also deserves accolades!, he is also a genius!. My favorite bit that he has done is the Amazing Adventures of Mr. Bean and while all the rest of them are amazing, this remains my true favorite, plus i wish the show didn't stop so soon!. Each episode is brilliantly written, and they were all masterfully directed, plus Each episode is a classic in my eyes!. This show is incredibly popular, and i can definitely see why, as it's quite possibly the funniest show ever. The character actors all played there roles really well, especially Robyn Driscoll and Matilda Ziegler (as Irma). This is one of my favorite T.V shows of all time Rowan Atkinso is simply put a genius and an incredibly talented comedian (possibly the best!), and it's only fitting that i chose this to be my 1000 review f you haven't seen this show , drop what your doing right now and go check it out, you will not regret it trust me it's one of the best T.V shows ever!,and i will continue to watch the show over and over again, i never tire of it!, Mr. Bean Rules!. ***** out of 5
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: The early films of the Dead End Kids (before they were re-christened "the Bowery Boys") were all very entertaining and well-produced films from Warner Brothers. Despite their being rather formulaic, they still had excellent writing, acting and hold up well over time. Do NOT confuse these with the cheap Bowery Boys films from Monogram Pictures--despite the presence of Huntz Hall and Leo Gorcey, these films were several notches below the earlier films in regard to quality.

The film begins with tough-guy John Garfield winning the lightweight boxing championship. Unfortunately, shortly after this he's on a drunken binge and is blamed for a murder he really didn't commit. The problem is that he was so loaded that he wasn't sure he didn't kill the man, so he runs away and lives the life of a hobo. Eventually, he meets up with feisty May Robson and the Dead End Kids--as well as a lady you just know will become his girlfriend given time.

Where the rest of the film goes was not all that surprising, but because of the quality of the film, it doesn't seem to matter. Garfield and the Kids are at their best and this is a film sure to please all but the pickiest of viewers.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I just watched this move for the 5th or 6th time and am still in love with it. It still makes me cry and sing and worry and celebrate.

I almost wrote Bonnie Hunt a letter to tell her how much I love it. David Duchovny's grief scene is so flippin real!!! Minnie Driver is so natural and honest. My favorite line is when Duchovny says "I miss Elizabeth but I ache for Grace". Oh man! I'm crying just thinking about it. ALSO... Bonnie Hunt and Jim Belushi are sooooooooooooo the perfect Chicago area couple!! I know them I swear! I'm related to them I'm sure. 

This movie is in my three times a year rotation!!! I'd watch it once a week but I'm afraid I'd get too used to it!!! I always want to make it a special day when I watch it!!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

Though, short lived "The Amazing Spider-Man" was one of the best made for TV versions of a famed comic book hero. Only "Wonder Woman" (Lynda Carter) (the best of the genre and "The Incredible Hulk" (Bill Bixby, Lou Ferrigno) were better.

"The Amazing Spider-Man" outclasses the 1966-1968 "Batman", because the high camp elements of the latter often ruin the adventure. "Spider-Man" outclasses all three television interpretations of "Superman"- "Lois and Clark", "Smallville", and of course the George Reeves "Superman" which brings up the rear.

"The Amazing Spider-Man" was an action drama, during the late 1970's, the pre-CGI era, when stunts had to be performed by stunt men, not in the database of a computer. "Spider-Man" had its own very talented stuntman to perform the death defying daredevil acrobatics. His name was Fred Waugh, who donned the spidy suit for the action sequences. Nicholas Hammond, better known as one of Julie Andrew's children on the all-time movie classic "The Sound of Music" was Spider-Man during the dialogue scenes. Hammond's Spider-Man also had his own secret identity as Peter Parker, similar to Christopher Reeve- Superman/ Clark Kent, Adam West-Batman/Bruce Wayne, and of course Lynda Carter as Wonder Woman/ Diana Prince.

It's unfortunate that the series only had thirteen episodes. Because when the first episode hit the airwaves in November of 1977, the entire country was watching it on CBS that Wednesday night. In all fairness, CBS should release this pilot episode as well as "The Deadly Dust", the "Captive Tower" etc. on DVD shortly. "Spider-Man" was short lived, but did have a cult following, and in my opinion was a heck of a lot better than the movie interpretation of the famed comic book hero starring Toby McGuire.

CBS might be hesitant to release these episodes for two reasons. (A) There might not be a broad market for them based on the lack of longevity of the series and a generation of children and young people who weren't born when the series originally aired in the 1970's. (B) One of the early "Spider-Man" episodes dealt with a terrorist with designs on the World Trade Center, which was attacked twice many years after this show went off the air, in 1993, and of course the devastating attack against this country on 9/11/01 in which the towers were destroyed and many innocent lives were lost.

However I don't think that it would be in bad taste to release this "Spider-Man" episode even if the show was adventure, derived from a comic book, and camp in nature. The live action "Amazing Spider-Man" doesn't have a large following but it has a cult following. If and when CBS releases it out on DVD this cult following could be explained along with the episode in which Spiderman saved the towers in 1978, but how in September of 2001 real life proved to be different from the movies. I like to follow the news, but I also like Science Fiction/Fantasy. Therefore I am eagerly awaiting the release of "The Amazing Spider-Man on DVD".
This was on Showtime the other night, and I figured it was going to be another made-for-video crap fest, like "Earth vs. the Spider" or any of those other HBO horror shorts. Instead, I found a comedy/gore classic. It was legitimately funny, and surprisingly, the acting was quite good. Even my wife, an overall horror-hater, agreed and was laughing at parts. In addition, the FX were high-quality.

Overall, the film felt like a parody of Joy Ride/Jeepers Creepers, and the 2 main characters reminded me of the pair from Shaun of the Dead. Definitely worth watching, but don't take it seriously.

The End.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I've never understood this type of spoof movies. You get some serious/semi-serious movie that everyone knows about and takes the seriousness out of it through immature fart-jokes and such. We've seen it many, many times, and it's never really been funny. It's just an easy way to laugh at something you don't understand, in my opinion. This seems to be one of the more obscure and less liked of the genre, though I honestly don't see anything in this that is much worse than that of Spy Hard or Hot Shots. This movie, as is clearly understood simply from the title, concentrates on making childish fun of Pulp Fiction. That's the main reason I decided to watch it, as I found that film to be overly indulgent of Tarantino's sick mind and powerfully overrated. I had hoped for one or two good jokes, making fun of the overly violent and pointless type of movie that Pulp Fiction was in every aspect, in my (anything but) humble opinion. I was sorely disappointed. The plot is pretty much a rip-off of Tarantino's film, with a few scenes spoofing other, often better, films, in the same childish and humorless fashion. The pacing is poor, and often you'll sit there, being able to guess the outcome of every scene, predicting every joke, often thinking of a better one at the spot, bored out of your mind. The acting is bad. The characters are clichés and stereotypes, and are intentionally paper-thin in order to make fun of the characters they're based on... problem is, it doesn't work. It just makes the movie that much harder to sit through. The humor is juvenile and lame. The only positive thing I can say about this film is that they managed to find some actors that looked like the people they were supposed to look like. The film is an awful waste of the actual real actors involved. Possibly slightly entertaining to fans of the typical spoof movies of the same kind. I recommend this only to people who truly loathed Pulp Fiction, or fans of the Zucker parody films. Everyone else: avoid. 1/10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I thought this movie was really awesome! One of Drew's best. I am also a fan of Michael Vartan so I thought he was so hot in this movie. Why all the bad reviews. I would want to watch this movie over and over again if I could. I also loved the ending. This movie clearly has shown a smile on my face! I was also surprised that James Franco and Jessica Alba were in it. I love them both so I also highlighted this movie. At the end, when Drew is making the huge comment about the truth it really told the truth of what sometimes happens in High School. Again, the movie was amazing. Defiantly a 10/10. Hope this comment was very useful to any IMDb readers.
Enchanted April was one of Harry Beaumont's last movies- he only directed a few more after this one. He had made the "Maisie" movies in the 1930s and 1940s. In the opening credits, it says "From the novel by Elizabeth", and completely leaves off the author's last name... rather odd, but since it was von Armin, they may not have wanted the German association at the time... Sad to hear it was a flop when it was released, with those fun names like Frank Morgan (the Wizard) and Jessie Ralph, who played W.C. Fields' disapproving mother- in- law in "Bank Dick". Two gals in London (Ann Harding & Katharine Alexander) decide to rent a castle to host two of their friends, but things don't go the way they planned. Reginald Owen plays the husband with multiple personalities. Aside from a few funny moments, it DOES move pretty slow. Ralph is the only bright spot here, as the overbearing take-charge type, and the picture is quite fuzzy and out of focus for much of the film. The views of Italy are all obvious backdrops. The only saving grace here is that the Turner Classic version is only 66 minutes long. Too bad they didn't give Frank Morgan a larger role. This was remade in 1992 by the BBC as a British Film.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I kind of had somewhat high expectations for this movie. I've always thought that Tom Selleck's lesser known movies (ie Runaway and Coma), where well above the ones he had more press for. Maybe the producers should have had a little more knowledge about former major league baseball players who became stars overseas. The majority were players too good for triple a baseball, but not exactly major league matériel. I admire the idea of putting Selle's's character in Japn, versus the cliché of having play in the minors. Sad to say, this movie, much like the title of the post, is stranded at third by a movie that seems to be running on autopilot. I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel, and hopefully, the producers would learn from the mistakes. The premise is just way too unique to be left alone with this uneven flick
i was surprised after watching this piece of crap , if you have seen an episode of TOM and JERRY in which jerry pours some liquid onto him and becomes invisible than you are likely to see the same cartoons with added EROTIC topping a man becoming invisible and doing S*i* is the conclusion of the movie. involving too much sex in a cartoon themed movie doesn't increase its worth :( , and most of all i was surprised when the same cartoon ending was used to show up the Mr.Invisible and that was really awful i must say , flour drops off the rack and our very own Mr.Invisible becomes Visible "watch ZACK and MIRI make a porno" i bet you wont get bored, 

1/10 from me

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

negative
Mr. Accident is a deliberate series of non-stop disasters and near death experiences reminiscent of Saturday Morning's Warner Brothers Cartoons. Like the coyote who falls off the cliff 5 times per episode, the "leading man" (more like an over grown klutzy child) always manages to postpone his meeting with the Grimm Reaper.

This Australian "surprise" is offensively unfunny, and at times even depressing. The 2 (out of ten) are is for the visual stunts (some never attempted by anyone since Daffy Duck) and the use of vivid colors (like in those high class national laundry detergent commercials).

There may be an age bracket where this "comedy" finds a following. I have definitely passed that age long ago. Calling all preteens: Here's a "ha-ha" for ya!

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

negative
Mystery Science Theater 3000 would have not been able to bring any redeeming quality to a showing of this "gem." 

This one is like a cheesy pirate copy of 80's porn you could have purchased on VHS from an arcade on 42nd st. before Disney bought the whole smash and closed them all down. 

But, wait - all the sex scenes have been cut. I challenge anyone to find a worse film. This film could replace water-boarding as a humane method of interrogation. 

No, I take that back - I would prefer water-boarding. 

The only credit this movie could earn apart from being the worst movie ever made would be to threaten the middle east into solving its problems under pain of having to watch this movie.

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

negative
Billy Crystal is Larry, a writer who hasn't written and is suspected of murder in "Throw Momma from the Train," costarring Danny Devito and Anne Ramsey. The phrase "black comedy" was invented for this insanity, which is a take-off on Hitchcock's "Strangers on a Train." In fact, Owen (Devito) gets the idea of having Larry kill his mother in exchange for Owen killing Larry's ex from watching that famous film. "I saw the movie. Criss-cross," Owen tells Larry. Not that Larry knows what he's talking about until it appears it's too late - just like "Strangers." Larry, a writing teacher, claims that his ex-wife, played by Kate Mulgrew, stole his book and put her name on it. She has become a big celebrity, appearing on "Oprah," where she refers to Larry as "a beast." Owen is in Larry's class. He lives with an abusive Neanderthal mother (Ramsey) and has visions of poisoning her, sticking a scissors in her head - you name it. It's not long after seeing "Strangers on a Train" that he's in Honolulu, stalking Larry's wife. While she's leaning over a boat railing trying to get an earring, Owen stands behind her and creeps up...Soon the police are looking for Larry to question him, but he's at Owen's where he's being encouraged to live up to his end of a bargain he had no idea he made. You know, "criss-cross." There are several scenes copied from "Strangers," which are hilarious. I especially loved Larry's confession to the sleeping Mrs. Lift, Owen's mother, similar to when Guy thinks he's talking to Bruno's stepfather.

Crystal and DeVito are complete masters of comic dialogue and timing and will leave you laughing, often out loud. Ramsey is repulsively funny - a totally "out there" performance. Kim Griest and Rob Reiner also have roles - Griest is Crystal's girlfriend, and Reiner has what amounts to a cameo.

The ending is very clever, and the whole film will leave you laughing.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

At first sight this is yet another highschool anime with lots of excuses for 'fanservice', but there is a lot more going on. The 'fanservice' is part of the plot, the main character is a tired cynic (unusual), and most importantly there is a clever plot that ties all the episodes together, and that poses some interesting questions. The episodes are deliberately non-chronological, and it is certainly worth watching the series again in chronological order.

The series is worth watching carefully, because there are a lot of casual hints in there that foreshadow and explain things, plus a good number of in-jokes about other series, anime and other.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive