cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
The make -or-break of a love story for me is whether or not I like the characters and also if they click with each other. Matt is pretty unlikeable: aloof, braggart, seemingly lazy, and a misogynist. He's been hurt badly by his dysfunctional mom and this makes him a little easier to take. I guess I liked the details of his dysfunction--he was believable. He overcompensates by bragging that he'l nail Amy. He acts so cool around Amy that he strikes out twice. When they do talk he can't show her who he really is. She empathizes and then stonewalls him at just the right moments. She seems so mature and strong that the traits of hers that come out later didn't seem to fit. (For me.) I found her to be incredibly sexy and pretty, . . . girl next door pretty, I call it. So I was going to like this movie unless it really screwed up.

Funny things happen with the coach, but Matt's relationship with the other coach was inspiring. The football scenes at the end were perplexing. Matt doesn't carry the ball but seems to be a blocking back. Folks, he isn't the right size! He's fifty pounds too light for that position. But I thought his acting was skilled. I measure that by the way I wanted to wring his neck a couple of times during his scenes with Meredith Monroe. The film was all right. Meredith M was better than all right.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Although allegedly autobiographical, this movie demonstrates very little insight both into the protagonist's psychology (resulting in a flat, fragmented characterization) as well as into larger-scale historical processes, and my hope of either learning something new or improving my understanding of contemporary Iran remained unfulfilled. Instead, I found my sensibilities somewhat dulled as a succession of bearded Islamic villains replaced each other taunting, torturing or killing the wantonly victimized prototypical middle-class Iranian whose Western cultural sympathies were patent (and whose exoneration the movie quite blatantly seeks.) The deeper understanding the movie does seem to demonstrate is that of the mass-media market, as it serves to nourish prevalent occidental folk-ideologies (i.e. a "crowd pleaser"). 

What redeemed the movie from being outright boring was its creative animation - genuinely minimalistic imagery which, nevertheless, always kept the screen rich, expressive and unambiguous - no small fete for which I do give it some stars.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: No one can say I wasn't warned as I have read the reviews (both user & external), but like most of us attracted to horror movies... curiosity got this cat. (Come on, we all scream at the people in the movie not to go into the dark room, but you know that's horror aficionados are always dying to know what's in there even if we know it'll be bad).

The bottom line is that this movie left me angry. Not because it pretends to be real (who cares...gimmicks are allowed), or because the actors and dialogue are so lame (is this an unusual event in horror movies?) or even because the movie is so bad (and I am being polite here). What really got me mad is that the film is not only a rip off of BWP, but also a half-hearted lazy rip off at that.

I don't believe in sacred cows and if they thought they could outdo BWP then kudos to them, but they didn't even try. The movie was made with little effort or care and that is the most unforgivable sin in horror (or any) movie!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I've watched this film about thirty years ago and it stuck in my mind until now. When I came across it on DVD, I didn't hesitate too long, even more, because I have a predilection for early Belmondo flicks. But what a bad surprise! Some movies should be allowed to resign from public exposure, to preserve a certain memory, and not to shock audiences.

Widely hailed as one of Chabrol's rare cynic works, the only lasting impression I got from re- watching it is... boredom. Some movies really do not age in style. But what about movies which didn't have any sense of style at all?

The flaws in the script, uninspired acting - presumably due to the lack of direction -, a sort of production design, which doesn't deserve its name, less than mediocre photography and, last but not least, the worst editing job I've seen in ages, make this one truly hard to stand.

My impression was, that there was a bunch of people with too much money and equipment but obviously, no idea or any skills at all. It really comes as a surprise, that this one didn't abruptly end Chabrol's career. Don't blame it on the overall bad taste of the 70s, this one is crap in its own right and a worthy contender for the most useless waste of celluloid ever.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

The Stunts sequences (as well as the Special Effects) are Brilliant, in this movie. Michael Scherer must be one of Canadas BEST Stunt Co-ordinators of all time. The explosion in the Café, is a wonderful combination of Stunts, Special Effects AND Visual Effects. The Director HAD an idea, that the Crew managed to create on film.

Besides that; Donald Sutherland makes one of his best performances in this film.......
This was the most god awful movie I have had to sit through. 30 minutes into the film and I couldn't take any more. Seriously, do not bother with this one unless you are a sentimental nut job or one of those pseudo-arty types that like this kind of tripe so that they may feel more cultured. Boring, although the acting is fine; the kid is just plain irritating. Some scenes are a little strange with very weird close-ups. I don't know why they did the whole movie in black and white, but whatever effect they were hoping to have failed miserably. There was just nothing to watch, and although its a sad tale, supposedly, its just so stupid that its hard to feel any sympathy for the characters.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Actually, Son of the Mask did make me laugh a few times...mostly due to the cartoonish jokes that made Bugs Bunny and Roadrunner so funny. The CGI is very impressive and is used extensively in this movie. Garfield, for example, is no where on par for CGI, but I would give it the same vote.

Everyone knows the story...which wasn't that bad for a KIDS movie. Yes, it is a KIDS movie...and therefore should be treated as such. Jamie Kennedy is not very good in his role. His attempts to act "crazy" are not very good and overall acting is poor.

Everyone else is not too bad.

Basically, my 2 and 5 year old watched the whole thing without complaining. At least I was able to sit through this.

There is no way this movie is worst than **shudder** Class of 1999

4/10 for the CGI and a few laughs.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Without being really the worst science fiction film ever made, or the worst I have seen, 'Time Under Fire' is still much under average. The premises and the first 10-15 minutes are not that bad, it starts as a X-Files story, combining Bermuda triangle mysteries with time travel. Pretty soon elements of other genres (too many) mix together, but the story never takes off beyond the level of interest of a TV series. Soon, 'Time Under Fire' quickly degenerates into a series of clichés, not only mixing altogether too many genres but also being unable to create anything memorable in suspense or special effects that would help viewers remember the movie until tomorrow. Acting is bad, and the rhetoric lines in the script do not help at all.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: too bad they showed palm trees that could not be more inaccurate for Connecticut in October ... this was filmed in New Zealand ...This Martha Moxley case had been 'cold' for 20-25 years ... her family worked hard to keep it alive and when Mark Fuhrman decided he did not want to be remembered only for his involvement in the Nicole Simpson case .... which could have been deleterious to his reputation (if it already hadn't)... Anyway, he followed along as the police tried to get enough information to write a book. ... with the use of flashbacks we can see the relationships Martha formed .... Unattended boys coming of age without a mother around to help and a dad who was always looped ...

Plus the fact that they portray the real Martha as if she were a movie star... she was a cute sweet girl next door type. Other than that, the other characters were really great, especially Jon Foster and Toby Moore, who played as Michael Skakel and Tommy Skakel respectively. They were good as well, the costumers had to keep it all in the 70s look and back up to the 90s ....

It kept my interest even when I caught on about the Skakel guy ....
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

This was Charlie Chaplin's first all-talking film. Yes, there had been a little bit of sound and speaking inserted into his previous film, MODERN TIMES, but it was still essentially a silent film. So, it wasn't until 1940 that the public got to hear Chaplin speak on film.

The movie is incredibly famous and has a stellar reputation. While I enjoyed the film, I was not nearly as impressed by this as Chaplin's other full-length films of the mid-20s and 30s. That's because I really felt annoyed by some of Chaplin's dopey over-acting when he played Adenoid Hynkel--especially when he was giving his speeches. The silly pseudo-dialog just seemed akin to something a lesser comedian would have used (such as the Three Stooges). Plus, playing a funny Hitler is hard for me to take.

However, when Chaplin played the Jewish barber, he wasn't especially funny (he really wasn't intended to be a funny character) but he was a tremendous voice for reason and decency. This film should not be remembered as a comedy (especially since it doesn't really excel there), but for its excellent acting and humanity. The final speech by the barber (impersonating Hynkel) is brilliant and almost brought tears to my eyes. Watch the film for this reason alone.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
If this film doesn't at least be selected for an oscar nominee for best foreign film I'm going to stop waking at nights watching the event. Fridrik Thor Fridriksson has proven that money isn't the key to making a good movie but originality. Out of a cold country comes a warm but thought-provoking film of a mentally ill man and his struggle against an insane world. After an insight like this, you question whether or not the man is crazy or the world he lives in.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

honestly I don't know why this show lasted as long as it did. ah well, humor is subjective eh? but yeah, this show is incredibly unfunny if you ask me. Tim Allen is annoying. Jill is annoying. the boys are annoying. Al is annoying. the neighbor is annoying. it's just more annoying then funny. the plots are all the same, Tim makes Jill mad and has to make things right again. and the latter seasons? less said about them the better, who the hell things cancer would be good for a damn sitcom? yeah, great idea jerks. so yeah, home improvement isn't a very good sitcom. I'd recommend you go watch News Radio or Seinfeld. if i had to give this show a rating I'd give it a 1/10 seeing as it never made me laugh once. ever. so yeah, it's still better then The Nanny though.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

The Man with the Golden Arm was one of the first films to have as its main topic (and, in some respects, the message) the tragedy of heroin addiction. It's nowhere near a great film, but its importance lies in Otto Preminger's dedication to making it feel real and on the edge of melodrama and naturalism. What I liked is that it's not so much an expose of junkies (if you want the best expose of that read Naked Lunch, if you can get through it anyway, besides the point), but the nature of the urban environment Frankie Machine lives. He expects after he gets out of prison for dealing to go on the straight and narrow, to become a drummer in a band and make it legit as a musician. But he has his "crippled" wife Zosch, who can't work and needs money and often complains, and then there's the old neighborhood- he can't escape seeing Louie (Darren McGavin), who is still doing back-room card games and, yes, pushing dope. Like Mean Streets, it's hard to escape the minutia unless you leave.

But then again, it's hard for Frankie Machine not to try and operate naturally in this urban quarter. It's just that he can't escape the temptation of junk (when he's booked on a phony theft charge with his friend, he sees a junkie freaking out, and it puts back the fear of going back on into his clean self). And personifying Frankie is Sinatra, and I can't see anyone else who could've played him, even original choice Brando. He fits into the neighborhood, and seems like the kind of guy who should be a step ahead of the game. But there's also a vulnerability to Sinatra that he pulls out wonderfully, and by the time we see him going 'cold turkey' in Molly's apartment, it's believable even if it's not the kind of thing those from 'my' generation would think of heroin (i.e. Trainspotting and certainly Requiem for a Dream). If for nothing else, you want to watch the movie to see what happens to Sinatra as this character.

The flaws, however, come in some of the other performances, though it's a little tricky. Eleanor Parker seems to be overacting for a good portion of the movie, fooling Frankie that she's really crippled when in reality she can walk and is fooling him for one reason or another. But then it becomes clearer as it goes along- she's supposed to be nuts, and nuts with jealousy, and on that level it starts to get better. Meanwhile, Kim Novak is good, though not Vertigo-worthy, as the possible girl in the side but more like the voice of reason in the story. Then there's a Detective Bendar, who might be one of the most one-note characters/performances, ever. And also Sparrow, Frankie's nerdy friend, and the characters of Louie and Schiefka, and they're all played as one might expect them to (actually, McGavin is better than OK). As far as casting other talent around Sinatra, Preminger doesn't do all that great. And, frankly, some scenes kind of fall flat.

But there's a lot of fascination in the Man with the Golden Arm, and not just as some dated piece of sociological interest. It works as compelling drama, and as a message piece conveyed without being preachy or campy. It's a genuine article, just not exceptional.
Determine the sentiment:

I'm a dance teacher and was looking forward to some good dance routines in this film. How sad to have been subjected to such a painful experience. 

I had major problems with Jennifer Beals and her character. I found Alex extremely repellent. Beals' face is so young, sweet and innocent, and this very incongruous with Alex's very disturbing lewdness, especially in that disgusting restaurant scene. She also has the temper tantrums of a toddler. It is very difficult to believe that Nick would keep coming back to such a moody teenager after her frequent rantings and ravings, especially after she opens the door of a moving car and chucks a stiletto at him, opting rather to walk home - in the middle of the road - with only one shoe!!!. And what about after her idiotic behaviour after the night at the ballet. In fact, the whole romance was very disturbing - the 30 something year old man going after a girl who looks about 16. Yuck. 

As for the dancing, I'm afraid this 80s style is totally dated. What on earth was that TV dance sequence about in the club? Who was supposed to be dancing? I wasn't even sure if it was a woman or a man in drag! And even that famous final sequence is pretty disappointing, especially given the context of an audition for a ballet company. The camera shots of her leap actually ruin it's effect because you can't see what she's doing. And what on earth was she doing when she went past each of the panel pointing at them? And as many other comments have pointed out, she would NEVER get into a ballet company on the strength of that audition - perhaps that's why they don't actually say at the end whether she was successful or not, the closure is the fact that she overcame her fear in the end. Of the 'Flashdancers', I actually thought the best sequence belonged to Cynthia Rhodes (Penny in Dirty Dancing). You could see that she was a real dancer, and her acrobatics were very impressive. This is of course if you can get past her appalling costume and makeup. 

There were two good bits in this film - the ballet dancers stretching when Alex goes for the first time to apply for an audition - they look so lovely and classy, and at least this helps to underline the difference between her current dance career and the one she aspires to. The other good scene was the break dancing in the street. I also liked the ice skater's parents, they were funny.

Some other random points - who was Hanna and how did Alex get to know her? What was an 18 year old doing living in a converted warehouse all alone? How did she afford that lovely barre and all the furniture?Where were her family? Was that scene in the 'nude' club really necessary? The person who wrote in their comment that it was something like a Disney film needs their head examined. And anyway, what happened to the ice skater? 

Many people said the film was poor but they liked the message - don't give up hope, keep on trying, and your dreams will come true. Watch "The Little Mermaid" instead.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Lame is really the best way to describe this movie. It has a real poor script, uninteresting dialog and characters and it's lacking in basically everything else as well. 

There are too many characters and problem is that you don't care about any of them. What the movie is lacking is one good and clear main character. Instead now the movie has a bit of everything, it has a bit of an hero, it has a bit of a love interest and it has a bit of villain. I wish it only had a bit less Ghoulies though, fore they are just mostly very annoying in this movie.

Ghoulies are supposed to be devilish creatures, who murder for pleasure. In this movie however all they want to do is drink beer and watch naked college girls. Besides, someone had the 'brilliant' idea to let the Ghoulies be able to talk this time. This works out really poorly and annoying. The Ghoulie-puppets had been definitely upgraded for this movie and they are more detailed looking and are able to do more, however at the same time they are way more fake looking than the ones from the previous Ghoulies movies.

It's obvious that the aim for this movie was more comedy than horror this time. The movie is like a lame '80's high-school comedy (even though this movie got released in 1991). It's humor is really the worst and most lame thing about the entire movie. It's so incredibly annoying and simply not funny at all.

The story is not going anywhere with its story and the movie is just basically one big mess, that never seems to end. The Ghoulies plot line seems basically to have nothing to do at all with the other plot lines of the movie, involving the human characters. The movie is not at all about the Ghoulies terrorizing a college, with the humans trying to hunt them down and stop their rampage. No big surprise that this is Brent Olson's only written movie as of yet. He simply has no talent for it and I think that he has discovered this as well and has gone back to college himself instead.

Even when compared to the previous Ghoulies movies; this movie is just simply terrible!

2/10
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Had the League been unknowns pitching this script, the backers would simply have turned around and said "no - you're not having the money - this is dreadful". As a fan of the League of Gentlemen, this is their poorest outing to date. Not particularly funny, not particularly entertaining, there are few laugh out loud moments. They do exist, but they are few and far between. I felt the format was tired and really dragging. The film refers to the writers being bored of the characters and it shows. As for being a film. I felt the Xmas special had better production value; the FX are generally pretty poor and it is clearly obvious that they didn't film in the original Royston Vasey (they filmed this on the cheap in Ireland). The musical score is weak and the dialogue is terrible. Also, the accents of the characters were largely off from their TV equivalents. Tubs and Edward, much underused (again), just didn't sound like themselves. Disappointing really, because I was hoping for something far more entertaining. This really was the League's equivalent of the 1970s comedies where the cast go to Spain...
For me this movie was a disappointment. Somehow I expected that it would explain the reason for General Rommel's popularity and his success as a military strategist in WW II. But there is none of that, it deals with the last year or two of his life and tries, in a way, to whitewash him. So I just have to suppose that Rommel was primarily an amoral and apolitical technocrat in the conquering and killing business, without any particular charm or notoriety in behaviour. Such real life people just do not make good movie material. I almost feel sorry for James Mason, really one of my favorite actors, who had to impersonate a pretty wooden character. Actually, a good director and a lot of great acting talent was wasted on this movie  with the exception of Luther Adler who gives a really memorable and weirdly naturalistic portrayal of Adolf Hitler.

There might also be a cultural problem for people like me who are part of the German speaking world. Famous British actors impersonating Germans are just not credible. Rommel, for example, is perceived here not just as a German but as a typical Southerner" from Baden-Württemberg. You immediately think of a certain dialect, a certain kind of wit, a certain way of seeing the world (the total opposite of eg a Prussian junker"). I also think that there are now mixed feelings about the assassination attempt of July 20th, many of those who were in on the conspiracy were not democrats and just wanted the German troops to join the Western Allies against the advancing Bolsheviks (thus prolonging the war forever).

The best movie portrayal of an intellectual, intelligent military mind is in my opinion still Patton (1970). Incidentally, General Patton can be glimpsed for a short moment in the ample documentary footing used for this movie, a low angle shot while he is inspecting passing vehicles. The open holster and the revolver with the mother of pearl grips are clearly visible!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

Seeing Les Amants Reguliers calls immediately for comparison with Bertolucci's movie 'The Dreamers', in my opinion the best film made about the 1968 revolt of students in Paris. Actually director Philippe Garrel does not seem to avoid comparing with his much more famous colleague, sharing the principal actor and even including a direct replica eye-in-viewer-eye about an older film of Bertolucci. And yet, LAR is a different film, and an interesting one.

The story line seems also familiar. The movie starts with long scenes of the 1968 'emeutes', maybe among the best done until now. The film is made in black-and-white, and the perspective of the static camera on one side or the other of the barricade reminds Eisenstein. Then, as in The Dreamers, the action moves in the Parisian flat where the heroes of the defeated revolt make art, smoke drugs, dream, and fall for one other. There is no direct social comment, no real explanation of the background of the revolt. The movie focuses on the psychology of the characters and on the love story between the main characters. It's like a premonition of the process of transition to the establishment that the generation of the 1968 went through, it's just that not all the participants may adapt or survive.

The film is more about the characters than about the events. And it is merely for the style it will be remembered about. The black-and-white cinema is memorable not only in the revolution scenes, but also when looking at the characters evolution. Many sequences are enhanced by a technique that is derived from the silent films movies, with long takes accompanied by a off piano tune. The effect is exquisite. Yet the length of the film is hardly justified, it lasts more than three hours and I doubt that cutting it to only two hours would have been a miss - actually I am convinced it's quite a contrary.

Without raising at the depth and subtlety of Bertolucci's movie LAR is another perspective to remember about one of the more important years in the history of France and of the world in the 20th century.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I got to know ÆON back in the early 90s via television and I loved it...

What did you like about it ? The cranky drawing style ? The flawless artistic action involved ? The absurd and deadpan communication between the characters ? The whole layout of the surrounding future world ? No matter what you loved about it...

The Aeon Flux film of late 2005 has nothing of that.

Karyn Kusama, the so called "director" of the film, was hopelessly over-strained with transporting the original content to a new film. If you 're not familiar with the original series, you won't understand anything during for the first 60minutes of the film.The story is inscrutable and the vapid characters do not develop during the film.

Kusama's attempt to improve the storyline by implementing some rather weak explanatory conversations between the main characters is not only a lame attempt to cover up her flaws as a storyteller , it's simply unworthy of the original ÆON concept.

Charlize Theron might be an attractive woman, but she can't impersonate the ÆON character. Although she was attached to strings doing action scenes, her lack of talent for physical motion simply ruins the action sequences in the film. The result is a tremendous amount of hectic picture cuts to cover up the sheer lameness of her physique.

Forget about all the rest, it's not worth talking about...

I give 1point for Ms.Theron showing her boobs and 1point for the nice architectural photography in the film. That's it.
Determine the sentiment:

I don't understand where these bad comments are coming from. The movie had you on the edge of your seat and made you somewhat afraid to go to your car at the end of the night.

The part that gets you is that this could all happen. Not to the extent perceived in the movie, but the whole idea is reality. This movie took that reality and twisted it into a Dee Snider nightmare.

Three thumbs up (the third one is from the dead body in my freezer).
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

A movie like this makes me appreciate the work that professional actors do. I think movie-goers, in general, are a little too hard on professional actors and are ready to bash them for the most minuscule reasons. Just watch a couple minutes of "Cheerlader Massacre," and trust me, you'll change your views. A razzie would be almost a compliment for these no-talent actors. But then again, it's a Jim Wynorski film. Wynorski is a popular director of these ultra low-budget B-movies (having worked with Roger Corman on many an occasion). The problem with this movie is it actually tries to develop a plot. And when you have actors delivering lines like they're reading letters off an eye chart, how am I supposed to care? In Wynorski's "Bare Wench 2," he didn't try to develop a plot. He simply tried to make a softcore porn/goofy takeoff on the "Blair Witch Project." It was fun and it was titillating. "Cheerleader Masscare" is no fun. There are a couple obligatory female nude scenes, but they are few and far between. So it's not even worth enjoying on an erotic level. I must say, the worst scene is the one where Nikki Fritz walks across a bridge that's about to collapse. First of all, her character didn't have to walk across that bridge. Second of all, as the bridge starts creaking, rather than try her best to run across, she just stands there and acts helpless. And top it off, we don't actually see the bridge collapse because the filmmakers made this for a budget of 2 dollars!!! Unlike a lot of B-horror films, this one's actually boring. And that's what makes it the worst of all bad movies. One of the few bright spots was Lunk Johnson, who's probably the most natural actor in the film (though certainly no more than halfway decent). He was funny in "Bare Wench 2," and had some funny scenes in this movie too.
Oliver Stone, always ready to make politically-themed movies, makes another one here. "Talk Radio" is loosely based on the career of Alan Berg, a radio talk show host in Denver who was murdered by white supremacists. In this case, the character is Barry Champlain (Eric Bogosian), an outspoken talk show host in Dallas who loves nothing more than to irk the people who call in. As it is, most of the people who call in are a bunch of pigheaded racists. And things may be heating up more than anyone realizes.

Bogosian's performance brings a light comical tone to an otherwise serious movie. I really liked the scene where he jabs at a redneck who calls in. Granted, I wouldn't call this Oliver Stone's greatest movie ever, but it's a good reference in an era when media gets more and more concentrated. Good performances by Ellen Greene and Alec Baldwin also help.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

George Segal lives with his elderly and senile mother. There are many jokes about her Alzheimer's-like dementia and most of them aren't funny, though there were a few funny moments sprinkled in here and there (such as the nude running through the park scene and the old folks home). At first, Segal tries to kill his mother because she's tough to live with and because he's a selfish guy. Making the film sort of like a Wiley Coyote versus the Roadrunner comedy where he tries again and again to kill this indestructible gal would have been a hoot--too bad this was NOT the overall tone of the film.

I do applaud Carl Reiner's attempt to make a tasteless film that is intended to offend everyone. I have a special place in my heart for films like ED AND HIS DEAD MOTHER, EATING RAOUL and HAPPINESS OF THE KATAKURIS--all films about death that dare to offend. The problem here, though, is that WHERE'S POPPA? has some funny moments, but it also has a lot of flat ones and the overall product is amazingly bland. Plus topics such as homosexual rape, incest and the like are really difficult to make funny. I read in "THE ROUGH GUIDE TO CULT MOVIES" that it is considered a cult film, though I just can't see anyone wanting to see this more than once.
Determine the sentiment:

Crispin Glovers' way of acting (and not only his) is tremendous. You really want to believe him because his body language and performing fits the person perfect. He gives Layne this extraordinary bit of personality that makes this movie a cult. As well as Feck, which role is done very well by Dennis Hopper. It's about choosing the right or wrong side, without logical thinking about the scene. Friendship is more imported, and that's exactly what I think is what makes choices this difficult. Rivers Edge lets you experience this with serious tones and family mathers. I really enjoyed it watching. I saw it a month ago for the first time, but if you like a nice 80s feel, this is the one that you have to see. I'ts a same that I didn't know of it earlier.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
A wonderful film ahead of its time,

I think so, In the eighty's it was all about winning, Greed is Good ? Remember that one ? I have seen this film more that 20 times, To me this is a real desert island film, I keep watching because there is always something more to learn about these flawed characters that I just love, Jessica Tandy, and Hume Cronin, are simply wonderful,Also Beverly D'angelo, Beau Bridges come in at a close second, don't get me wrong there are many more great performance's in this film, and it is also the way it is written that made it for me, and I hope you, a film that you will want to see over and over, I think TV shows like "Northen Exposure", and now "Earl" owe a lot to this film. but remember it is not a Tom Cruise film.

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

positive
Chris Smith is a superior filmmaker with the seldom-seen talent for spotting a good story, then getting the hell out of its way. Smith's "American Movie" is the true-to-life record of filmmaker wannabe Mark Borchardt, a loser intent on milking his elderly uncle for cash to complete his horror short. But never, under any circumstances, to pursue gainful employment or support the children he's conceived.

Such is producer Smith's skill that Mark appears more sympathetic than otherwise. Even as he entices Uncle Bill with sugar-spun dreams and executive producer credits, it is his desperation to be somebody, to have his name coupled with the likes of Scorsese and Spielberg that touches us.

"American Movie" also belongs in that rare, often attempted but seldom achieved sub genre that successfully blends hilarity with horror. The humor comes from Borchardt's Ed Wood-style belief in his own genius. From his appalling attempts at acting, from his substituting his less than film-savvy mother for a missing cameraman and from his employing sweet but brain-damaged friend Mike whenever he's short an actor or crew member.

The horror comes from seeing what Borchardt cannot: It is this very American attitude--I Want, Therefore I Am Entitled--that keeps him from seeing just how much he has to learn about his chosen craft. He is so confident he can't fail that failure is guaranteed.

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

positive
for me,this is not a good TV show,animated or otherwise.it is however,annoying to the nth degree.there are a few reasons for this,in no particular order.first,the intro of one of the most pointless,and annoying characters ever,Batmite.this character serves no purpose for the show,whatsoever.maybe it is intended as comic relief,but it doesn't work out that way.next up,the Joker.i thought it was really ridiculous to have his character let loose with that ridiculous laugh after almost every sentence.talk about repetitive.this gets old really fast..also don't think the had the right actor to voice the character.it just doesn't sound at all like the joker should sound.lastly,they made Robin look like a complete dork.other than these problems,the show isn't that bad.but these are big enough problems to drastically lower the likability factor.for me,"The new adventures Of Batman" is a 3/10,at best.

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

negative
I was looking forward to watching this film and was therefore extremely disappointed when I found it to be complete and utter rubbish. Akerman's direction is both heavy handed and cliched (how much more cliched can you get than Paris at night?). The male cast seems to have been chosen entirely for their resemberlance to Egon Schiele's angst ridden self portraits. Yet the themes of jealousy and betrayal which should have been the primary focus of a film of this type are left virtually unexplored. What is left is a turgid melodrama which takes an age to get started and even longer to finish. The only advantage with this sort of film is that it makes you realise how good Goddard and Truffaut really are.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I was struck by the awful acting and script for this movie. All the characters seem rendered immobile by personal issues - rather like deer in headlights. They dither around whining and moaning about their emotions when decisive actions need to be taken. I found myself yelling at the TV screen trying to wake them up to their situation and DO SOMETHING! The plot line is implausible. Every time there is a key decision to be taken by a lead character, one of the other characters has to bring up all the problems with the obvious decision as though to further render the decision more difficult - it is a tried melodramatic ploy and just wants to make you groan. Clearly the import of the decision is obvious - you don't need to treat the audience as idiots. Overall - there is just too much emotional melodrama in the whole movie.
As the film reviewer for a local gay magazine I automatically get sent any dreck if it happens to have a homo in it. Chicken Tikka Masala is churning on in the background as I write this. I gave it my undivided attention for 53 minutes before I found myself involuntarily shouting - like a Tourrette's sufferer -"This is the sh**test film I have ever seen". We're just coming to the emotional climax where the son is giving some coming out speech to his father at his wedding. Father seems to be taking it quite well. An attempted honour killing at this point would at least have livened the film up a bit. And made it funnier. 

I didn't particularly like Beautiful Thing, for example, but could at least see why other people did. It was made with some professionalism and I seem to remember it had at least a couple of good lines. The lack of wit in this film is quite astounding - even the most mediocre sitcom will tend to have recognisable jokes. The nearest this movie got to being funny (at least in its first 53 mins) was the subtitled comment delivered to the fat unattractive female lead "Look at her with her legs wide open - she's like the Mersey Tunnel." Completely witless and I didn't crack a smile but I could imagine someone with a low IQ (who perhaps works in a chip shop) enjoying it.

I'd imagine it's some Lottery-funded atrocity. If not I can at least console myself with the fact that the backers will lose a substantial amount of money as even a low-budget British film will still set someone back a couple of million. Seriously, if I met the most handsome bloke in the world and, on going back to his place to make sweet love, I found a copy of this in his DVD collection ("Man, I love this film") I'd probably kick him in the nuts and leave forthwith. And this from someone who's gone about six months without any of the aforementioned sweet love. 

Oh Lord I hate this film.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Because Mr. Bean almost never speaks, I heartily recommend using a DVD player with the teacher holding his finger over the pause/play button. At the end of any age group's lesson, simply devote 5 minutes to pausing and playing the DVD, encouraging students to shout out the answers to "What's this?", "What will happen?", "What's happening?", "What's wrong?", or any other question that elicits responses from that lesson's new vocabulary and grammar.

Because everyone's looking at the TV, normally shy students become vocal. Because the DVD can be started or stopped at any point, it's a perfect "filler" for the awkward "between" times while students are leaving and arriving.

I tried other DVDs, notably "Tom & Jerry" cartoons and Red Skelton DVDs, but no others were as good as "Mister Bean" at holding students' constant attention.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
There ought to be some kind of prosecution to punish producers from financing screenplays this stupid. I feel that some kind of criminalization of bad film might prevent more films this idiotic from being made. Sure it has an interesting cast of characters, but I don't think I've ever seen a more cardboard performance from an entire cast as in this uniquely crappy piece of crap. That director ought to be punished somehow for not eliciting at least some kind of performance out of these people. So detachment is a theme, (no really, they'll beat you over the head with this one), it doesn't mean every character has to recite their lines as if they on NPR. Did I mention this movie was crappy? Lastly I'm not sure what connection one's memories would have with terminal bone cancer, but I'm reasonably certain if you were totally brain dead your cancer would continue to grow regardless. This movie is an insult to cancer patients, medical professionals, and non-retarded people. Oh, and lastly, bumblebees fly because they produce a sufficient amount of lift for their mass by beating their wings just like every other flying insect. I absolutely despise people presenting false knowledge as fact. Next time do a little research before using an imbecilic misconception as a premise for an entire freaking movie. JUST KIDDING BELIEVE IN JESUS!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I wish I could use the time travel machine to jump back to the moment I considered seeing this movie and make other plans instead. I saw a free screening of A Sound of Thunder, so I can't complain about the price, but I wish I could get my 103 minutes refunded. The acting was mediocre, and the special effects were deplorable. People shouldn't make movies about dinosaurs if they can't afford to make the prehistoric creatures look as good or better than those in Jurassic Park. Spielberg spoiled us. Edward Burns as Travis Ryer was the movie's only saving grace. I noticed that females under 18 rated the movie the highest, and the only explanation is that they ogled over Burns the whole time. The whole long 103 minutes. This movie should have been over in about 80 minutes. It just dragged on and on and on. Don't waste your time or your money on this far-fetched flick.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Nothing Carson Daly has EVER said or done on this show has EVER made me laugh, or even smile a little. I DO NOT understand how this show has survived for so many years.

Even the "funny" band member is just like one of those kids in high school who thinks nobody is good enough to even look at him. Daly and that dude are just arrogant frat boys. It seems like they don't even try to be a little funny.

AWFUL AWFUL AWFUL show.

It makes my soul cry.

I just cannot stress enough how AWFUL this show is. Don't watch it. But if you absolutely have to, I recommend clawing your eyes out and clogging your ears with cement beforehand.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Now any Blaxploiation fan will recognise the ingredients: big Afros, topless babes, surreally bad fashions and some 'jive' talk. In this case add in a lead who can't act, a plot that makes little sense, editing by someone with no hands who has been blindfolded and the most god-awful fight scenes and you have 'TNT Jackson'. Not quite bad enough to be good, but not good enough to be bad, this is a wonderful mess from start to finish. I especially loved the endless continuity errors and the lead's white stunt double.

This is so '70s bad Far Eastern martial arts meets black power that it hurts, but boy it hurts so good! I am ashamed to admit that I almost enjoyed it.
"On a Clear Day You Can See Forever" is nothing more than a New Age update of the "Pygmalion" / "My Fair Lady" story: A professor attempts to turn a common girl into an upper society woman. This time, however, instead of using language skills, the professor tries to do so by hypnotism and past life regression.

You know a musical has problems when reviewers constantly mention the sets and the costumes before they mention the plot and the music. The songs are instantly forgettable. (No "Get Me to the Church on Time" here, I'm afraid.) And the plot goes nowhere. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, there is no "there" here. The characters wander through the story without ever getting from point A to point B. Professor Chabot claims several times that he will get to the root of Daisy's troubles, but he never seems to do so.

All meaningful conflict is avoided. For instance, there comes a time when Chabot's university demands he either stop his research into reincarnation or resign his position. Now there is conflict! Will he give up his career for Daisy? Alas! Nothing comes of this development. A scene or two later the university changes its mind and tells Chabot to continue on with his work. So much for conflict.

The talent was certainly assembled for this movie: Directed by Vincente Minnelli. Written, in part, by Alan Jay Lerner. A cast of Yves Montand, Bob Newhart and Jack Nicholson. And, oh yes, starring Barabara Striesand who was nearly at the top of her game at this point in her career.

But it all falls flat. Lerner's attempt to reincarnate his greatest success, the previously mentioned "My Fair Lady," is as doomed to failure as Daisy's attempt to revive the greatness of her own past.

If you enjoy movie musicals, there are far better choices than this.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
A sparkling movie. BB is a marvel. She's sultry. She is a feminist. She is still very much in love.

The movie features Paris in the 50's. It is wonderful to look at the sites, the cars (DS!) and Orly.

A simple but very enjoyable romantic comedy. The music is horrendous. It almost dissonates. On the other hand it is hilarious. But it is probably the only thing amiss, at least looking at it with 21st century eyes.

The movie comments on the French manner of treating infidelity. It is that sense modern. A movie like un elephant se trompe enormenent did it in an 80's way. But the basic premise stays the the same.

Thanks to makers for providing BB with this opportunity.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I saw this film on TV in the UK some 25 years ago and it has resonated with me ever since. My interest has recently been rekindled by visiting Hilton Head - the next island over from "Yamacraw" (Daufuskie actually), and reading Pat Conroy's excellent "The Water is Wide". With the benefit of knowledge I have reappraised Conrack and consider it a masterpiece. Jon Voight captures the spirit of Conroy and the atmosphere of the film brings the book to life with some accuracy - a Hollywood rarity. 

Three things still strike me about this tale: 1. The issues of educating the poor and disenfranchised and being inclusive remain the same. 2. Education is about more than reading and writing. 3.. These kids were my peers, I was 6 in 1969 when Pat Conroy spent his year on Daufuskie.

Why this has not made it on to DVD yet?

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

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

This movie is so good! I first seen it when i was six, then i bought it recently and i still love it, im 15 now. Plus, the acting was great, and Madonna is my idol and she did a phat job! Alot of people didnt like this movie, and i still to this day dont understand why.
As usual, leader Leo Gorcey (as Slip Mahoney) and "The Bowery Boys" are hard-pressed for cash. After unsuccessfully trying to sell their old jalopy, the lads look for help at the local bank. There, hapless Huntz Hall (as Sach) has his picture taken by pretty photographer Teala Loring (as Cathy Smith). But, since the shot was snapped during a robbery, it makes Mr. Hall look like the prime suspect. With pals Bobby Jordan (as Bobby), William "Billy" Benedict (as Whitey), and David Gorcey (as Chuck); Mr. Gorcey wants to clear Hall, and collect the $1,000 reward money. "Bowery Bombshell" goes through the motions, with Ms. Loring a main strength.

**** Bowery Bombshell (7/20/46) Phil Karlson ~ Leo Gorcey, Huntz Hall, Teala Loring, Bobby Jordan
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative