cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
This movie is a cyborg in and of itself: half nonsense/half Lifetime Original Movie.

As a cyborg, this movie has but one objective: to make you wish that you had spent the duration of the film in a dark room punching yourself in the testicles.

Unlike many people, I did not rent this movie because of Angelina Jolie(I'll explain why I rented it shortly). I am not a big fan of Ms. Jolie's, though I will say that her performance was stellar! Her blank stare and robotic acting really did have me believing that she was an android hooker. If anyone has a clip of her on 'Inside the Actor's Studio' explaining how she prepared for this role, please send it my way. I'll make sure to use it when I try James Lipton for Crimes against Integrity.

So what drove me to rent this movie? One would think that it was the hope of seeing Angelina Jolie's nipples, but it wasn't. No, the reason behind this rental rested solely on one of the images on the cover of the DVD; that of Jack Palance's face! HALF OF HIS FACE WAS ROBOTIC! When I saw that, I imagined legions of "Palances" slowly marching through a fiery wasteland, laying waste to any humans that were foolish enough to resist. In my mind's eye, every member of this Unholy Army of Palances had a red, glowing eye; a red, glowing eye that looked at humans and saw only "meat". They were to be the Architects of Oblivion...a cold, steely Apocalypse...a Nightmare from which Humanity would never awaken. It's a beautiful image that I will cherish till the end of my years.

Like most things in my life, the actual movie did not live up to my expectations. No, there was only 'one' Jack Palance, and the only visible cybernetic enhancements that he had were located on his legs. Sadly, those enhancements didn't really "enhance" anything. That is unless, you count WALKING LIKE A POLIO VICTIM as a super power. At least their was a scene where Jack--grinning like a trigger-happy Alzheimer's patient--got to shoot the hell out of some people. I was waiting for him to yell, "I'm damn tired of paying too much for prescription medication!" Unfortunately, any outbursts of geriatric rage were few and far between.

What the movie did have an abundance of was a poorly developed love story about a man(Elias Koteas, a.k.a. poor man's De Niro) and a cyborg(Angelina Jolie, a.k.a. Demon Spawn of John Voigt). Oh man, can the love between a Romeo of Flesh and a Juliet of Silicon ever be able to last?!?!?! It can if you follow Jack Palance's simple advice: "You have to TASTE each other's TIME".

Yeah, I'm not sure what that means. However, I am sure that I do not want Jack Palance to be the one to explain it to me. I sure as heck don't want him to show me! As an experiment, I suggest that you ask your significant other if he/she "thinks that we have reached a level in our relationship where we can begin to TASTE each other's TIME?"
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

Me being from Australia and loving the series, I wasn't expecting much from the American version of Kath and Kim but I thought I'd watch the first episode to see if it was really that bad.

Well,whats there to say. Its nothing special.Selma Blair is OK as Kim and actually had a few good lines, Molly Shannon is not a good Kath though. The good thing about Jane Turner's Kath is that when she speaks with all her funny accents (such as when she says Yumor or Noice) it sounds like its just the natural way that she speaks, but when Shannon has a go at the accent, its clear that she is acting and trying to be the same as Turner. And the show really misses Sharon or some one else to give us something to laugh about, because the Kal and Craig characters in this version are really not funny.

So far only the first episode has aired and it is clearly not up to the standards of the Aussie version, although if it was a stand alone television show with a different name, not being compared to the Aussie version it would perhaps be viewed as being a little bit better. But if there is nothing else to do on a Sunday night (or Thursday night in America) then you cant do much harm in watching it, or better put on some of the Aussie version if you've got it.
Well, the movie did turn out a lot better than i expected. It's not boring and it's not unoriginal. It's really not a silly romantic comedy. The situations the characters put themselves in are very unusual, of course, we're still talking about a movie, but the main characters are indeed plausible. Donald is, of course, an exaggeration, but he's just a pawn in the movie, a means to prove something. The ending isn't one of those ridiculously happy, always the same, moral containing pieces of crap you can usually see in movies of the genre. I genuinely liked it and i'm hard to please when it comes to this particular genre of movies. It's worth a watch. Besides, it's better directed than other movies, the story line always stands up, the characters themselves stand up. And they do not experience this miraculous change and love is not revealed to them like a holly god given artifact, yada, yada. At the end of it all you actually see yourself going through it all, the movie makes you feel something, you may even learn a thing or two. It's not the usual hope-producing, tissue moistening idiocy. It's a good movie, not a consolation prize for teary women around the world.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I finally got a chance to settle in and compare the two versions of this film currently going around -- First, the good old scummy, sleazy Embassy VHS print called SCREAMERS, and then a new fully restored Italian DVD by everyone's new favorite media company, No Shame of Italy.

The American adverts about "men turned inside out" is as everyone says, totally misleading, and indicative of a Roger Cormanized take on what otherwise would be a superior fantasy-adventure thriller for grown ups. The complete Italian version is a somewhat sprawling, well designed and deliberately paced take on "Island of Dr. Moreau", and there's nothing wrong with that. It's a sumptuous, handsome Euro Horror outing with a brain, good plotting, character development, location shooting, period costuming and sets, etc.

But I must admit that the 14 year old knucklehead weed puffer still lurking somewhere inside of me got a bigger kick out of the more lurid, sleazy and unkempt Roger Corman version, which has some nice over the top gore, a flashy but preposterous opening segment, and then the bulk of Martino's original film, albeit somewhat abridged to make room for Roger's idea of entertainment. The pacing was somewhat quicker, the shock sequences closer together, and you see just as much of Ms. Bach's fantastic form as you do in the extended Italian version.

I still don't have much of an idea about what the specific story concerns though: there are a number of plot twists and incidental characters that were somewhat hard to keep track of. A local voodoo subplot didn't help much, and it's funny how everything culminates in just another fistfight between the noble castaway prisoner and the mad scientist ... Perhaps a few more viewings are in order. I will say this: Fans of the movie should avail themselves of one of these PAL imports and take a look at what is actually a movie rather than just another murky old home video -- the widescreen shot compositions once again reveal that Martino had an eye for filling his screen with interesting stuff. Nobody gets their heads ripped off like in the SCREAMERS print, but it's still interesting stuff, and once again proof that while his standards may have been pretty much confined to the area around the gutter, Roger Corman new good trashy fun when he had it made for him, and side by side these are actually better movies than they had to be.

7/10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Interesting tale of giant mammoth elephants running amok in modern India. Features transparent special effects-elephants dressed in shaggy coats sporting tusk extensions. All this said, we do have a good story and a fine cast at work, and an exciting climax. It's been said that the running time on this one was doubled when it showed in India-courtesy of Robert Lippert, a master at 'padding.' Given a choice, opt for the shorter version.
Write a positive movie review.

This is a prime example of uninhibited filmmaking at its best. Richard Greene (who does good in the role) search for his two missing friends takes him to the Black Forest domain and castle of one-eyed Count Bruno (Stephen McNally), a past enemy of his whom he has never seen face to face. Incredible film has so many awesome elements combined (for once) into a single film--a crocodile pit; a hulking mute (played by Lon Chaney, Jr.); a crafty doctor (played by Boris Karloff); a leopard hunt (VERY well done and VERY atmospheric); a love story; a castle; a swordfight; a sadistic, one-eyed count and his two evil accomplices (played by John Hoyt and Michael Pate!!!); an intriguing background story which makes the film even more interesting; and more!. Jerry Sackheim's script doesn't allow itself to be bound in--making a film that comes extremely recommendable to anyone who is into unlimited filmmaking with a touch of horror and atmosphere to it.
This is perhaps the worst movie I have ever seen, and I have seen well over 300 movies in my lifetime. The acting atrocious, the only bright spot seems to be judging the anatomical prowess of the female castmembers. After watching this movie, it is suggested that the viewer not operate heavy machinery or go driving for a period of at least 24 hours. Also a bottle of Valium would be recommended so you don't feel so bad for the 100 wasted minutes of your life. The plot is nothing original, the dialog excruciating, and even the weapons seem sub-par. Do yourself a favor and go to your local Blockbuster and burn whatever copies they have of this horrid film.

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

negative
It isn't TOO bad, but ultimately it lacks the quality that the Australian series has.

The jokes are few and far between, the actors are attractive (they shouldn't be), the film makers think far too much about the cinematography (it's supposed to look like a home video) and it's just like a serious version of Kath and Kim... it's stupid.

It's too normal to be Kath and Kim. Kath and Kim are supposed to be two curvy, middle-aged women who think they are hot and wear ridiculous clothes. There are no "Look at me Kimmy!" jokes. The fat friend of Kim is not fat at all and she's not even slightly stupid. She's a stereotypical black/Latino chick.

It's just not as stupid or funny as the Australian series. It doesn't compare. Nothing is the same. I admit, this show is pretty funny at times, but it is NOT anything like the Aussie series. I was looking forward to an American take on a bogan family. They failed. It's supposed to be REALLY stupid and hilarious, but the actors don't act stupid! To me, this is just a typical American TV show. It's a let down if you want it to be anything like the Aussie show.

2 Stars because it is an OKAY show, just nothing like what it should be.

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

negative
Like a lot of films from the early sounds days, Cimarron must be viewed more for historical interest than as compelling entertainment. The hammy acting of lead Richard Dix, nominated for best actor, can be excused as a relic of the silent-film school of acting. However, even giving benefits of the doubt, Cimarron is a badly shaped piece of drama -- a bloated film that moves from unrelated sequence to unrelated sequence with little dramatic impact. Offically, the film is two hours and four minutes; it feels like four hours when you're watching it. There is no reason to waste your time on it unless you want to see every Best Picture winner or have a keen interest in the early sound days. In my opinion, Cimarron is the worst choice for best picture in Academy history and the award should have gone to City Lights or Little Ceasar. Cimarron is barely remembered today, and would have be remembered at all if not for its Oscar win.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
While I agree this was a 1950s sitcom, I don't feel it was "typical". Firstly, Donna Reed was a STRONG woman, unlike the regular 50s sitcom moms. She made a stand for women's worth and equality (remember the episode where the TV announcer says "just a housewife") and Donna stands up for all women do and represent, especially those that don't work outside the home? And when the women rebelled against something in the series, it was not something trivial...it was always something to show that women have the right to be treated with the same respect as men. Remember, Donna Reed was married to the show's producer, so she had much more input into making hers a more powerful character.

The children were intelligent, but not precocious. They were normal kids. And they could ACT.

Something else that made Donna Reed Show stand out was not only did the children LOOK like their parents, but you could feel the chemistry between all the actors in the real life situation, which then came out in the characters. Shelly Fabares and Paul Peterson have often written and remarked that they were treated like the children of Donna Reed and Carl Betz, and that the adults were fiercely protective of the child actors, and treated them accordingly. Donna and Alex also had somewhat of a sexual chemistry that wasn't seen on the other family shows. And the characters could be flawed, and in major ways, and yet, accepted for the flaws and mistakes. These were not super parents that did no wrong and had no emotional highs and lows. They were normal people acting as normal people.

Women's rights, drug abuse, child abuse, single fathers, poverty, children who need good health care but can't afford it...it was all shown on this show. Pretty groundbreaking for the era.

Donna Reed show didn't last for eight years without a reason. And it could have possibly endured, had it not been for Tony Owens and Donna Reed divorcing.

This show is highly underrated and should be shown so that other generations can appreciate quality.

In summary, I agree with the original poster, who obviously cares for the show, but I think that the Donna Reed show has SO much more to offer than casual entertainment.

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

positive
Write a positive movie review.

"The Seven-Ups" seems like a replay of "The French Connection," which was released two years prior. Both the late Roy Scheider and Tony Lo Bianco make appearances, as well as stunt driver Bill Hickman.

But we aren't dealing with French drug baddies; instead, we are dealing with a war against assorted hoods and criminals after a cop is brutally killed by a hoodlum. We get to see unpleasantness and a pre-1990s New York City.

I love watching this film because it is exciting to see the action, and it is a reminder of a cooler time. That said, when one compares the car chases, Mr. Hickman had involvement in the three most compared: This movie, Bullitt and The French Connection. Each chase scene has its own qualities, and this one is simply superb.

And I am glad this title has seen the light of day on DVD.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Consistency is perhaps this movie its biggest problem. The movie starts of as a fast, stylish and just plain fun political satire but in its second halve the movie gets more serious of tone, in an almost Oliver Stone kind of way. It's of course also a very serious subject but I would say that the movie would had been way better and also more effective if it had been completely done in the same style as the first halve of the movie got shot in.

For a biography and a movie concerning the subject of this movie, the movie is also quite short with its mere 102 minutes of running time. The movie because of this feels like it isn't telling the whole story. Of course the following up of the events after the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan gets hinted at in the movie but the movie doesn't go deeper into it and it doesn't explain much about it, which feels like a cheap way to just glorify Charlie Wilson, without showing the other side of the medal. Also the actual events in the movie itself gets rather simplified, even though the story still gets told (needlessly) complex at times.

Yes, the movie would just had been way better if it was not trying to be so serious at times and overall more light with its style and atmosphere. The movie should had been for instance more like "Wag the Dog", that achieved to find a right combination of satire and sensitive political issues.

Because of this incoherent style and way of storytelling, the acting performances are also mixed. When Tom Hanks is playing his character more playfully and in a more comical kind of way he's just excellent. But this just makes it sort of hard to take his character serious in the more serious and sensitive/shocking moments of the movie. Philip Seymour Hoffman is always excellent though, as he is in any movie that he plays in. He also received an Oscar nomination for his role in this movie. Most of the other actors just seem to walk around in this movie, just to be in the movie. This goes mostly for Julia Roberts, whose character I found just too mysterious to seem to have a clear enough purpose for the movie. She made a redundant impression on me and is therefor also really forgettable in this movie.

It's not that the movie is a bad watch, it actually is quite good and also enjoyable but if the movie would had dared to be a bit more edgier the movie would had been a better and foremost also more effective one at what it tried to obviously achieve.

7/10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The Psychopath (1973) A trip down memory lane. I saw this film many years ago on a old black and white t.v. A children's' show host Mr. Rabbey avenges the brutal abuse that parents inflict upon his kiddie fans. Mr. Rabbey (who looks like he's always on the verge of losing it) finally cracks and decides to go on a hunting trip. Watch out bad parents cause Mr. Rabbey is on the prowl! What happens next is priceless. However, trying to find this movie will be quite a chore.

What makes this film notable was the fact that Joe "Maniac" Spinell made a short promo reel for a film based upon this one. In his unfinished film, he plays Mr. Robbie, a t.v. clown(who looks like a pudgy out of shape Edward James Olmos) who avenges his young fans child abuse by going after their parents. Sadly, Mr. Spinell could never find the funds to complete the project. The film was going to be titled Maniac II: "Mister Robbie". Rabbey or Robbie the similarities are all too close for comfort. Pretty violent for a P.G. movie.

Recommended.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Edge Vs. Michaels-Boring in general (loved the sweet chin music into the chair) 4/10 Taker Vs. Heidenreich-One of the worst matches I've seen, predictable as hell 1/10 Tripe Threat WWE match-Why do I watch them, nobody ever wins a championship at the rumble, its not the main event. Liked it when Show drove JBL through the wall. 3/10 World Heavyweight Championship-Pretty OK match, kind of more a beat-down by Tripe H than a match, but I was happy to see it after watching crap. 5/10 Royal Rumble-Good Rumble,Liked the brand showdown,the Hassan thing, and the end. 7/10 Overall still crap. Why does anyone watch the rumble???

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

First of all, the entire script is mostly improv, adding to the fantastic illusion that what we are watching is an actual documentary. Secondly, the actors hired by Watkins were purposefully chosen to represent their true political alliances and backgrounds. The hippies portrayed are actual hippies, the government officials (though not necessarily in the government themselves) are at least actually hearty conservatives within the system, and several of the cops are actual policemen. The interactions of these actors, given the textual freedoms alloted by Watkins, eventually come to a violent head where even Watkins himself is convinced that a cast member had actually been shot. (We hear him screaming "Cut! Cut!" in the background.)

An AMAZING film though American critics were quite harsh in their reviews, one actually reporting that it was the "most offensive" film she had ever seen. This not entirely unexpected as the unveiling of this oppressive communist-like mentality of America during this era would certainly rattle some cages. This pseudo-documentary definitely requires an open mind, though if you are seriously looking for an intensely accurate portrayal of 60s culture, this would be THE film to watch.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Uzumaki succeeds as at plunging you into a bizarre surreality where Uzumaki shapes haunt and curse a town. It fails at being a competent horror movie. While the film is sure to draw attention mainly to it's bizarre plot line and a few interesting visual treats, it's going to come off better as a dark comedy than a horror film. It's definitely a film you should see if your into the kind of stuff- but if your looking for a scare or even a small chill, you'll want to look elsewhere. Uzumaki doesn't really have much else up it's sleeve but a great chain of odd events.

a
Friday Night With Jonathan Ross must have those in charge of Ross rubbing their sweaty little palms together. They know the BBC lacks imagination when it comes to talk shows so when they have Jonathan Ross at their disposal they are quite settled to just sit back and let a half wit command this primetime slot.

Ross Spends most of the show grooming his ego and smiling about how much the BBC is paying him. The show is a complete copy of many US Chat Shows - Leno, Letterman, Conan O Brian, the list goes on - but he and his team have clearly seen what works on the masses can also be done for the dumb masses in the UK also.

The unfortunate situation - he has no competition? Parkinson has gone by the reality is he was never really up to much except grooming a celebs ego. Can't we have someone funnier and slicker on British Screens instead of Jonathan Ross? Once Ross has built up his ego enough he will then proceed to the very boring concept of the stiff celebrities in the green room - so trying to get on with each other. If an A-Lister is present (which is so often the case these days - as there are no other chat shows they can turn to - to promote their latest movie) - he will spend the next hour either flirting with them or trying to be their best friend in the Universe. Sqeamish when he had Ringo Starr on - a man that cares nothing for licking arse - Ross genuinely was begging for his mobile phone number (as common policy on this show is for Jonathan Ross to get everyones number so he can be seen in the right company when not working). Of course Ringo said it how it is - and simply said no I don't like you - dead pan serious.

Ross needs to be axed from all Awards and TV shows - the masses will get over it.

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

negative
Write a positive movie review.

To say the truth, I went to see this movie only because Nicolas Cage is my favorite actor. Folks may not agree, but he makes equally good performances in bad and good movies. I haven't seen a movie with Penelope Crus before, so I was anxious to see whether she is a good actress. So, here's what I think:

The movie is good (I haven't read the novel, however). Some moments were really thrilling and... unexpected. Altogether you'll find the plot pretty simple. So the only thing that could save the movie, which (an experienced viewer will know that from the beginning) would either end tragically or happily, was the performance of both Cage and Crus. And it was GREAT, GREAT, GREAT!!! In the latter part of the movie I even liked a rather broad accent of the actress (Spanish, but for those who don't speak Greek that's OK, and she even looks like a Greek girl). Overall the movie is highly enjoyable and has a good deal of irony (fans of classical music will surely have fun at some moments:)

I give it 9/10. You should see it!
The Shanghai Cobra starts out like gangbusters, with a rain soaked diner scene straight out of Shack Out on 101 or Gun Crazy (the first one). Unfortunately the film then proceeds to plod its weary way through a standard Chan formula that is only barely enlivened by the always wonderful Mantan Moreland. It's as if director Karlson blew half his budget in the first five minutes, just getting the set up the way he wanted it. Watch the beginning and think about The Phenix City Story.

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

negative
Write a negative movie review.

I just don't get it. Why call this a sequel to the film "American Werewolf" when it has absolutely NO connection with it whatsoever? The first film was funny *and* scary with ground breaking special effects. (If memory serves, the Oscar category for special make-up effects was *created* for this movie). "Paris" is none of these things. Awful effects, and not much else. Do not see this movie. Rent the original "Werewolf in London" instead. You'll be much happier.
spoilers

This movie is not action packed; it's slow and boring. It's not funny or exciting, it's predictable and plays on cheap sentimentality and vague patriotism. The special effects are not imaginative or impressive. They are noisy and uninspired.

The acting talent is wasted on hopelessly stupid one-liners and clichés. These are spouted by characters they ought to just be called `gentle giant black man,' `eccentric genius who is about to crack,' `square jawed hero coming of age,' `by-the-book coward,' `luckless gambler who lives by a code of honor,' `impulsive princess' and so on.

And the writing! How many undramatic countdowns did they think they could fit in this thing? Does a scene where people have to defuse a bomb by cutting one or another wire even count as fiction anymore? The drama of the last 15 minutes of the movie depends on the audience caring if some jerk can put aside his personal differences with Ben Affleck and say bye bye to Liv Tyler in time TO SAVE THE EARTH. All the work is done; we just have to wait a couple more seconds for Harry Stamper, the jerk, to toss off a few cotton candy lines. I know Bruce Willis is a generally charismatic guy, but his Harry Stamper character is an obnoxious bore. I thought he earned the Golden Razzy he was awarded for this role.

Since the movie is so long, the plot so obvious, and the dialogue so disposable, one can't help but notice the lame inaccuracies, inconsistencies and plot holes. 800 feet into something the size of TX is less than a pinprick. Try walking 800 feet into TX and see how close to the center you are. After all the discussion about the artificial gravity on the Russian station, it appears to be arbitrary once inside. Actually, gravity comes and goes throughout the movie. Does it make any sense that anyone besides Michael Bay would give these morons a couple shuttles and send them to blow up an asteroid threatening the earth?

The sentimental phone/insurance/cola commercial style montages were revolting.

I do like action movies. Really. This one is boring, stupid and really stuck on itself. It deserves hatred and scorn because it's everything Hollywood's most expensive efforts have become - a bunch of cheap cliches running from one expensive explosion to another. Oh yes, the whole thing is permeated by a Neanderthal conservative outlook on sex, politics and so on.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Brad Pitt sticks his index finger in Diane Kruger's leg wound and keeps it there until he gets what he wants. Funny, horribly so. The invented yarn takes "The Dirty Dozen" for a ride and sometimes abandons it to pay tribute to other movies. Lots of fun. Even "Paris when it sizzles" is mentioned in a delightfully organic piece of dialog. I was thrilled by Christoph Waltzer's character and by his sensational performance. Brad Pitt creates a true original. I love the actor's lack of vanity. There's a quirk in the character that is pure Brad Pitt. Tarantino visits a new universe but. fortunately, his hand. his brain and his heart are visible all over the place.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I usually really like Lawrence and being in Australia I haven't seen much of his stand up, so when I saw this at my video shop I thought, yeah I'll have a look. I wish I hadn't seen it now. Obviously Lawrence had a profound experience that opened up his mind, and I guess he wants to share this with others but this was neither the time nor the place.

This whole experience seemed like a motivational speech in hell, it really did. I believe the catch phrase of the night was "ride it until the wheels fall off" which he intermingled with just plain lewd jokes revolving around sex and sexual organs.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind crude humor, but Lawrence lacks the gift of classing it up in the fashion of Eddie Murphy, Richard Prior or Robin Williams. Lawrence was just plain lewd, the only time I laughed was when he relived his experience with the law and his recovery in the hospital. If there were minus points, i would give them....

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

negative
The movie is a very good movie.one of the best from Yash raj films.The direction is incredible.The screenplay is brilliant.The story is excellent.It tells about Rahul who is obssed of Kiran his college friend.He is a full blown psycho doing things like talking to his mother on a phone(anyway she died 15 years back) etc.Kiran is engaged to Sunil.Rahul does everything so he can get her.He even trys to kill Sunil but he survives it.He even goes to the place where they are going to their honeymoon.The movie is every nes delight.Shahrukh is superb,Juhi is fairly good,Sunny is average,Anupham is okay and so is Tanvi,Dalip did good.The movie belongs to Srk.The dialogues are brilliant(Shahrukh ones and a lot if not the overacting and comedy)."Jaadu Teri Nazar" and "Tu Mere Samne" are absolutely melodious tracks.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

This film has "haunted" me since I saw it when I was about 8 years old. I didn't know what it was called so am so pleased to have tracked it down finally. I remember being quite scared, because I'd just been to a tin mine in Cornwall when I watched it, so could imagine it all. Fortunately I didn't see any ghosts of dead children there, but I found this film really quite disturbing and scary when I was much younger. I've certainly never forgotten it, even though I couldn't find it anywhere. I seem to remember The Children's Film Foundation films being generally good, but they don't show them at all any more. I also remember programmes like The Children Of Green Knowe in the same era on BBC - equally unsettling in its own way.
Write a negative movie review.

We were excited to rent this one after reading a few reviews and seeing that it scored so highly here. Well, we got it home and could not believe what we saw. Its basically comes off as if its written by some hard up perverted old guy who could not help inserting his sexual frustrations and fantasies into an anime film that really lacks in plot and humor. The main character is all over the place... one moment, he is like an immature little kid, the next moment he is mature and intelligent, then heroic, then a perverted stalker.

The worst part is all of the out of place sexual content. I have no problem with sex and dig a movie that has some good sexual energy, but this is just presented in a way that is creepy. Nipple slips, close ups of a girls crotch (many times) in white panties, or a swimsuit. It was totally out of place and it seemed as if the person who wrote it was trying to live out some fantasies through his cartoon characters. 

We were expecting something of a mature nature, but we just kept looking at each other and asking what the heck the point of this was... besides jiggling cartoon boobs and poor dialogue. If you want to see some cartoon characters cleavage and crotch's... this is for you. If you are looking for something beyond that, this movie was empty. The characters and dialogue were just plain irritating.
Write a positive movie review.

At first I thought this film was going to annoy me.It was as though I had seen this movie somewhere before. The disillusioned hero, the father figure and the 9 year old sister who is older and wiser than her years (see Gregory's girl), but then, not 15 minutes in, it became a laugh out loud, comic gem of a movie. Dylan Moran (who I thought was just going to bug me) was excellent. As was Mr Gambon and the mad Scottish hitman. Lena Headey was extremely sexy. For half of the film I was trying to remember where I'd seen her before. The Parole officer. She has the most amazing smile. But clearly the true hero of this film is Mr Caine. This man should do much more comedy. This ranks alongside some of his best comedy roles (Without a Clue, Dirty Rotten Scoundrels). He is a pleasure to watch in all of his scenes but especially the end.

No one can quite say f**k the way Michael can.
The action scenes was quite good. But the plot of the movie, I would have to give it a score of 1 out of 10. It seems that the producers and director of this movie didn't thought about it carefully?

It doesn't give much value and values to it's viewers except for it's violence. The entire story was about revenge. A boy witnessing a rape and murder. I would even recommend it to be banned. Those who watched it, you've just lose some money. If you're thinking of watching it, watch something else. I would ask for a refund if I was on a movie theater. So for you guys and girls out there reading this article. Please don't waste time.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Speed which I believe is direct copy of the Hollywood movie Cellular (I haven't watched this one) gives an impression of a test match which is very exciting in first four days, but then gets in a very boring draw at the end. I have watched this movie today on 12th January 2008 on rented VCD. It's release date is 19th Oct 2007. But still fortunately for me I didn't know or heard much of this movie before except that it is a flop at box office. So in this situation when I watch the movie, I feel that this movie could have been a very good movie, but then the director again falls in the trap for Bollywood traditions and has wasted a very good chance.

Off course as a Bhatt movie it must be copied from somewhere else. But now days it doesn't matter for me, if I haven't seen the original movie. I just found the main theme much similar to 'Nick of Time' and 'Badshah'. In the movie Sanjay Suri is shown an intelligence agent, but his wife thinks that he is a chef. This brings back the memory of 'True-Lies'. The only new part was the use if the phone. But that too I found out now is taken from movie Cellular. So when a movie is made with the mixture of so many other movies it's future is quite clear.

The things I like about the movie is its pace. As the name suggest the things really happens fast, and there is not much time to think about in between the scenes. But this breaks in the last 20 minutes of so where the movie goes in traditional Bollywood style of Dhishum dhishum.

The plot of the movie is also quite interesting. Three stories going parallel, one after the other. One of the kidnapping of Urmila, the other of the Zayed trying to help Urmila, and then the plan of murder of prime minister. These three stories gets mixed up naturally with each other as the movie continues.

But then the very ordinary acting and unnecessary extra style has killed the spirit of the movie. Except Sanjay Suri, none other makes any impression. This goes even for Urmila, who is always promising in RGVs movies. Due to this ordinary acting some scenes doesn't really convey the feelings that director wanted. E.g. the scene at the end where Urmila leaves all hope and cut the phone, should have made a good impact. But instead we just wait for the end of that scene.

Other than acting, some unnecessary love for style demoralizes the movie. Showing so cool villains is good for Hollywood movies not for Bollywood The background of London is also only for making style and not much intelligent advantage of this background can be seen. Especially at the end, all those dhishhum- dhishhum were utterly unnecessary. May be director has an impression that the climax in Hindi movies must have such fights. They look unrealistic, increase the length of the movie and make sure that the people are leaving theater before the movie ends.

Over and all, I find the movie once watchable. If it is coming on TV or you can get it on rent its OK. But then again make sure that you have the remote and forward button handy. Next time, when the movie is on TV, you can safely watch other channels.
What's an example of a movie review?

(Spoilers warning) I cannot say enough good things about this movie. It is a great horror comedy/spoof that does everything right for a change. The humor is great and ranges from funny to so-funny-you'll-cry funny. In one scene, Ed goes edit-crazy and deletes a big scene. When his boss is looking at Ed's edit, he yells out: "Where in the fu%# is my beaver-rape scene?!?!" Hysterical. There are also many other great, humorous & memorable quotes and moments throughout: Ed yells out "Don't you fu#$ing look at me!!!" while punching some poor schmuck repeatedly in the face. Very funny stuff. The plot of the movie itself is so ridiculous that it's priceless: Ed is a mild-mannered everyday guy that gets moved over to the horror-film editing department, and after a while goes nuts, sees monsters, and attacks people while quoting the horror movies that he has edited. This movie has it all and is simply hilarious. The DVD only costs about $7, and is a great bargain as it is the unrated widescreen cut. I own a lot of DVD's, most of which cost a lot more money than this one, but not many are as great as this movie. My Evil Ed DVD is one of the highlights of my collection and i would beat someone with a telephone receiver if they tried to steal it. Evil Ed oozes style and quality -- something that Hollywood filmmakers need to majorly learn. Evil Ed is a rare gem, and i would like to thank everyone involved in making this wonderful movie -- you did everything right, and i love Evil Ed! 10 out of 10!!!
What's an example of a movie review?

This was the most thought-provoking capital-punishment movie ever! It refused to seem one-sided and the emotions felt throughout the story are as real as it can get. This movie had one of the most 'human' (And I use this term in a good way) compassionate religious character ever! This movie actually caused me to go out to find and read the book (Which is rare for me). Sister Helen exerted more of a spiritual tone than a religious(Which is also rare). And it presented both sides to the issue so that people on both sides who watched the movie wouldn't feel that a point was left out. And we have the director to thank for that. This is not a film for entertainment. But it is film that delivers a message that can reach to the core of your heart. I can't think of another film like it.
Write a positive movie review.

I'm warning you -- this movie is not scary. If you're a horror movie fan, especially a Child's Play fan, you'll think it's incredibly funny, but you won't be scared. It's not a bad movie, but it's not scary.
Write a positive movie review.

There is something that one of the characters (the aging film director who pretends to be dead) says which may summarize all the film: "In Italy it's the dead who rule". True! This is a country without a future, in the hands of old and jaded men. And Bellocchio's cryptic portrait of the country, pivoted on the apparently senseless story of a director who has to film marriage parties to earn a living, manages to say a lot about what is not working here. But foreigners may miss the point, as it's not clearly expressed. I understand that Australian or Canadian people who watch this may get bored and wonder if there's a meaning--well, there's a meaning, but it's clear only to people who live here today, and keep their eyes wide open... like Bellocchio. Surely it's not one of his best films, and it's not as powerful as Buongiorno, notte, but it's worth seeing... for Italians who live in Italy.
I saw this film at a small screening. Even though it had a low budget, the creative direction and intelligence of the cast helped make this a small gem of a movie. It's April 8, 1994, each of the characters are in their "mid 20's" and pursuing some kind of artistic ambition (acting, music, film, writing) when they learn of Nirvana singer Kurt Cobain's suicide. They quickly get inspiration to travel from San Francisco to Seattle and attend the Cobain vigil. It's here where the film really picks up and serves up a series of funny and emotional scenes. Highlights include: a visit to Jimi Hendirx's grave, Kurt Cobain's original childhood home and a campfire sing along. An honest an original piece of work.

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

positive
The Thing is a milestone in movie-making and remains one of my favourite films of all-time. Despite the film's roots in science-fiction it is ultimately a horror film that brilliantly balances splatter with psychological trauma. Today, Over twenty five years after its release, the special effects stand up as an example of sheer brilliance and effects man Rob Bottin suffered a complete physical breakdown for his art. It would be impossible to make the same movie today as the Studio would most certainly insist on casting a female character or a Paul-Walker type.

An all-male American Science team in Antarctica are thrown into turmoil when an alien lifeform able to perfectly absorb and imitate other lifeforms infiltrates their camp. Their trust in each other steadily crumbles as they become increasingly unsure who is real and who is an imitation, and this 'body-snatchers' scenario sees their numbers steadily dwindle as one-by-one, they fall victim to The Thing. When cornered, it manifests itself as a different nightmarish creature, the metamorphosis always horrific and compelling.

The helplessness, isolation and claustrophobia of a team of desperate men with no way out of their situation and no way of help reaching them is expertly sustained. The long hours of darkness and the mounting snowfall provide a bleak backdrop to the terror that unfolds. Director John Carpenter selected with great care a team of brilliant character-actors and each member of the team fits perfectly into the part they play, whether it be the young and street-wise chef, the elderly and wise Doctor or the bitter and cynical helicopter pilot. The point is that no-one here comes close to being an all-American badass superhero with blonde locks and a six-pack and the film's real strength is thanks in no small part to this stark realism. The people suffering on-screen are recognisable in our daily lives.

The Thing remains consistently enjoyable and affecting even after repeated viewings. I have now seen the film on more than twenty separate occasions and my amazement at the quality of the direction, the acting and the special effects is unwavering. My girlfriend prefers the high-school spin-off of the film -The Faculty- which is good and solid entertainment but far more light-hearted and whistful. She still loves and acknowledges the brilliance of The Thing however, and thank goodness for that... Because I could not remain in the company of someone who didn't love this movie.

A classic and then some.

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

positive
1940's cartoon, banned nowadays probably because of the 'Black Beauty' gag, in which Daffy rides a black person as if it were a horse.

The whole story takes place in a bookstore, where the characters of the books come to life every evening. So we have, among others, the Ugly Duck (Daffy) and the wolf of Wallstreet. They wind up in a chase after the wolf tricked Daffy with a phony duck (hence the title).

And chase is all there is in this little cartoon, that doesn't have any real appeal nowadays. Only fun if you're a true fan of the Looney Tunes I guess...

4/10.

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

negative
Hadnt heard a lot about this movie, except it being National award and Oscar entry. Its a Marathi movie, n I cant make out apple from orange in marathi. But when I saw the movie playing on DD1 late Sunday night, I just got glued. Now I am no judge of cinematic techniques and acting skills. But I have watched a good number of movies, of various genres, and for an average viewer, I will highly recommend this movie. The feel is very earthy and realistic, though there are some melodramatic moments. Watch it to feel human. Lately haven't seen any movie, which touches heart, especially in Hindi cinema. the crowning achievement of the movie is when the young kid returns home. The camera moves around to reveal the kid, wearing black glasses, having lost his eyes, the kid hears the other kids splashing in the water and starts clapping. I was awestruck. And the two hours I spent watching the movie - very much worth it :-)
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I cannot understand why so many people did not like this film. Robert De Niro was on top of his game, delivering his lines with such aplomb, one has to believe this is his everyday demeanor. Granted, the film seemed to take on many buddy-film conventions while trying to make fun of the concept, it goes without saying this film was genuinely funny. From the police dog, to the fact Eddie Murphy didn't annoy the heck out of me, this film is a real keeper. Rene Russo also evened out the rest of the cast perfectly, establishing her role so it does not interfere with the budding relationship between De Niro and Murphy.