cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Ken Russell directed this weird ( Not very ) erotic thriller and if I hadn't known that I would have staked my life that the director was Brian DePalma . Absolutely everything about CRIMES OF PASSION screams DePalma , from the gaudy cinematography that is lit a little too brightly , to the domestic storyline that turns into a stalk and slash plot , to even the title this screams " Depalma , DePalma , Depalma "

Unfortunately since Brian DePalma is increasingly seen as a poor mans Hitchcock over the years Russell should have tried emulating a style of his own . Sure an erotic thriller in the style of TOMMY or BILLION DOLLAR BRAIN would have been bizarre with a capital B but at least it would have been a unique cinematic experience . Stories about prostitutes living a dangerous double life and being stalked by a religious maniac were an all too common sight in the 1980s video market . Oh and Anthony Perkins plays the same role he played in almost every movie he made in the 1980s . Yawn 

The only thing of any real note to CRIMES OF PASSION is the controversy it caused . I guess the studio were the happiest people to hear this since no publicity is bad publicity , but as for the controversial sex scenes ... What controversial sex scenes ? There aren't any and the only controversy I can think of is of China Blue dominating an on duty policeman with a truncheon . Needless to say he didn't come quietly HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

The whole movie seemed to suffer from poor editing - every scene seemed to take forever to unfold and when they did, I felt like I had waited a long time for very little to happen. I guess I missed the whole point of the movie - either that or there wasn't one.
This is a hard film to rate. While it truly deserves its 3 (or perhaps even a two), for an Al Adamson film, it's exceptional--and practically Adamson's very best. That's because unlike many Adamson films, there are times when NURSE SHERRI almost looks competent. But, being an Adamson film, you know that sooner or later that crappiness MUST rear its ugly head! 

The film begins with some bizarre cult leader of a huge congregation (six) trying to resurrect a dead guy who looks like he's made of blue cheese. However, in the process, the cult dude has a heart attack and it taken to the hospital. He apparently dies, but it also seems like many of these hospital scenes are missing and a few of them appear much later in the film. In other words, when you see the film, he appears to have possibly recovered--only to hear later that he'd died. Because the guy is the b.f.f. of Satan, however, his evil soul can't die and he comes back to both haunt one of his henchmen and to possess Nurse Sherri.

Now, Sherri is obviously a very disturbed lady--demonic possession or not. At times she acts like a zombie and at others she's violently homicidal. So I ask..."why didn't her boyfriend (a doctor) think this was, perhaps, problematic?!". In other words, after trying to kill a patient, he neither gets an exorcist nor commits her to the booby hatch!!! Oh, and speaking of boobies...this movie is NOT the breast-filled sex romp its title and posters would indicate. While there are a few bare breasts here and there, they are irrelevant to the plot and only seen very briefly (1/2 second or so) in all but one scene. So, if you are a perv, this movie is not for you--though a few places in the film (such as the nurse undressing for a patient) make it look like the film MIGHT have, at one time, been designed as a porn flick.

If you are a bad movie fan, however, there is enough to whet your appetite. Some examples of incompetence are the inability of many of the actors to deliver lines that aren't zombie-like--and I am not even talking about Sherri. Especially noticeable is one of the very final scenes--I have never seen and heard some stilted acting and dialog in my life--and this includes Ed Wood's films! There are also a few more cheap touches, such as the bad animation of the "green stuff", the doctor finding a murdered nurse yet continuing to investigate in a house where walls are covered in blood (I'd get a cop...better yet, an army of cops).

So despite these problems, why do I think it's good for an Adamson film? Well, the story isn't all bad and he was able to build tension very well. Many false alarms early on made my heart race a bit. Also, the car crash, while irrelevant, came off pretty well and was practically big-budget for Adamson.

Overall, not a good film and one most people would be bored watching. However, fans of Adamson or inept films will like it--it does deliver some entertainment in a cheesy manner that will provide a few laughs.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
"Tipping The Velvet" is one of the modern day television productions that prove that some television can be just as good or even better(as this is) than what you see at your local theater. 

If you want to read the plot, read this and if you want other details skip down to the next paragraph. This is the unforgettable portrait of an unconventional young girl named Nan who works as a naive oyster girl,until she discovers her repressed homosexuality when she falls in love with a successful woman named Kitty who dresses as a male for her stage profession. The young girl soon joins the act as another male impersonator and they are a major hit. Soon the both of them embark on a tender affair. Kitty eventually becomes enveloped in a marriage of convenience and ravages young Nan's heart. From then on, Nan works as male impersonated prostitute to men looking to have sex with boys, then she becomes the private sex slave to the evil and sadomasochistic Diana where Nan experiences severe emotional abuse. When that ends badly, Nan is on the streets again where she recalls a young woman named Florence; a good-hearted socialist who had the true potential of being a wonderful partner. That's where Nan will discover the power of socialism and learn how to get back to fame. 

The region 1 transfer is of exceptional picture quality, there is a very good scene selection, an eloquent photo gallery and a fun interview between novelist Sara Waters and the film's writer Andrew Davies. 

The sets, costumes, cinematography and music are gorgeous. The acting, writing and directing are extremely strong and filled with realism, class and originality. I loved the film and the novel. Section III in the film is much different in the film than in the novel, because section III in the novel is great written down, but isn't screen material. I will be brave and say that I love the films interpretation of it much more. 

This breathtaking historical ingeniously combines Drama, Comedy, Erotica and Romance to vibrant perfection in a way that is both deeply moving and spiritually uplifting. For every mature and open-minded adult who has ever felt the pleasures, pains and power of falling in love and living life to it's fullest. A revolutionary production; an absolute must-see!

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This movie kicks ass, bar none. Bam and his crue have out done themselves with this film. Since I got the DVD (4 days ago) I have watched it three times and it gets better every time I watch it. I can't wait for Grind to come out in theaters. If its anything like Haggard it will be worth the wait.

Thanks, JTcellphone
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

Lazy writing, bad acting and wooden direction lead us to a 2005 Canadian-made TV movie called HUSH, not to be confused with about eight other movies using the same name. Tori Spelling and her doctor hubby move from SanFran to his small hometown, where they run into his old gal pal, who decides she still loves him. She gets pregnant with Tori's baby (don't ask) and starts knocking off anyone who might get in her way as she plans to reunite with her old flame. The actors playing the old gal pal and the doctor are not worth mentioning, as they act flatter than flat. Tori isn't much better, but at least she is something to focus on as the plot meanders here and there before arriving at a very lame and all-too-familiar conclusion. Watch instead THE HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: At the same time John Russell was playing ranch owner Nathan Burdette, trying to free his no good brother Claude Akins from sheriff John Wayne in Rio Bravo he was working the other side of the law on television. These years were probably the high point of Russell's career, his most noted screen role and his most famous television role, Marshal Dan Troop of Laramie in Lawman.

Russell kept law and order in Laramie the same way that James Arness did it in Dodge City on Gunsmoke. Unlike Gunsmoke, Laramie never developed the all the minor characters that gave you the feel of Dodge City at the time. Instead it concentrated on Russell taking care of business and learning the business of law to his eager young deputy Peter Brown.

Brown played deputy Johnny McKay who was a most respectful young man, constantly referring to his boss as Mr. Troop. He was pretty handy with a shooting iron, but was inclined to be impulsive. Good thing Marshal Troop was around.

The other series regular was the Kitty Russell of Laramie, Lily played by Peggie Castle. This is where Lawman most resembled Gunsmoke. There was an unspoken understanding between Russell and Castle that even the smallest of children couldn't have missed. And I wasn't the smallest of children when Lawman was in first run.

Sadly Peggie Castle developed substance abuse problems after Lawman's run ended. I remember a small obituary marked her passing in the first half of the Seventies. She was one beautiful woman.

Lawman was good no nonsense western from that golden era of the adult television western. It was one of the best.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I was very impressed with with this film which was directed by (Luigi Bazzoni). The story was about a young woman translator who suddenly has lost all memory of the last three days and has suffered nightmares about astronauts on the moon. She can not explained how this has happened to anyone. One day a postcard arrives for her from the island of Garma, where she goes to visit. strangely though people seem to know her even though she has never been there before. Also her dreams of astronauts on the moon come back to her.

I thought that this was a very strange Italian movie that seemed very haunting at times and there was also strange images in the film that seemed to stay with you throughout the the time you were watching the film. I would recommend this film to people just to see how good it is. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I realise it's very hard to live up to the first The 10 Commandments movie (which was grandiose and personally not a Charleton Heston fan) but wow...this movie/mini-series was disappointing. Even the animated The Prince of Egypt was better.

The one thing that threw me off was Ramses. Compared to Yul Brynner's version, Paul Rhys's version just seemed so weak and un-Pharoh like. The acting really wasn't that great. For a modern adaptation, I was expecting something better. It just didn't look as stunning visually as the first one. I guess they were running on a tight budget or something. There's an occasional voice-over narrator which I found strange and unnecessary. It also broke up the flow of the story. And um...God's voice/lines were kinda weird.

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

negative
I disagree with the imdb.com synopsis that this is about a bisexual guy preparing to get married. It's more about all the crap we go through - self-induced and because of our parents - that we have to "get over" when we grow up. Like the Linda McCarriston poem says, "Childhood is the barrel they throw you over the falls in." This movie is much more like a narrative poem. It's about life and the mistakes we make and hurt we inflict and experience over the years, and how in the end, it's all about love (I'm not trying to be hyper-sensitive or schmoopy) and finding and being with one special person.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I like the phrase "British post war suburban paranoia" that one of the reviewers used. It describes so well the kind of films John Mills excelled in ("The October Man" (1947), "The Long Memory" (1952)) in between "big" pictures ("Scott of the Antartic" (1948) and "War and Peace" (1956)).

This distinctly "Eric Ambler" style plot had John Mills playing Dr. Howard Latimer, who promises his friend, Charles, (unseen) to meet a visiting German actress, Frieda Veldon (Lisa Daniely) at the airport. A creepy "reporter" Jeffrey Windsor (Lionel Jeffries) is in his consulting rooms at the time and offers to give him a lift but while he is tracking the actress down Windsor informs him she is already in the car waiting!!! (something fishy is going on!!!). Howard is dropped off for his date and thinks no more about it.

The next night he finds her body when he arrives home from work, further more, he finds his friend Charles could not have rung him as he is still in New York and Windsor doesn't seem to exist. Earlier on a patient, Mrs Ambler(Rene Ray) who has been referred to him by Doctor George Kimber (Mervyn Johns) tells of her recurring dream about finding a dead body and a brass candlestick with a square base. It is a nightmare that is coming true for Howard but of course when Detective Inspector Dane (Roland Culver) interviews her, she denies all knowledge of the conversation - the candlestick is later found in the boot of Howard's Daimler.

When Howard is lying low, Robert Brady (Wilfred Hyde-White) visits him. He calls himself a "friend" - he has a photo of Windsor that he wants to trade for a box of matches Frieda gave Howard at the airport. Howard returns to the flat, Charles rings and while Howard is on the phone an unknown assailant knocks him out and steals the matches!!! Who can he trust - who hasn't something to hide!!!

This is a top thriller - not quite in the same class as "The October Man", but with John Mills doing what he does best - playing ordinary men caught up in impossible mysteries!!!

Highly Recommended.
I'm not even going to comment on what piece of trash this film is since that has already been established. However, watching this with my friends we all laughed out loud when the lead girl made a Shelley Hack reference while on the phone. We sat there trying to figure out why the writer would throw her into the mix. We can only assume he had a Charlie's Angels fixation at one time. Based on that reference, we assumed this film must have been made around her Charlie's Angels run in 1979 or 1980, but from what I've read here it was made around 1987. You sure couldn't tell that from the poor production values. It seems as though it was made by a college student for a film class. And while by no means would I expect a low-budget trash fest like this to be politically correct, the rednecks in this film sure did like to direct derogatory gay remarks to each other. Even so I'd still only rank this as the 2nd worst horror film ever made, second only to "Nail Gun Massacre."
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The Tender Hook, or, Who Killed The Australian Film Industry? Case No. 278. This sorry excuse for a period drama takes a cast and idea with potential  Rose Byrne, Pia Miranda, Hugo Weaving, in a Jazz-era gangster drama  and turns it into a sloppily paced and executed soporific. McHeath (Weaving) is a boxing promoter and gangster and functioning illiterate; for no apparent reason he's given to singing Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen songs before bouts. How post-modern. How stupid. Anyway. There's a boxer, Art (Matthew Le Nevez), who becomes McHeath's latest protégé, over his unfortunately Aboriginal stablemate Alby (Luke Carroll).

McHeath's flapper moll Iris (Byrne) makes the goo-goo eyes at him. Sexual tension squelches under the surface. Miranda plays Daisy, a friend of Iris's (these flower girls stick together) who keeps turning up in scenes unannounced. They practice dancing together and talk about "hooking up" with guys. In the 1920s. I stopped counting anachronisms after that. There's a subplot involving Japanese beer and a backstory of Broome pearl fishermen. I don't know what it was all about. For some reason that is not exactly (at all) explained, Byrne puts cocaine in Art's lemonade. McHeath thinks he's a drunk and sacks him. Byrne plots and schemes to help him out again. She's a big one for the plotting and scheming. Most of which causes trouble. McHeath's two gunsels, portly Ronnie (John Batchelor) and Russian Donnie (Tyler Coppin), debate bumping off McHeath when he realises their part in one of Iris's schemes, but Ronnie wimps out when he sees McHeath crying. A lot of practically incoherent scenes get in the road of the film finally ending.

Director Jonathan Ogilvie spends a lot of time working with cinematographer Geoffrey Simpson creating some pretty images, but utterly fails to generate a sense of style, which might have compensated for and decorated the wispy, pathetically underpowered script; unfortunately Ogilvie's sense of film grammar, the lack of structuring of the scenes and exposition, is stunningly incompetent. In an early scene, Daisy suddenly appears in the car with the protagonists. How she got there, and indeed who she is, seems to have slipped Ogilvie's mind. There are many more examples of this sloppiness. Where he chases poetic sparseness, he achieves only wan irritation. He gains awkward performances from actors who are normally reliable, badly miscasting Weaving and leaning on Byrne's ability to project a kind of haunted doll-like humanity whilst saddling her with an incomprehensible character.

It might not matter so much if the story had more substantial characters and stronger plotting preferably not stolen from a dozen old noir films and festooned with witlessly sprinkled pop-culture quotes. But it doesn't. It's boring.

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

negative
John Parrish is an ex Union officer who plans to sell his ranch and land to the Wilkison's over at Anchor. The trouble is that the price being offered is way to low and when they start to bully Parrish and his workers, he has a change of heart, particularly when things take a brutal turn for the worse.

Originally after watching this one i had a sense of frustration, chiefly because of the cast that was involved. When you got Edward G. Robinson, Glenn Ford and Barbara Stanwyck in the same movie, you hope that they get a story and script from which to excel. Sadly they don't get chance to produce a Western classic worthy of multiple revisits, or is that my over expectation is doing it a disservice?. Well i slept on it and decided to ponder further about the picture. I think yes it's fair to say that the actors in question deserved a better story from which to work from, it is, when all is said and done, a plot that has been milked for all it's worth, and then some. But The Violent Men is still a very rewarding film regardless of the missed opportunities evident with the production.

Glenn Ford as Parrish is as cool as an Eskimo's nose throughout, and it's always great to see Babs Stanwyck playing a bitch because she's good at it. While Eddie G, when one gets used to him being in a Western, is fine in what is an under written part. Robinson, who stepped in at the last minute when first choice as Lee Wilkison, Broderick Crawford got injured, is the one who is short changed the most by the makers, even supporting characters such as the devilish Wade Matlock {a grinning delight from the reliable Richard Jaeckel} and Judith Wilkison {a radiant Dianne Foster} get something to leave an impression with. But for what it is, Robinson's crutch toting "bad" guy is at the least memorable for all the right reasons.

Not shy on action and gun play, it's with the twists and almost Shakespearean tragedies that Rudolph Maté's film rises above the mundane, with all of it gorgeously framed by Burnett Guffey's stunning cinematography. Lone Pine in Alabama has been used on many a Western picture {see Seven Men From Now for another glorious use of it}, but here Guffey really excels and manages to dazzle the eyes at every turn. The Violent Men isn't a great Western picture, and perhaps a better director than Maté could have really given Donald Hamilton's {The Big Country} novel an adaptation to be proud of. But for every niggle and irk i personally had with it, i found two more reasons to actually really like it, so that it be, it's recommended, for sure. 7/10

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

positive
All-Monster congregation in the final film in Universal's renowned cycle of classic horror stories. Count Dracula (an intense, dapper John Carradine), calling himself Baron Latos, comes to Dr. Edelmann (Onslow Stevens) asking to be cured of his affliction. Naturally, this is just a ruse. Then, coincidentally, Larry Talbot (Lon Chaney), a.k.a. "The Wolf Man", shows up and of course he *really* wants to be cured.

As others have noted, the monsters don't get equal screen time. The Frankenstein Monster (Glenn Strange) gets thrown in at the end just for the purpose of including all of the Universal Monsters. Stock footage and library music are re-used here as well. The film spends maybe a little too much time with the Dracula part of the story, although Carradine gives an impressive, non-hammy performance in the role of the Count. The film is mainly a showcase for Stevens, who goes through a tragic character arc of his own, and does an excellent job. The women are gorgeous, and I have to say that I loved Jane Adams as the luminous nurse - who happens to be hunchbacked.

Of course, it wouldn't be complete without the inclusion of angry villagers.

Competently, professionally made chiller is, just for my tastes, not really scary at all, but entertaining regardless. It's a respectable series entry overall.

7/10
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I was shocked at how good this German version of films such as Scream was. Surpassing all the modern American efforts at slasher films.

It as what all those films don't. Likable characters, genuine mystery, suspense, graphic murders and a brilliant soundtrack.

This stylish horror film is one of the best of its kind to come out in years. German cinema is going from strength to strength just lately. Its a shame more people wont go to see such films because they are missing out. It is easily available on DVD so even if you hate subtitles I think you should see it. It will be one of the best horror films you will see all year.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

For me, a ten-star film is one that never dies in my memory, and yet can be watched over and over again with the same pleasure as the first time. This could be a technically flawed movie; the pleasure has nothing to do with spit-and-polish (my personal top-ten is idiosyncratic, to say the least!). John Carpenter's "The Thing" is one of very few films to fit this criterion.

I've been a science fiction fan since I was a child in the Sixties, and I read the John W Campbell short story on which the film is based ("Who Goes There") before I saw the original, black-and-white Howard Hawks film (as with a lot of people, that viewing was illicit, on the TV, when I should have been in bed!). That movie, as with so many that you see as a child in such circumstances, seemed near perfection: the suspense, the inexplicable nature of the alien, the photography; it all just seemed to work. I watched it many times in the years after (and still do, when it is shown on TV). Because of this, I avoided the Carpenter version for years - seeing remakes of one's favourite film is, I thought, always a mistake. When I did eventually watch it sometime in 1988/9, again on TV because there was nothing else on, I realised that I need to change "always a mistake" to "usually a mistake"! Carpenter had produced something different from the original film, closer to the original story, and truly wonderful. From the opening scene of the helicopter and husky, through the viscerally disturbing scene in the dog-pound, to that ending (sorry, no spoilers here!), I was hooked. The sound track alone lives with me - all I have to hear is a close similarity to that bass-over-snare drum beat, and I'm *in* the final scene again ...

Until seeing "The Thing", I had Carpenter down as just another gore-monkey, based only on comments and reviews in mainstream press. Since seeing "The Thing", I think I have seen most of his movies - I haven't gone out of my to do so, but if one comes up, just seeing his name as director is enough to make up my mind to watch it. He is thoughtful, and knows how to build a film up so that it reaches a point at which something will stick in the memory.

If you haven't seen "The Thing", and you enjoy science fiction, do yourself a favour - sit down in a dark room, wrap up warm, and prepare to have your memory enhanced!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

I have been reading a lot of different opinions and reviews of this movie, and I understand why a lot of people get mixed feelings about Ponyo, whether it be the story line, animation, dialogue, and so forth. And I believe the most simple way I can answer to this, is that it's a movie for a much, much younger age bracket. An age bracket much younger than that of Tonarino Totoro (My Neighbor Totoro).

Being a Miyazaki fan like the majority of the surfers on this site, I expected the wonderful animation, music composition, complex story telling, the great steady development of characters, how the story intertwines with today's society, etc etc etc of a typical Miyazaki film that we grew up with. And to tell you the truth, I didn't quite understand what the hell this story was supposed to be about or what the hell was going on until an hour and twenty minutes (with twenty minutes left in the movie), that this movie is NOT for the deep thinkers and hard core Ghibli-ists, but for the toddlers and youngins' and happy go lucky Japanese people. Also, I believe this movie is based on simplicity and creative animation; straight-up grass roots Ghibli Studios style. 

The fact that a villain is not present really surprised me, other than the father and maybe that crazy-ass typhoon. But other than that, this movie is just plain fun; to stimulate a young one's mind, and to make happy good time feeling. That's all. 

The animation goes back to the old-school mid-80s early-90s era of Miyazaki's films, where very specific detail wasn't a big focus, unlike Mononoke Hime (Princess Mononoke) and the latter. I admire the simplicity which kind of created some small nostalgia when I first watched Ghibli movies like Tonarino Totoro when I was a child. The reaction and movement of the children are all very similar to that of kids, and a lot of Studio Ghibli's body language is very noticeable. Studio Ghibli added some creative moments and sceneries that they can only do with it's wonderful animators, but it probably won't take the ritual Ghibli-ist in awe.

The Japanese dialogue also sounded very child friendly and a lot of scenes and dialogues are very, very relative from what Japanese kids and mothers would say and act. The music if very hoppy and "fluffy" I guess you could say (similar to Totoro) from beginning to end. Even the darker scenes didn't seem assertive.

In the end this movie is one of a kind. Just about every aspect of this movie is for children. And I waited a whole 80 mins to realize that. Quite frankly, I have never seen a movie told or shown it the way Miyazaki did. It's refreshing to see that Studio Ghibli can still tell a story for a wider, and much different scale of audience, and still keep that trademark Ghibli impression.
A raw edgy thriller that aimed for great philosophical heights it couldn't quite attain. I did still enjoy the film immensely. It had great elements of suspense, leaving me with that delightful spine chill I expect from thrillers, and it achieved this purely psychologically, without resorting to escalating blood and gore. The soundtrack and setting added to the suspense perfectly. At times, it was a bit unpolished, particularly the acting, and character development. It could only have been a better film if we had known more about the nightmares from the past the characters see when they close their eyes, and why they felt this desperate need to seek the "answer" that is so integral to the storyline. After all they seemed to continue to seek it, despite knowing or at least having an inkling of what might happen when they found it. I would recommend seeing this film if you are prepared to look beyond the grit to see the potential of a diamond in the rough.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: The earlier review is pretty much on target, which Altman was NOT with this film. I haven't seen it since its original release but I have seldom spent two hours in a theater feeling as miserable and disappointed as I was with this film. If some pretentious community theater attempted a sci-fi version of a Ingmar Bergman film, it might come off like this. I can't bring myself to give anything Altman has made a "1" but this is probably the nadir of a career that has had some remarkable highs and lows. I would have walked out, but as a paid film critic I couldn't. (Think about that the next time you envy movie critics.)
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Okay, so I'm a sucker for a good documentary, particularly where it tells a modern-day Don Quixote story. A caveat: I met Mark Borchardt in the winter of 1995/96 while he was still working on Coven. But I'll save that story for later. American Movie, which commenced production not long after, accurately portrays the person that I knew, although in greater depth than I expected or believed existed. This is simultaneously a very funny and very sad film, and is brilliantly executed. Mark comes across as his own worse enemy: his childlike ambition and optimism -- which I admire -- is undermined by his apparent artistic ineptitude as well as his bizarre fiscal expectations. But he's also a charismatic guy. His loyal Sancho Panza sidekick is equally likeable: loyal, if frazzled, to the core. Like Don Quixote, American Movie presents an often-ignored inefficient aspect of freedom -- that people will be drawn toward professions to which they are not particularly well-suited, irrespective of repeated failure. It is a great film.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

The true life story of perhaps the greatest football coach the game has ever known. Knute Rockne led the game of football out of the "stone age" with innovations such as the forward pass and offensive formation shifts. But he is probably best known for his motivational locker room speeches. Along the way, he brought fame and glory to a tiny, little, unknown Catholic school in Indiana. Pat O'Brien is incomparable in his role as Rockne. Terrific cast that includes Ronald Reagan who gives a great performance as Notre Dame's first, true superstar, George Gipp.

For Football aficionados, this is the greatest football movie ever made. Do yourself a favor and rent the black and white version. (Some versions have deleted scenes for some reason) If you got the good version, look for a brief cameo by the immortal Jim Thorpe as he sticks his head in the locker room telling Rockne and the team they only have a few minutes left before the 2nd half begins.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
The IMDB plot summary erroneously makes it sound like it is Noah Taylor's movie, when Fairuza Balk is the central character. It is unbelievable how such a cast of established actors could have been in such an amateurish, pointless, non-movie. Balk breaks up with Boyfriend Taylor, sleeps with the Devil (I guess - played by Dempsey), and accidentally kills Taylor -- who follows her about for the rest of the movie as a ghost. May be the worst movie I have ever seen.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Opulent sets and sumptuous costumes well photographed by Theodor Sparkuhl, and a good (not great) performance by Jannings as Henry cannot overcome poor writing and static camera-work. Henny Porten chews the scenery as Anne.

It's all very beautiful; but it's all surface and no depth. The melodramatic tale of a woman wronged made it a hit in America where the expressionistic "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" flopped in the same year (1920), proving that what is popular is not what endures. Lubitsch would be remembered for his lively comedies, not sterile spectacles like this.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: After watching Desperate Living, I was hooked on John Waters films. I heard about Pink Flamingos and had to watch it and boy was it worth it! Believe what you hear, it is trash! It is packed with everything filthy which is actually the main plot of this film. It contains the following: Incest, cannibalism, rape, chicken shagging,nudity (like you never seen before- beware of baby's birthday party entertainers),poo eating,arson, trailer trash, perversion, transexuality, egg fettish, cross dressing...... you get the picture. Above all, this is a definite must! Just beware of the birthday party entertainer and Divine wondering around the park!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
''Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit'' is the same type of animation and from the same creators of ''Chicken run'', but the story now is other: Wallace, a inventor who loves cheese and his smart dog Gromit who is always helping Wallace in his problems,are trying to keep the rabbits away from everybody's vegetables,since there is in their town, an annual Giant Vegetable Competition. But when Wallace tries an invention he did, to make the rabbits avoids vegetable, the one who is going to be cursed is him. Before watching this movie I didn't knew that these two characters already existed and were famous.I loved Gromit, and I think he is one of the coolest dogs I already saw.

aka "Wallace & Gromit-A Batalha dos Vegetais" - Brazil
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

I didn't see this movie when it originally came out, but there has been a couple songs sharing the title and the term still gets used from time to time and I figured there must be something to the flick, so I dug it up and gave a view. Now I would like the approximate hour and forty five minutes of my life back(it seemed much longer). There was nothing particularly bad about the movie, the acting was good, no large plot holes, of course there wasn't much plot to have holes in. There just wasn't a lot to the movie. There was some chemistry between the two but nothing compelling about their relationship; Nothing interesting about their story. Near the end when he attempts to chase down the train to catch his fleeing romance, neither my wife nor I wanted him to catch her. Honestly we figured they were better off with out each other and if they did get back together we really didn't care. So what's that say about this love story when even a 25 year old sappy romantic like my wife had no emotional investment in the relationship. I should have left this one in the "missed" category.

Logan Lamech www.eloquentbooks.com/LingeringPoets.html
First I am a teenager. OK, and I have to say this movie was pretty good. I think any kid ten and under will like it, but people my age an up might be a little, um, a, well, we'd describe the movie as LAME! But I liked it. It may be that I still act like a kid, or I visit a cattle farm every weekend, but this movie was cute. I did like how the actors were like kids, not little blonde cutesy pies, wearing three layers of clothes, a trendy hat, and about a thousand assecories (like most shows today, to name a few, Drake & Josh, Lizzie Mc Guire, well any kid show.) And the setting was perfect, but there was a flaw. The family was in debt, right? Why in the world did their internal house look like something out of a "western" versace store? That was one flaw.

The cameos are great, there's about five hundred of them, and the only explainable one is Julia Roberts being the main little girl's aunt. How in the world did they get everyone else? This movie seemed to be on a tight type budget.

I liked this movie, it was a fun one to watch, and I thought some parts were far fetched (Like a cow selling for $750,000? Ha! my butt a cow sells for that much!) But otherwise it was good, I liked it, and I could watch it again. But I'd never buy it, there's not even special features on the DVD! What's up with that? But do rent it, especially if you have little kids running around the house.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: A low budget may be an excuse for poor acting talent and pathetic looking fake gore. However, it is not an excuse for poor writing. It is a talent to be able to write dialog without making it sound forced and mechanical. The dialog in this movie was on par with most instructional videos shown to fast food staff in training.

I also understand that one must make a few exceptions when it comes to acting talent when you only have 20 bucks to spend on it. With that being said, no serious director would have looked at these scenes and said to himself, "that was perfect". I see better character acting on Canadian television.

This movie had a paper thin plot, bad acting, poor dialog and holds no intelligent ideas at all. This simply proves to me that some independent films are that way for a reason. If your looking for a quick scare, rent anything else. Even the "Cable Guy" was a scarier film. After watching this film, I think i would have been better off watching a re-run on the X-files.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Low-budget murder mystery about a Public Defender trying to clear his client of a murder the man had been convicted of 12 years previously. Complicating things is the fact that he escaped custody after his conviction, but the PD believes the man to be innocent of the murder and works to find the real killer. Gig Young as the PD is okay, and James Anderson as the convicted killer is actually pretty good, but the picture as a whole just rambles along with little suspense, and despite some good character actors in the cast, the performances are generally below par. Director George Archainbaud was apparently more at home making westerns--he was churning out Gene Autry's TV series at Columbia at around this time--but even if he had tried to inject any liveliness into this picture, the hack script would have defeated his attempts. Average at best, the film climaxes with a courtroom scene that's straight out of an episode of "Perry Mason" and is just as predictable.

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

negative
Writer & director Jay Andrews, a.k.a. Jim Wynorski, serves up more of his characteristic shlock with a decent cast menaced by grade-Z computer generated reptiles in "Komodo Vs. Cobra," as generic a rip-off of "Mysterious Island" meets "Jurassic Park" as you can imagine. The chief problem with this predictable yarn about monsters dining on mankind is the incredibly phony special effects. The cobra and the Komodo are hilariously awful. However, the graphics people do an okay job of integrating the monsters with their victims, not that any of this is in the least believable. Clearly, "Komodo Vs. Cobra" had a budget that so low that virtually everything non-human in its looks as fake as all get out. This cheesy monster epic takes place on a remote island where the U.S. military conducts top-secret DNA testing on animals. The result is that gigantic Komodos and cobra thrive in this tropical island paradise. As the action opens, the primary scientist is gobbled up by a cobra that likes to swim. After, we are introduced to a group of 'Greenpeace' like environmental protesters and a journalist. Planet One organizer Jerry Ryan (Ryan McTavish of "Hellbent") pays charter boat skipper Jim Stoddard (Michael Pare of CBS-TV's "Houston Knights") five grand with the promise of another five grand if he will take them to this forbidden island. Meanwhile, the U.S. military suspect that something is amiss on the island so they send their own team of men who give eaten by the supersized predators. Our heroes run into the last remaining scientist on the island, Dr. Susan Richardson (Michelle Borth of "Wonderland"), the daughter of the scientist responsible for this insane science project, who tells them that the military is going to target the island for destruction. The title match between the two overgrown predators occurs in the last quarter hour after our heroes, who have been consistently whittled down by the monsters, find a helicopter and take off in time before the military pulverizes the island. There's no tension, suspense, or anything worthwhile in this substandard creature feature. The best thing about this yawner is composer Chuck Cirino's orchestral soundtrack; it gives "Komodo Vs. Cobra" an epic feel. Usually, Jay Andrews writes and directs tolerable drivel, but this ranks far below his low standards. The sexy women fare better at survival than the guys. In one scene, our heroic group fords a river and we don't get to see any wet T-shirts. Drat! There's nothing in the way of memorable dialogue or relationships in this dreck. I think that the military guys do far too much saluting when they get their heads together to conspire. Let's hope that Michael Pare got a good payday out of this garbage. The ending as one of the scientists takes on the characteristics of a lizard comes strictly as an afterthought. It's not so bad it's good, it's just bad.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Pepe Le Pew can either really creep you out or totally sweep you off your feet. Either way, you can't help feeling a little awe on beholding this classic WB character. This commentater personally believes that Pepe was the inspiration behind other would be animated casanovas today from Cartoon Network's "Johnny Bravo" to Disney's Lumiere from "Beauty and the Beast". 

His unique brand of love making is to be wondered at in today's world where his antics would normally be slapped with a sexual harassment warrant and at least a 50m distance from all his victims. 

In this particular cartoon, a world weary cat decides to do an ultimate makeover and earn some respect for a change for pretending to be a skunk. All goes well, until Pepe arrives and promptly pursues the unfortunate feline with his overwhelmingly enthusiastic love-making.

The groundwork for Pepe's many trademarks are laid in this cartoon. From his adorable "frenchified" love calls to that aggravatingly calm hop-chase of his. 

This cartoon only goes to show that as far as the world of cartoon fantasy is concerned, the most ardent wooer can go the distance...and have his beloved "pig-eon" leaving dust trails behind them.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

MASSIVE SPOILERS AHEAD! OK the movie in a nutshell. so this girl goes out buys drugs gets pulled over by a cop, the cops name is Wolf. the cop feels her butt, then he eats her...okay? he beats her up and eats her. then this woman is at home and this guy come with bulging genitals and he does her up. then the woman goes into the other room and this black guy is there and she undresses.....then the movie turns into a porno. he starts sucking on her breasts, then she gives him head. then wolf walks in with blood all over him and says "honey I'm home" then he realizes his wife is blowing some black guy and he kills her, the black guy kills him cuts the girl out of wolfs stomach and the go home. the end and they lived happily ever after. THAT IS THE MOVIE.

now after reading this do u really think there is anything to like about this movie. the only thing i liked in the woman had a nice body. but the performances sucked, the story sucked, the dialogue sucked, THE WHOLE MOVIE JUST SUCKED!!!!!
While it's generally acknowledged one of the first martial arts movies to play here in the West, it's real impact comes in retrospect. Lo Lieh is VERY low key throughout and many of the fight scenes, while often hailed as innovative (which they were at the time of the movie's initial release), are a tad tame compared to what came after (particularly after Bruce Lee, who became the instant standard by which all others will forevermore be judged). That's not to say that FIVE FINGERS OF DEATH/KING BOXER is anything less than a classic in its own right, because it is. Like many of the leading characters in many martial arts movies, the character Lieh plays lays low through most of the movie for a reason- but, when he cuts loose, he effectively cleans house. You can't ask for more than that.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Great little short film that aired a while ago on SBS here in Aus. Get a copy if you can - probably only good for a few viewings, as you'll end up remembering the script - and it's the twists that make this film so funny. Well directed, and intriguingly scripted, it's an example of just how good low-budget short films can be.
Seriously engaging, intelligent and thought provoking drama at its very best. Mean, gripping, moody and captivating. Every home should have a copy! Don't take my word for it see it yourself. One Life Stand makes you consider your own lifestyle and how you treat your family and friends. Beautiful photography and impressive acting makes for one of the best cinema-graphic experiences of the year. John Kielty's debut is a delight and adds a real touch of truth and realism to this deep and gritty film. This is a film that cares and has an honesty that is unequalled in recent years. No car chases, but a film packed with hum our and emotion. I first saw this film screened at the Edinburgh film festival in 2000 and am now delighted to be able to own a copy on DVD.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Jimmy Stewart brings the story of Charles Lindbergh to life as he almost narrates the entire film while he crosses the Atlantic. It well edited with flashbacks over Lindeberghs life. Franz Waxman score is shear brilliant and truly gives the picture a heroic feel. One of Stewarts finest roles and this film can deliver time after time. Look for appearances by Murray Hamilton ( The Mayor in the JAWS Movie) as Bud Gurney.Comes out on DVD 8-15-06 with the release of a few more of Stewarts classic films. I consider Jimmy Stewart to be Americas greatest Actor and never tire of seeing him in any film I see, watch this picture and you'll agree.

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

positive