cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
I remember this film fondly from seeing it in the theatre. I recently found a copy on VHS & it held up to my memory of it. While obviously not a "big budget" film, the acting is quite credible & the scenery, locales, & costumes are very well done. I only wish the Mammoths had been in more of the picture, but when you see them, they are also well done (remember, SFX was done in those days without benefit of computers, some poor devil had to actually put all that hair & fake tusks on real elephants!)...the same effect was used on the elephants in "Quest for Fire". A better than average adventure film & a chance for the star, Rod Cameron to play something besides a cowboy, which he also did very well over the years.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
At last. Here's a movie that does as much for the reputations of the men of Greece and Russia as "Gigli" did for the those of Mr. Affleck and Ms. Lo. FROM THE EDGE OF THE CITY details the sad and sordid lives of some young Russian émigrés who live in and around Athens and spend their time burglarizing cars, getting laid, pimping woman émigrés and prostituting themselves ("But we're not gay because we don't do, you know.... And if we do, it's only once or twice. With the same guy.") There is hardly anything here you have not seen before and better; only the Athens locale adds a little novelty--even then there's but a scene or two that's scenic. Writer/director Constantine Giannaris ("3 Steps to Heaven") offer a relatively generic 95 minutes, in which the standout moments involve how stupid, sexist and (from the looks of things) pretty much irredeemable most of these guys are. (Interestingly, the gayer the guy, the more redeemable he appears.) What really rankles is the treatment of the women. Greek and Russian males would seem to give the Italians a run for their money regarding that famous madonna/whore complex. Has life in Greece improved much for women since the time of Plato and Socrates? One has to wonder.

If I seem to be equating Russians and Greeks in this review, I apologize, but even the non-émigrés pictured here (the cab driver, for instance) are creeps. According to another review on this site, the film (a hit on its home turf) was actually submitted by Greece for an Academy Award for Best Foreign Film. What this says about the state of Greek movie-making, I hesitate to ponder.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I still wonder why I sat through this entire thing. It only had about 3 minutes of actual entertainment, the rest of it was just a total bore. The acting isn't that great and the action scenes are soooo cheesy it's not even funny. I kinda wish I could say something good about this film but I can't think of anything right now. There probably was somethings in it some can enjoy but the ending of it is gotta be the dumbest idea ever. What type of person would get a little toy remote controlled helicopter with a burned in machine gun in it to assassinate the President? This idea could have never been done in the first place let alone have anyone dumb enough to try it, I guess the writer must have been to obsessed with the toy car scene in The Dead Pool but actually tried to make this look serious.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Pure schlock from beginning to end. The average 12 year old might find that it has an interesting take on discrimination. Otherwise, it's a pure camp-fest endurance test. Like one of those so-so episodes of Star Trek The Next Generation that thinks it has Something Important To Say.

You'll see every plot twist a mile off in this by-the-numbers romp. However, it's worth seeing for its portrayal of drag-king prostitutes, a brothel where young women pay old men to have sex with them (how's that for role reversal), and lesbian soap operas. The ghost of Valerie Solanis lives!
What's an example of a movie review?

I saw this film yesterday on TV. I had just finished reading the book in which the movie was supposedly based. In the opening credits it said "This is a free adaptation of Eça de Queirós' novel". I should have turned off my TV at that moment.

Vera Sacramento's idea of "free adaptation" is turning a story about Church's influence over people and the hypocrisy of people claiming morality at the end of the 19th century into a story about sex. In fact, the only thing she adopted from the novel was the sex part, which was only mildly referred in Eça de Queirós' novel. And, of course, the name of some characters.

As of the characters, in the novel, Amélia and João Eduardo were victims of church's influence. Amélia was seduced by Father Amaro and all the time she was controlled by him. João Eduardo, her fiancé, was excommungated by the priests, because he dared to criticize them. In this movie, Amélia seduces every one she meets and Father Amaro is just another victim. João Eduardo is a dealer of drugs and illegal weapons.

Vera Sacramento has turned a novel which criticized moral costumes of an epoch and turned it into just another movie with lots of (bad) sex. Even worse, her story was completely empty of ideas. Two wasted hours! Eça de Queirós surely did not deserve this.
Compared to director Kevin Connor's later ARABIAN ADVENTURE, this is a masterpiece. However, that's not saying much. In fact, AT THE EARTH'S CORE is a silly fantasy adventure in which Peter Cushing - who appears to be on something strong - and some other actor (whom I don't know) use a giant digging machine called the "Iron Mole" dig their way down to the Earth's core - only to find that the inside of the Earth is pink and populated by ape-like creatures who have enslaved the humans. There's also a giant bird that controls the apes by means of telepathy, and we get to see it blink its eyes in closeup throughout the film. Most importantly, Cushing and what's-his-name also encounter the lovely Caroline Munro in the subterranean caves. And here's what I've really got against this little flick: why oh why is it that whenever Munro's in a movie, she only gets approx. 5 minutes of screen time? In THE SPY WHO LOVED ME, MANIAC, DRACULA AD 1972, GOLDEN VOYAGE OF SINBAD - always she's in the background! How can Kevin Connor possibly think that we'd rather listen to Peter Cushing's fake accent and look at some ridiculous ape-man whose voice sounds like a scratched cd than gaze at the beautiful Munro? I don't get it. Please, somebody direct a movie where this English brunette is on-screen all the time!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I can see that the ratings for this film aren't all that high for this film, so I must be in the minority for liking this film so much. Well, I am right and everyone else is wrong (just kidding). I guess I like it because I am a psychology teacher and I really liked the brooding character played by Ryan. While he truly is dangerous as well as VERY menacing, you can't exactly hate him because he is clearly mentally ill and probably suffering from some sort of brain trauma. And wow did Ryan do a really good job portraying this man! You really find yourself feeling for Ida Lupino as he destroys her life. So with such intense acting and menace, why is the movie rated relatively low? Well, probably because it isn't exactly believable,...but boy is it entertaining and creative. Give it a try and don't believe the score of 6.4--it's a lot better than that!
This is without question one of the worst movies I have ever seen. However, it is also one of the most unintentionally hilarious. I like to compare it to Plan 9, in that it can be so bad, so awful,so dumb, and such a waste of time that I find myself laughing out loud.

One of my biggest problems with it is that it's a complete ripoff of Robin Hood, and let be honest and say that I love Robin Hood with Errol Flynn, and Robin Hood: Men in Tights. But let's face it, from the forbidden love between Peck (who is definitely slumming it. Although in all fairness this was still a good few years before the masterpiece To Kill a Mockingbird) and the female character (who is so forgettable, apparently, that I have forgotten her name.), to the final scene where the good guys dress up as monks to fool the bad guys screams "ROBIN HOOD" all over it.

However, I don't think the film isn't worth seeing. On the contrary, I think that this is one of the funniest movies I've seen in years, even if it was unintentional.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

OK this movie was by far worse then the first one and the first one sucked! The zombie make up was extremely fake! The acting is very poor! And it doesn't really follow the first one! While watching this I kept thinking wow the first one is a masterpiece compared to this. I would say catch it on TV, Don't spend your money on it! Its not the worst movie i've ever seen but its on the list. I started watching it last night and fell asleep so i watched it today and almost fell asleep again! The plot was pointless, I mean i get the fact that a small military group are sent on a mission to get the blood of the lead zombie and bring it back so they can use it to save lives and stop zombies but they made it where you wanted everyone to die. They made plenty of bad guys who really were just annoying. If you ask me this was a rip off of resident evil and not a good rip off either. The plot could have made it if the acting was good and if they actually made you feel scared to see whats behind the corner. With these zombies my grandma could have went in that building and survived! out of a 1-10 i give it a 2.
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

This is a poor caricature of "Lonesome Dove" - and Larry McMurtry.

I love your books, with "Lonesome Dove" among the top three. I have admired the way you view yourself, through your characters, with such unflinching honesty, balanced by never taking it all too seriously. I am, therefore, spoiled.

Why have you come to this?

"Comanche Moon" is not up to your standards. I see that you are credited with the screen-writing, but this is so unlike you, I prefer to think it is written by someone else.

The dialogue makes me claustrophobic, wishing someone would break out with a naturally stated sentence. The part about 'genius' was agonizing. McCrae was unrecognizable - chiefly because of the inane words coming out of his mouth.

Well, I miss Call, too.

The most important missing factors are Gus and Call and the men they are: their matter-of-fact courage; the underlying vein comprised of ethics and honesty; their lack of self delusion. Hard men leading hard lives with a certain undeniable grace.

Some blame has to attach to the labored direction here and throughout. All of the cast needed dialect AND dialogue coaching.

While I try to imagine Robert Duvall as McCrae, speaking this same dialogue, it comes off better - but not much. It tries to sound cowboy-of-few-words shy, sly-grin witty, but doesn't half succeed...

How can it be so different from "Lonesome Dove"? Can the writer have forgotten his characters? You have fooled some of the people, Mr. McMurtry - but not this one.
Determine the sentiment:

Inspired by True events, Radio is one of the best acted, heart felt dramas I seen widely released in sometime. It definitely is one of the year's best films of 2003. 

Radio stars Ed Harris, who is Oscar worthy nonetheless in this film, as football coach Harold Jones. Coach Jones has been teaching football all his life and loves the game. However Coach Jones does not spend much time with his wife and daughter played by Debra Winger and Sarah Drew. One day Radio, played by Cuba Gooding Jr., in his best performance since Men of Honor, comes by the football field while the coach's team is practicing for the game. Some members of the team, then tie up radio and throw him into a building. They then bang on the building and finally Coach Jones suspects something is wrong. He comes over and helps Radio, who is frightened, and from that point on Coach Jones and Radio shares a very special bond. Radio becomes the highlight of every football game and really enjoys participating in the football games and at school events. He also becomes Coach Jones's main interest in life over football which at first was his main priority before both his family and Radio.

The movie deals with all sorts of real life problems including what your priorities are life, accepting people for who they are even if they are different, death, and family relationships. The movie touches upon all those issues and more and is extremely well done and director Michael Tollin should be very proud of this film. The thing I liked most about Radio was how real it felt. The performances were like watching something in real life occur right before your eyes. Radio had a great mix of comedy and drama. Some parts were quite funny yet other parts were very serious and sad. 

In conclusion, I feel that Radio was very overlooked by Critics only getting average reviews. They must have there heads up there butts because its amazing how this film can only get 2 star reviews and something like school of rock can get 3 or 4 stars it doesn't make any sense to me. Also the performances as I mentioned before are top-notch and Oscar worthy. In my opinion, both Ed Harris, who I think is underrated as an actor, and Cuba Gooding Jr. should both get some kind on nomination for this movie. Radio is one my favorite movies of the year and gives me reason to still see some of the big Hollywood movies. My final rating for Radio is a 9/10.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Yes, I couldn't stop yawning, nor could my partner. Incredibly boring - 90 minutes seemed to stretch to at least 3 hours - and I'm not even a fan of action films, but this just falls asleep on its feet - unless you are a 70's polo neck sweater fan! 

** SOME SPOILERS FOLLOW ** If you were expecting ANYTHING to happen, don't hold your breath - it doesn't! 

But seriously, it totally fails to convince or involve the watcher. It's like a long, boring and rather disjointed dream. Frederic floats through it, able to leave work whenever he wants, and with attractive secretaries bringing tea and messages constantly. Obviously not real life! And an office with virtually no paper or files - just a giant calendar to let you know that the film really is taking 6 months to watch. 

Frederick never seems to be touched by any real emotion, neither does his wife, and the children behave like rag dolls - in stark contrast to any real life. Even Chloe, despite her strong views, never gives the appearance of really feeling anything. The only 3 seconds of any real feeling occur between a couple overseen in a cafe, and have nothing to do with the plot.

Okay, so maybe there are some moral considerations, but if it's entertainment, or even good cinematography you are looking for, I think this film is incredibly over-rated by most other viewers.

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

negative
This is a poorly written and badly directed short film, pure and simple. What is interesting and keep me watching, to some extent, was the production values. Shot on video it appears, with a bad script and bad direction, one would think it would also have horrible production value. That is what the viewer expects when they watch a film that is terrible and shot on video. BUT Not in this case, they spent some money and it shows. It keep me very mildly interested to see what was coming next, just to see!

Probably the worst short film I have seen that looked big budget hollywood even though it was shot on some sort of video format.

Instead of spending the sum of money they must have spent for some rather impressive set design, it would have been nicer to see a better executed story with some good direction. But then again how can we expect new filmmakers to do this when even hollywood won't.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: A young man, who never knew his birth parents, receives an old farm in an isolated section of West Virginia upon the death of his natural father. He visits his property with a cross-section of potential victims including the comic relief black guy and a trendy lesbian couple. (Hmm, will there be skinny dipping? Take a guess.) Unfortunately, the party comes to an end when the spirits of drifters killed by his evil great-grandfather and used as scarecrows come back for revenge. This film starts out well. An artful montage of depression-era photographs and phony newspapers set against a speech by FDR - this, I believe, is his first appearance in a killer scarecrow movie- establishes the mood. I developed some hopes for the film, which were partially realized. The story was serviceable enough. The setting was sufficiently bucolic. The photography was mostly in focus. The acting, while no great shakes, was slightly above par for horror movies in this budget range. The film might've actually worked within the narrow demands of the genre if the scarecrows were scary. But they weren't They looked cheap. They weren't frightening at all. The better the monster, the better the movie. These scarecrows wouldn't scare Dorothy, let alone Toto.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I rented this movie because it supposedly takes place in a jazz club -- you know, those hip, cool places you might stumble upon late on a Saturday night. Well, there's not one ounce of "cool" in this ridiculous movie. The score is goofy, the original songs are awful, both lead actors' singing is continually off-key (to be kind) and unprofessional at best, the plot is no more complex than "boy meets girl," the acting is laughable, and the only decent cinematic moments are the stock footage scenes. The jazz club scenes feature sophomoric dialog smothered by overly-busy organ music. This Joey de Francesco should keep his day job (unless his day job is helping with movie scores). Is it possible to not only get my four dollars back, but have my therapy sessions paid for as well? This movie, interestingly enough, is so bad, you might want to watch it. Sort of like driving by a bad accident -- you just have to look at least once. Just get the ear plugs ready!
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Cage plays a drunk and gets high critically praise. Elizabeth Shue Actually has to do a love seen with the most unattractive and overrated piece of dung flesh in Hollywood. I literally vomited while watching this film. Of course I had the flu, but that does not mean this film did not contribute to the vomit in the kamode. 

Why can't Nick Cage play something he can really pull off like a bad actor. Nick Cage who be brilliant in a role as a bad actor. Heck nobody could do it better.

The search begins for Nick's contract with Lucifer or was it Lou Cipher from "Night Train To Terror".
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I'm a fan of Get Shorty. This is the sequel for the movie that needed no sequel.

Chili is back but Rene Russo is gone without a peep. Unfortunately Chili's game was played out in the first movie and rather than find an interesting personal arc for him, they just have him stand around repeating lines from the first movie. It's pretty tepid. Travolta looks old here. It's like they move people around him because his bones are getting creaky. His pink lip gloss and the blue eye contacts are very weird. The 2nd bad role is Edie (played by Uma Thurman). She's a music producer, a role that requires her only to be the female Reuben Kincaid. ("Hey these kids have a great new sound.") In any scene she strikes the wrong pitch motivationally or emotionally or both. It's painful to watch. Despite it's plentiful problems, Be Cool gets better after a very unpromising start.

I certainly got my laughs out of it (Vince Vaughan running around on fire, Cedric the Entertainer, Ludicrous, the Rock, a t-shirt that says "widow" on it), but it offers no great memories after it's over. It's a helium-light love fest from the first frame. There's no one as pricelessly idiotic as Gene Hackman in the first movie. It's just about doing good in the world, for a couple of kids who deserve a chance (Beyonce & the Rock). Ho-hum. The first one wasn't preachy.

Working in (repeatedly) gags & lines from the first movie is annoying as is the dumb concession to the Rock's wrestling fans (he raises his eyebrow twice) as are the droll inside jokes: Steven Tyler saying "I'm not the kind of singer that make appearances in movies" ar ar.

The all-star spectacular line-up is part of the problem. The first movie wasn't burdened by "stars."

For a buck rental let's call it even.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

This was Laurel and Hardy's last silent film for Roach Studios. However, since the public had a real thirst for "talkies", this same short was re-made by the team just a few years later with only a few small plot changes. LAUGHING GRAVY was essentially the same plot except that Stan and Ollie were trying to hide a cute puppy from their grouchy landlord--not a goat like in ANGORA LOVE. This whole goat angle is the worst part of the film. While you could understand the boys wanting to keep a cute little dog (after all, it is snowy outside), why exactly they bring a goat home is just contrived and pointless. According to the plot, the goat followed them home and so they got tired of shooing it away and kept it. Huh?! This just doesn't make any sense--if it had been a giraffe or a cow, would they have done the same thing?! Apart from being an unconvincing plot, the movie itself is pure Laurel and Hardy, with a familiar plot and familiar roles for the comedians. This film features quite a few laughs, but unfortunately isn't one of their better films to wrap up their silent careers. This aspect of their careers just seems to have ended with a whimper.
Determine the sentiment:

This Spaghetti Western uses three American lead actors which takes away a little of the typical spaghetti aura. The plot is about an amnesty that the governor of New Mexico gives to all willing criminals to provide them a chance to start a new life. Usually this kind of opportunity is limited to past events but in this film it seems more like a licence to kill because even new crimes (like e.g. threatening the governor) are forgiven. The story is an endless chain of killings where nearly every character has only the purpose to deliver more carcasses. Only the few leads have stamina. Clay McCord is haunted by nightmares related to a childhood event where unsurprisingly he killed a lot of people. In the middle of the everlasting mayhem this kind of reflections lack credibility. Compared with similar films like e.g. BANDIDOS none of the characters in this film was likable for me.

Apart of the weak content which targets certain customers this film is well shot, sets are somewhat detailed and the acting is average. 

4 / 10.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
After nearly getting killed by a big dog, a stray cat thinks to herself, "Why can't I be a skunk? Then everyone would leave me alone." She looks around the junkyard and gets an idea: white paint, black paint and some Limburger cheese and some garlic......hmmmm. The next thing you know, we have the forerunner to "Pepe Le Pew," although in this cartoon, she's still a cat, she's a she, and just a skunk in disguise. 

The cat also is enjoying and taking full advantage of her new status as a smelly skunk. He's a happy, content guy now.....until a real skunk (with the Charles Boyer imitation voice) shows up! 

I did appreciate the cat putting on a Bugs Bunny outfit. However, overall I never cared for these French-takeoff characters, finding the stereotypical dialog overdone and not really funny, so I only rate this as "fair." I do this a point, however, for the moral at the end of the story.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

The story is disjointed and poorly written. We are given threads and a possible hook in act one, only to see it vanish. Had the writer bothered reading his work carefully, it wold have been apparent that Madsden's character's initial problem and meeting with the 'bad' girl suggests that there will be a troubled alliance between them as they try to solve his problem.

The problem goes nowhere. The relationship goes nowhere. And there is no sexual tension in any of the relationships. No-one digs anyone and no-one is appealing. The writing and directing is laughable. You can feel someone struggling with the mess and shifting the story focus about trying to extract some excitement. There is none. The writer/director is simply a beginner whose muddled efforts somehow became a movie. From simple errors such as '...they took polaroids...' - in Japan in 2007 ? to insulting errors such as nudity for eroticism, this movie is an insult. You cannot make them much worse.

And by plastering 'Madsden' on the talent list, the producers thought they'd have some success. He is hardly acting. Asia certainly is... and the result is some heroin-chic panto.

Give it a big miss.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
You can only describe this with one word and that would be WOW!!! Wow, I really did not think piece of crap like this could ever be released. If you watch a movie titled ninja then you expect to see at least some cool martial artists, right? However, none of these guys know any martial arts whatsoever and it seems like they went to china and picked the first people they saw on the street and trained them for a day in martial arts, that's the level of their martial arts skills! The actors are way overacting, the special effects are ridiculous and there is not any plot that makes any sense. This is the worst martial arts movie I've ever seen and I have seen plenty!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

For this movie, based off of a TV show, and a serious finale. I thought that it was a lousy way to end off a serious. 'M*A*S*H Goodbye, farewell, and Amen' was pretty good, but not this one. Unless you really love the series (Like myself) skip this movie.

I was a loyal fan of the show Even Stevens, but the plot was too gimmicky, and Dave Coulier, man, that guy hasn't done anything good...well, ever. They shouldn't have used Tim Meadows, he's a great actor, but he was too good for the script.

I thought the movie was pure cheese. I would give it a 4.5/10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is one you can watch over and over and laugh just as much each time. We have been on a Keaton fest around here after purchasing some of his films. In this one Buster is mistaken for an escaped murderer and there are lots of chase scenes and crazy scenes but also what is best about Buster - his creativity. The opening scene is really funny and it just keeps going from there.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Lisa Grant (Adrienne Barbeau) is a real estate agent who finds herself in jeopardy of getting killed by a deranged maniac who kills people in her profession who he feels make house prices too high. As motives go, this is pretty damn retarded. Lisa's boyfriend happens to be a talk show host whom the killer keeps calling on-air. At first I was positive this was supposed to be a comedy or satire of some kind, but as the endless minutes drone on and on, I realized that it wasn't and the film was just grossly incompetent in every way, shape, and form. I'm just surprised that something this horrid wasn't directed by Jeff Lieberman (yea, email me some hate mail again, Jeff you hack) Anyway, back to the film, poor, poor Barbeau, you can pinpoint EXACTLY when her film career went down in flames and it all started here.

My Grade: F 

Where I saw it: The Movie Channel
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

"Go Fish" garnered Rose Troche rightly or wrongly the reputation of a film maker with much promise.

Its then hard to understand how she could turn out a movie made up of stereotypes that one associates with inferior sitcoms. The entire film rings hollow. I cringed the whole way through.

Its supposed to be a look into nineties human sexuality. Well not much more here to be learned than from "In and Out". By now most of us actually do know, that there are men who are sexually attracted to women and there men who are sexually attracted to men and there are even men sexually attracted to both sexes. 

Seldom has this revelation been portrayed on the screen with so little wit and style.

Pathetic.
Determine the sentiment:

I had the terrible misfortune of having to view this "b-movie" in it's entirety.

All I have to say is--- save your time and money!!! This has got to be the worst b-movie of all time, it shouldn't even be called a b-movie, more like an f-movie! Because it fails in all aspects that make a good movie: the story is not interesting at all, all of the actors are paper-thin and not at all believable, it has bad direction and the action sequences are so fake it's almost funny.......almost.

The movie is just packed full of crappy one-liners that no respectable person could find amusing in the least little bit.

This movie is supposed to be geared towards men, but all the women in it are SO utterly unattractive, especially that old wrinkled thing that comes in towards the end. They try to appear sexy in those weird, horrible costumes and they fail miserably!!!

Even some of the most ridiculous b-movies will still give you some laughs, but this is just too painful to watch!!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

THE D.I. (4 outta 5 stars) Wow, I certainly did not expect to be enjoying this movie as much as I did. I had never even heard of it until I saw it sitting in the discount video bin one day. I figured Jack Webb playing an army drill instructor might be good for a chuckle but figured the drama would pale in comparison to such recent movie D.I.s as portrayed in "Full Metal Jacket" or "An Officer and a Gentleman". Boy, was I wrong. This is probably the best work Webb has ever done... far and away better than his one-note "Dragnet" performances. The delivery of his tough guy dialogue is just brilliant... done in his patented deadpan monotone and yet you *know* that the guy means every word of it. The story might seem a little hokey compared to the grittier military movies that have followed but I still found the movie fascinating and compelling. Even a completely unnecessarily musical interlude in an army nightclub had me hooked. Anyone know where I can get a copy of that terrific Ray Coniff song "If'n You Don't, Somebody Else Will"? Webb plays the toughest dang drill instructor ever... and he's under pressure to kick out the deadbeat Private Owen but, by golly, he sees a man buried somewhere in that sissyboy and he's gonna drag him out kicking and screaming! Great stuff!
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I found West Point to be an agreeable film, although I doubt that I would watch it again. The performances were convincing, with William Haines as yet another obnoxiously amusing young man that has his come-uppance by film's end. It's hard to believe that stardom beckoned Joan Crawford less than a year after this film was made, as she looks rather awkward at times. 

I would apply the comment made by another concerning Ramon Novarro's "Huddle" (1932) to this film as well. There is a great film waiting to be made here, but there is something lacking. The backdrop and integration of the Corps was well utilized, but I was less involved than I thought that I would be. Perhaps Haines' character went too far, or got away with too much. His "repentance" did not seem genuine enough; and what kind of message did it send for him to run every play in the last minutes of the Army-Navy game? Where's "the Corps" in that? Might as well have taken out the other ten men and let him do it all himself. Also, I doubt very much that William Bakewell's weak, puny character would ever have a real-life counterpart at West Point.

All this aside, the film is sometimes very moving and inspiring. It is a fine look into the daily practices of an honorable institution. Thank goodness that tradition still means something at West Point too, unlike the vapid "traditions" of Ivy League schools, only half-heartedly engaged in these days.

As to the score: it was appropriately martial. But, there was a distinct over-use of snare drums. Using them for knocks on the door, scene transitions, et ALU as well as in well over half the scenes got to be rather tedious. It rather lessened the viewing experience. I was ready to say "I GET THE POINT ALREADY." 

With that, enjoy the film, but don't expect too much emotional involvement.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Everyone told me this movie was downright not good, and sick etc. so I finally rented it and I was amazed . I thought the torture was gonna be much much worse, but it did get shocking near the end but that was about it. I wouldn't call it a horror movie, maybe a mystery or something under the category of Silence of the Lambs and/or Kiss the Girls. It did get stupid at times, but the rest of the movie kept me on the edge of my seat. 7/10

Rated R - for strong torture, violence, language, and sexuality
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This moody, creepy horror flick begins on a castle atop a cliff overlooking the sea, a great setting, as a vampire bat flies in and creeps toward a sleeping doctor (Onslow Stevens). The bat changes into a man known as Baron Latos, in reality Count Dracula (John Carradine). He seeks Dr. Edelmann's help to cure him of his vampirism. Eventually the good doctor also wants to help his hunchbacked nurse-assistant (Jane Adams), the Wolf Man (Lon Chaney), and Frankenstein's monster (Glenn Strange). But Dracula's trickery contaminates the doctor's blood, and he becomes a Jekyll/Hyde vampire himself. This is somewhat better than the prior year's "House of Frankenstein", being less episodic and more exciting visually. There's a haunting scene where Dracula tries to lure the second nurse (Martha O'Driscoll) into his world, where she is initially playing "Moonlight Sonata" on the piano, which soon gives way to terrifying music. Director Erle Kenton uses expressionistic shadows and eerie music to frame many sequences, including a wonderful montage sequence that the studio frequently used in their horror features. Two performers are of note: Stevens, with his wonderful voice, is at first sympathetic, then convincingly menacing. Adams, her beautiful face in alarming contrast to her twisted body, exhibits great pathos and sympathy. It all ends in a slam-bang climax, typical of 1940s Universal horror, a little abrupt, with footage borrowed from "The Ghost of Frankenstein" (1942). I hope Universal releases it soon on DVD (it was left out of their Double-Feature releases).

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

positive
Overall, the movie "Heart of Darkness" was pitiful compared to the book. Anyone who has ever read the book and had a sufficient understanding of it would be able to see the countless obvious flaws. There is an immeasurable difference between the two. It seems to me that the director was walking into a losing battle. I couldn't imagine that someone would take on the monstrous task of recreating "Heart of Darkness." The immense detail and magic of the story would be impossible to justly interpret. Conrad's story had so many layers and so much depth that it would seem pointless to try to make a visual interpretation.

First, capturing the details of the story is unattainable. The colossal fine points created by Joseph Conrad cannot be rightfully recreated through film. Marlow's feelings and emotions cannot be equally construed in the movie. If you have taken on the enormous task of tackling Conrad's work then, you know as well as I that Conrad only wrote half the story. The additional half is a series of connections made by the reader. You, as the reader are required to be capable of inferring and connecting Joseph Conrad's ideas. As a result, several crucial details are absent in the movie.

Also, although the movie was an adequate length, the film seemed short. It seemed that Conrad was able to pack many more details into 75 pages than the movie could pack in an hour and a half. The speed of the movie kept the viewer from getting to know the characters. Marlow was much more of a stranger. The viewpoint of the book puts you into Marlow's shoes. However, in the movie, you're almost watching Marlow from a distance. I began to think that the director was trying to utilize the same "read between the lines" method as Conrad did. However, the connections were weak. I know that if I had not read the book then, I would, in no way, be able to begin to understand the depth of the situation and the characters.

Finally, Kurtz also seemed to be interpreted incorrectly. His role was short and the details weren't all included. It was impossible to comprehend the true Kurtz in the length of time he was shown. An important detail in the book was that Kurtz had become a god to the Africans. I didn't think that significant detail was defined. Also, in the book, Kurtz represented a soulless being. He had died inside long ago. I believe the director comprehended this detail. However, instead of recreating it, he just had Kurtz mope around and mumble everything. Moreover, it seemed like the director attempted to make Kurtz seem mysterious, however, instead, he seemed entirely unidentified.

Altogether, this movie reminded me of a teenager cramming to finish a science project, due the next day. It appeared to have been crafted effortlessly and in hardly any time. The characters were alienated, crucial details were left out, and, overall, the central plot was lost in translation.

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

negative
Oh boy! I really trashed Manhunt in Space. I think this flopper deservedly rates worse than Manhunt. It goes nowhere and fungi growth was more exciting than this tripe.

Poor Cleolanta. She's so misunderstood. Smug Rocky struts around and thankfully, there's no mention from Winky about his "gay nightlife". There's a lot more talking, a really awful (to watch) space marriage on the rocks, and crappy space effects cut-outs. Then, there's Bobby. You decide who's more annoying: Bobby or the Winkster? Personally, I'd jettison them out of an airlock into a black hole not before first subjecting them to killer flesh eating alien mutants.

At least there's Vena. She's just a cosmic girl!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I adore Hedy Lamarr. I think she was vastly underrated as an actress during the 40s. She was the Nastassja Kinski of that era, and critics didn't take her seriously. Having said all that...this film is a BORE. When I watched it for the first time, I was shocked at the lack of continuity, not only in story, but in makeup and costumes. Hedy's makeup changes from shot to shot. So does hair length and style. Reason: This thing had so many writers and underwent so many stops and starts it's amazing they ever released it at all. Her "Lady of the Tropics" began filming AFTER this one began, yet it was released before "I Take This Woman." In fact, at the time, it was known in Hollywood as "I Re-Take This Woman." That should tell you something. I'm a Spencer Tracy fan as well, but he is AWFUL here. I've read in various film histories that he absolutely despised Hedy Lamarr, and that looks perfectly obvious on film. NO chemisty whatsoever. The story wanders around for reel after reel and finally just rolls to an end very strangely. I can't recommend this one at all.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

This young filmmaker has a talent for capturing his audience quickly with unusual camera work and sparse but intense scripts. The concept here of combining animation with live footage is remarkably well-executed and the soundtrack is very good.

The decision to release the movie in twelve parts online puts the onus on the director to make each episode fascinating enough for the viewer to invest in buying each upcoming episode. I only wish all motion pictures had this kind of commitment to keeping their audiences entertained throughout their stories.

Highly recommended.
Write a positive movie review.

If you're actually reading this review, I give you a lot of credit. You care enough to actually look up this movie, which most people have forgotten about and then cared to read beyond the first review! So for your reading pleasure...

I'm assuming you know the plot line already so I won't waste time typing that out. I will mention that Sandra Bullock did an amazing job with this movie. She really brought a lot of sympathy to the role of a computer programmer, often difficult to do. I can say this because I happen to be a computer programmer.

Anyway, I thought the basic plot was a very good one. You can easily build sub-plots upon its mainframe and turn it into a very enjoyable movie. The premise is also scarily realistic in that this can all really happen if the right precauctions aren't taken.

To make a long review short...oops! Too late! If you enjoy Sandra Bullock bringing a role to life and want to see a very well made movie for the time, take a look at this little gem. You won't be disappointed. :-)
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This series takes a classic story and makes rubbish of it. Robin is somehow mystified by an elk-man in the forest and is embroiled in all sorts of druidism and outright satanic episodes. The story is more about him avoiding the evil sheriff than helping the poor. This is barely watchable. And to top all the ridiculousness they kill Robin at the end of series 2 and replace him with another actor. Some people may like this show as a fantasy show but it is NOT a Robin Hood show. If you want Robin fighting in king Richards name against Prince John and the sheriff and if you want Robin feeding the poor and oppressed, watch the classic series or the newest from the BBC.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Young Elijah Wood and Joseph Mazzello are outstanding in this excellent film about two boys who have promised to "take care of their mother," and how they cope when their new stepfather begins beating the younger boy. The supporting cast around the boys is top-notch as well. The script really gets inside the mind and heart of an imaginative child. It's hard to believe Wood could grow up to look anything like Tom Hanks, but that's nothing new in Hollywood. That's honestly my only criticism of the film.

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

positive
Interesting premise; interestingly worked out; the strongest feature of this film is the emotional tension of the astronaut who knows a truth, but is unable to convey it to others. Overlook the weaknesses and just enjoy the movie, but be prepared for a certain level of suspense.

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

positive
Two horse traders arrive in a town and meet up with the leader of a group of Mormons who are bound for a valley where they can settle and live in peace. The scenes of the corral in the town where Ward Bond and Ben Johnson negotiate prices, and Bond introduces the idea of them (Johnson and his partner played by Harry Carey Jr.) leading the train to this valley, are some of the best in the film, as Johnson, a real cowboy, whittles a piece of wood while he banters with Bond. Once on the trail they come upon Joanne Dru, who maybe John Ford saw in Red River, and offered her a much better part in this film. In the Morman train are a number of notable characters. The Mormans are a peaceable group who are challenged along the way by a truly lowlife group of outlaws. In their case (the outlaws), in the case of the people on the train, and later a band of Navajos whom they encounter, and in the well written characters played by Ben Johnson and Ward Bond, the film completely evades stereotypes, while the camera seems to spend as much time giving the viewer the big picture of Monument Valley framing the train as it moves along with a few water crossings along the way, in stunning black and white and then coming back to what's happening in this rolling community, all to the accompaniment of the beautiful vocalizations of the Sons of the Pioneers.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This Harold Lloyd short wasn't really much; not one of his funnier efforts. Of course, I never see bratty kids as anything hilarious. That's what the bulk of this story is, Harold and his wife, Mildred Davis, babysitting his in-laws two young kids. One is a baby who is constantly crying and the other is a four-year-old terror who does everything but demolish the house. Letting the kid create havoc over and over was not entertaining to me.

The best part was the last four or five minutes when the couple thinks that this big goon (Noah Young) is burglarizing their house. Half the time it's the pet cat scaring the couple, but overall, that segment is fun with some good sight gags, reminding me of another Lloyd short, "Haunted Spooks."

However, the good ending doesn't save the whole picture, which I probably wouldn't watch again. Lloyd has done too many other good things to waste even 25 minutes on this one again. It just isn't that funny.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

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

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

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

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

This film must be based on a true story or must have been written by someone who lived these experiences. I rate it 8 out of a difficult 10.
"The Couch Trip" is one of those silly comedies that they cranked out in the '80s. In this case, Dan Aykroyd plays a mental patient who poses as a psychiatrist, and he goes to Beverly Hills to sub for Charles Grodin. Most of the movie's humor springs from their satirical look at Beverly Hills and people's empty lives there (a woman has a power struggle with her maid).

It's the sort of movie that you just watch to have a good time. Don't expect any kind of religious experience. But you'll most likely laugh a lot at how the Beverly Hills people flaunt their wealth. Also starring Walter Matthau, Donna Dixon, Arye Gross and Victoria Jackson (of "UHF").

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

positive