cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Eisenstein's first sound film retells the battle of the ice of 1242, when the Russians under Alexander Nevsky defeated the Livonian knights, eager to bring Russia under Roman Catholicism. Made in 1938, Nevsky can be seen as a piece of propaganda: the Germanic knights, with their sinister (and somewhat goofy) helmets are obvious stand-ins for the Nazis. The butchery by the knights when they enter a Russian town seems a prophetic warning of the massacres of World War II. The film ends with a warning: those who came to Russia with the sword will die by the sword. Made in delicate black and white (somewhat reminiscent of a daguerreotype), it also marked Eisenstein's return to official favor. By the late 1920s, Stalin wanted Soviet filmmakers to stop experimentation and made movies that would be more populist and palatable to the Russian public. That stopped Eisenstein's career in Russia for a decade, and in Nevsky he came back with his more accessible film. Nevsky's strong point is in its second half, which features the battle itself, and it is justly seen as a milestone in movie history: never before (and probably never after) a battle would be so vivid in the screen. Another strong point is Prokofiev's beautiful, haunting soundtrack (using a composer to score a movie was completely unusual at the time). One of its weaker points: the comic relief (in the form of two simpleton Russian warriors trying to woo a beautiful Russian peasant) is really jarring.
Determine the sentiment:

I first saw this film in Austria when it first came out, and I was entranced by it. It is a passionate and deeply moving work that should be experienced by all connoisseurs of motion picture art. What a shame that it has never been released in DVD format. Perhaps one of these days that will be rectified, as it would be a shame indeed if one of the best films ever made was forgotten and left to fade away in some film vault forever.

Why is it that 'B' movies like 'American Wedding' and 'Eurotrip' get widescreen and fullscreen releases, and often a special edition with multiple commentaries and extras, while great art pieces like 'The Dead' are all but forgotten?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
When the budget doesn't allow for a Cadillac or Packard or Lincoln or Imperial hearse we are talking cheep cheep. That's bird language for cheap cheap.

What is in the hair of the forty year old teen boy? The guy who looks like a cement head who tries a couple of times to run over John Agar and provides the only scare in the movie by how close he comes. His hair looks like a shoe. A patent leather shoe. He is a shoe head.

The nurse woman needs immediate emergency hair washing. She has lacquer in her blond locks that would ignite if the production company had been able to afford lights.

The monster? The music was scarier. I would try to run from the music. The monster probably had better hair than the rest of the cast. Put some lipstick on that monster and you've got Divine's older sister.

The camera work and editing and plot provided a buffer to prepare the audience for the bad music throughout.

Hello Mr. Agar? We're thinking of doing a sequel to Night Fright and... Mr. Agar? Agar? Tom Willett
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

"What's his name?" "Loudon." "Loudon what?" "Clear."

That gag still gets me, TWENTY ONE years after the film was released.

I loved the film back then and I love it today. I must have watched this a hundred times back in the day, and when I bought the DVD recently I could still remember some of the dialogue.

Madonna plays Nikki Finn, a young woman jailed for a crime she didn't commit. When she gets out she decides to seek revenge.

Griffin Dunne (whatever happened to him?), plays an attorney for his fiancée's father (John McMartin). The future father-in-law asks Loudon to take Nikki from prison to the bus station and to make sure she gets on the bus, as part of a supposed new public relations programme. A seemingly easy task, but there are complications aplenty, some funny dialogue, and some admittedly stupid-but-funny scenes along the way.

Madonna has a stupid voice in this film, which until I was able to watch with subtitles made one or two lines of dialogue incomprehensible for me (hence only 8/10), but on the other hand I can't imagine her doing it in her normal voice.

This film shows Madonna's comic side (too lacking these days, perhaps), and she genuinely is funny in the role. Dunne makes a great foil, while Haviland Morris is perfect as the uppity fiancée.

Yes, it's predictable, yes, the jokes could be better, but I think this is a great film and will happily sit down and watch it 100 times more.
Write a negative movie review.

I rented this movie primarily because it had Meg Ryan in it, and I was disappointed to see that her role is really a mere supporting one. Not only is she not on screen much, but nothing her character does is essential to the plot. Her character could be written out of the story without changing it much.
Despite its pedigree, the most interesting things about this series are not the animatronics or puppetry, which, while charming, are little more than sideshows, at least in the story I saw, A STORY SHORT. In fact, loathe though I am to admit it, the programme's chief pleasure lies in that most ancient art, storytelling.

John Hurt, in Rowley Birken QC-mode, grotesque, medieval make-up, relates a story about story telling, seated by the fire, accompanied by a cynical dog. One winter's day, starving and poor, he spots a fellow beggar thrown out of the Royal Kitchen by the nasty cook. The Story Teller tricks this latter into giving them an excellent soup. Furious, the Cook pleads with the King for permission to boil the villain, but, pleased with the Story Teller's wit, the monarch offers him a reprieve - for 100 nights, he must tell the King a new story: if he fails to do so, he will hand him over to the cook.

The story may be old, but it's told with great gusto. Anthony Minghella's script is excellently dramatic (as befits a playwright), witty, and with some disturbing concerns beneath the fun, such as fears for the self, or the culturally self-generating power of storytelling, linked to the continuation of ideological power. For a programme aimed at children, it is bracingly self-reflexive (with little nonsense about film being the new oral culture); despite the Americanised style, there is a charming sense of medieval bustle, its grotesqueness and arbitrary terror, as well as its magic and power.

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

positive
"SHUT THE FRONT DOOR" That's what I said when I was told that Blockbuster got a new movie in called Snakes on a Train. Okay, maybe that's not exactly what I said, but you get the point. I didn't need to know who was in the movie, or anything else. All I knew was that I am renting this movie.

I probably should have asked what it was about though. In retrospect, I don't know if I would have really wanted to watch a movie about a Mayan curse that causes a woman to give internal birth to snakes and have them spit out of her mouth. Nor would I want to see a movie that features a guy who looks strangely enough like a pedophilic version of Leif Garrett.

Anyways, while the curse might be interesting on some levels (well, maybe not), there was still promise of these annoying characters getting eaten or at the very least, killed by snakes. So I was willing to sit through the first hour of very little happening other than a Texas Ranger forcing a girl into a nice little titty grope so she can keep her cocaine, or the Hispanic shaman that likes to occasionally stab people. But then, all hell broke loose, and the girl started to spit out more and more snakes.

*SPOILER ALERT* So everything's going well at the end, and I'm willing to overlook the fact that some of these snakes all of the sudden turned out to be 25 feet long. After all, people are getting eaten, so it's all good. But then all of the sudden, and I'm not going to tell you how because that would ruin the best part, one of the snakes is about 300 feet long. Then it proceeds to squeeze and devour the train, with all the graphic artistry of Serpentaur from the old GI Joe cartoons. Unfortunately, I could not make a Nemesis Enforcer connection with this movie. Anyways, so you would think that a snake that big, who ate a train, would be pretty unstoppable. Well not if you know your Mayan voodoo rocks and have the ability to summon tornadoes from heaven. Yeah, that's all I'll say about that.

In short, this movie is bad. Really bad to the point where you might be numb after watching this, or your brain might hurt. I didn't give this a one, because no matter how stupid it was, it still wasn't as bad as Date Movie. So if you like camp or badly constructed B horror movies, this is the one for you. If you think this will actually be cool like its bigger, more infamous brethren, just walk away from the box if you see it. And I'll leave you with a quote from the movie that should basically sum it all up.

"Snakes can't get on a train!" Because that's just silly. Not like they make stops or anything....

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

negative
A Delta Force Army unit, assigned to find a batch of missing Green Beret bad-asses not known for going completely missing, will be in a fight for survival against a cloaked skeleton man, the supposed spirit of an ancient Indian warrior who was revived when archaeologists disturbed his grave. The Skeleton Man rides a horse and has the ability to propel to and fro using a type of dimensional portal, and seems unaffected by bullet-fire and explosives. The Skeleton Man's horse leaves no hoof prints and he can ride from behind and around his prey silently. The film's point-of-view through the Skeleton Man's eyes looks at his prey with a different color. In other words, he's not seemingly human, so how can Captain Leary(Michael Rooker, as grizzled and intense as ever)and his gang of would-be commandos stop this menace? For some reason, the Skeleton Man murders employees of a nearby chemical plant. What are the Skeleton Man's motives for slaughtering endless human beings? And, why is a blind Indian living in the forest our commandos inhabit spared if the Skeleton Man, as a human, slaughtered his entire tribe to prove himself? 

As completely stupid as it sounds. Just unbelievable horrible. This is the kind of film that can deaden brain cells. Casper Van Dien gets second billing in the credits just under Rooker, yet is saddled with a ridiculously underwritten character who exits the film quite early. Rooker deserves better than this. If I were an actor, I wouldn't want this movie in my resume. The Skeleton Man is a reject Templer Knight from a de Ossorio film. He has a spear which can merely knock certain people down while exploding the head of a woman on impact. An arrow shot from the Skeleton Man's bow actually destroys the propeller of a chopper plane. For nearly 99 % of the film, bullets are shot at the Skeleton Man and he can go in and out of that portal thingee yet, at the end, all of a sudden, he becomes vulnerable to attack. Oh, and the horses also change as the Skeleton Man freely moves through the forest from that portal.The film is written and edited by clowns. The attack scenes are poorly constructed and the characters, who are supposed to be experienced pros, make really bad decisions throughout this film. The mind boggles with this film. Good for some laughs, and some gore scenes make this hunk of pure crap watchable as a trash movie.

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

negative
Sitting in a big wing chair with a huge book in his lap, the one and only Bela Lugosi looks into the camera and, in a dreadful vocal delivery that sounds as if he were mocking a reading of Shakespeare, intones sloooow-ly: "Man's constant groping of things unknown, drawing from the endless reaches of time, brings to light many startling things; (snicker); startling?, because they seem new (Lugosi's eyes now bulging, with raised eyebrows, and mouth sneering, he continues) but most are not new, the signs of the ages" (cue a visual of lightening, accompanied by the sound of thunder which then continues to rumble for an astonishing 86 seconds).

And so begins what is arguably the worst film ever made. This "movie" almost defies description. Told in semi-docudrama style with an unseen narrator explaining the plot ... such as it is ... the story revolves around the vicissitudes of a man named Glen (Ed Wood, Jr.) who cross-dresses; hence the reference to Glenda. The film has no real structure. Instead, it consists mostly of a random assortment of vignettes that may ... or may not ... relate to Glen or to the cross-dressing motif. One long sequence consists of some unknown woman wriggling on a sofa, followed by a man whipping a woman in what we would today refer to as S&M.

Then, at odd moments Bela reappears, for no apparent reason, and babbles more inane dialogue, like: "When he's wrong because he does right, and when he's right because he does wrong; pull the string, dance to that." Huh?

About twenty percent of the film's visuals consist of stock footage, accompanied by a VO that relates to the story motif but not the visuals. Hence, we see stock footage of: bustling city streets, freeway traffic, a thunderous herd of buffalo, and a playground full of kids. But it gets worse. In a film about cross-dressing, we have 58 consecutive seconds of stock footage of a foundry furnace making hot steel, and 84 consecutive seconds of battle scenes from WWII.

Even the simplest items are botched. In one scene we see a newspaper headline that reads "Man Nabbed Dressed as Girl". Underneath the headline, which has clearly been glued or pasted on, the article is about ... taxes. In one of my favorite scenes, an off-screen woman spouts out: "airplanes, why it's against the creator's will", in a voice that sounds like she's just inhaled helium.

Except for the performance of Lyle Talbot, the acting is uniformly horrendous. Production design is cheap looking and drab; (but you gotta love that tacky wallpaper). The editing is sloppy. Most of the background music is suitable only for 1950 style elevators. The B&W cinematography has way too much contrast. And the costumes look like something that came from a thrift store.

This film is so bad it makes "Plan 9 From Outer Space" look like "Citizen Kane", by comparison. I just don't know how one could make a film any worse than Ed Wood's "Glen Or Glenda". But thankfully, it's got Bela Lugosi in it. Every time he opened his mouth, and gazed into the camera with those big, bulging eyes, I about fell on the floor laughing.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I don't believe it... Luc Besson is not only a genius now...he has always been one... this film is for everyone who likes real good deep films...just perfect!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

If you get a chance to get a hold of this lost (for many years) gem, I doubt you will be disappointed. PS has an odd blend of social satire and ultra-cool blaxploitation-- even hints of slapstick, but it's so odd that it was not only ahead of it's time, nothing has been seen like it since.

I strongly disagree with people who say that the film is dated, especially with Spike Lee's "Bamboozaled" (SP?) a few years back which was a misfire of trying to capture the same message. (Good filmmaking, disjointed script.)

Robert Downy's direction is brilliant, allowing many of his actors to improvise, the film gets better as it goes along and the jokes swagger from hit or miss one-liners that are as forgiven as those found in a Mel Brooks comedy, to sheer non-PC 'I can't believe they just said that' fun.

Favorite parts, the commercials. The film switches from gritty black and white depictions of the ad agency to beautiful (perhaps 16mm) color and gets away with it. 

I refuse to hint at any spoilers, but if you get the chance to see the DVD version be sure and watch the Downey interview (but leave it until after the movie.) 

My vote 10/10-- most underrated film of the late 60's, early 70's. Thank you Prince.
What's an example of a movie review?

Rarely have I seen a work of literature translated so badly to the screen. The hysterical cast of b-movie and sitcom extras simply make the characters seem like bad Jewish stereotypes. The worst of all is Melissa Gilbert, who you hate from scene one and never develop any sympathy for. Performances like this should be noted and used against actors who wish to work again. All in all, a seedy, low-budget made-for-TV film of the sort that gives made-for-TV films a bad name.
Write a positive movie review.

Or at least you feel pretty high after this movie. It's the kind of film that the word "rollicking" really can be applied to, though it's rollicking in that entirely casual, intelligent, and open-minded way that belongs to the French.

No, Catherine Deneuve does not spend the entire movie high (sorry to disappoint any puritans with an agenda).. but the one scene to which I refer involves all the members of a wedding party - AND it's a musical number! Anyway, everything fits pretty seamlessly together, and the unusual, bright, colorful family ( Deneuve's mother is a lesbian, Deneuve her bon vivant daughter) alternately entertain and annoy us as real families do..but since it's a movie they mostly entertain.

Don't want to say too much about the ending, but Deneuve ends up marrying a man about twenty years younger. This is entirely believable as we see the relationship develop over time, and as the two are naturally drawn closer and closer together. The ending is a happy one; and like the rest of the movie, satisfyingly quirky as well as pitch-perfect.
PREY 

Aspect ratio: 1.37:1

Sound format: Mono

A lesbian couple (Sally Faulkner and Glory Annan) living in a remote country house are driven apart by the arrival of a young man (Barry Stokes) who turns out to be a flesh-eating alien, the vanguard of a massive invasion...

Despite its shoestring budget and leaden pacing, Norman J. Warren's follow-up to SATAN'S SLAVE (1976) amounts to a great deal more than the sum of its meager parts, thanks to a surprisingly complex script by Max Cuff (apparently, his only writing credit): Faulkner and Annan indulge an obsessive relationship whilst living in isolated splendor within the English countryside (rendered alternately beautiful and ominous by Derek V. Browne's eye-catching cinematography), though Annan's discovery of bloodstained clothing in an upstairs room marks one (or both) of these doe-eyed lovelies as psychologically disturbed, which may explain the absence of their respective families, some of whom appear to have lived in the house at one time or another and 'left' under mysterious circumstances. Stokes' unexpected arrival throws the relationship into disarray, partly because Faulkner has a pathological hatred of men and partly because Annan is attracted to him, creating tensions which result in a climactic whirlwind of violence. There's an extraordinary, multi-layered sequence in which Faulkner attempts to 'emasculate' their clueless visitor by dressing him in women's clothing, though Stokes' alien mentality allows him to rise above the intended mockery.

In the early scenes, at least, the relationship between Faulkner and Annan is depicted with uncommon grace and dignity, but this heartfelt sapphic liaison quickly devolves into crowd-pleasing episodes of sex and pulchritude, culminating in an explosion of horror when Annan allows herself to be ravished by Stokes following a violent argument with Faulkner. The closing sequences are (quite literally) gut-wrenching, especially Annan's final scene, which appears to have been clipped for censorship reasons in 1977 and never fully restored (what remains is still pretty vivid, so brace yourselves!). Excellent performances by the three leads, bolstered by Warren's unobtrusive direction, which takes full advantage of the stunning woodland locations, thereby compensating for the film's budgetary shortcomings. Originally released in the US as ALIEN PREY.

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

negative
I love this young people trapped in a house of horrors movie. Not just because I'm a huge Linnea Quigley-Jill Terashita fan, but because it is a lot of fun and actually scary at times.

The special effects are awesome, especially Linnea's scene with the lipstick and towards the end when almost everyone is dead and possessed.

Plenty of nudity provided by Linnea and Jill, plenty of humor, cool soundtrack, high body count, etc...By the way, if you have never seen this one, try and buy/watch the Unrated version which has more gore and some scenes the rated version is missing.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I'll never understand why when a studio like Universal buys a musical it then butchers it when bringing it to screen. My first thought when seeing Ava Gardner and Robert Walker were starring I would be seeing something from MGM which did musicals best at that time. Boy was I wrong and disappointed.

One Touch Of Venus which starred Mary Martin, Kenny Baker, and John Boles on Broadway ran for 567 performances in the 1943-1945 season and Gardner, Walker, and Tom Conway play the roles that Martin, Baker, and Boles did on stage. The Kurt Weill-Ogden Nash musical with book by Nash and S.J. Perelman was a comeback vehicle for Mary Martin who reestablished herself as the Queen of Broadway after a disappointing venture in Hollywood. 

Look at the names that went into this show. Given who was responsible for the book I expected to see some sparkling wit in this production. Instead I got a rather pedestrian screenplay, it was like all the wit was drained out of it. Doing her best to make up for it is Eve Arden playing her usual girl Friday role with Tom Conway, but it's even too much for Eve.

The story concerns department store window dresser Robert Walker who kisses a very valuable statue of Venus who springs to life in the person of Ava Gardner. Of course when the statue goes missing, Conway yells for the law and is suspicious of Walker, the last person to be with the statue. 

The rest of the film is Walker dealing with Gardner and what will happen to both of them. For reasons I don't understand, Ava was of course dubbed by Eileen Wilson and Walker sings only a couple of lines. The singing is carried by Dick Haymes and Olga San Juan playing Walker's friends and coworkers. Of course on Broadway the songs were done by singers Mary Martin and Kenny Baker. You would kind of think that Haymes would be playing Walker's role at least. It was awkward to say the least.

Only three songs survived from the score, Don't Look Now, But My Heart Is Showing, That's Him, and the incomparable Speak Low. Haymes's silken baritone is shown to best advantage in Speak Low which was sung as a duet by Martin and Baker on Broadway. For some reason the lyrics of one of the greatest men of verse of the last century, Ogden Nash, were done over by Ann Ronnell. I suspect the infamous Code was at work here.

In Lee Server's biography of Ava Gardner he makes mention of a brief fling Ava had with Robert Walker when she had had a spat with her current man, Howard Duff. When Duff and Gardner reunited, Walker took it badly and didn't speak at all to Gardner off camera. I'm sure the fact that both of them were not in their best work didn't help matters either.

Hopefully some repertoire company will do One Touch Of Venus and you'll get to see it the way, Weill, Nash, and Perelman wrote it.
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Friz Freleng's 'All Abir-r-r-d' is one of the best Sylvester and Tweety cartoons. Unlike the many repetitive cartoons in the series which simply transplant the same tired gags to a new setting, 'All Abir-r-r-d' makes the most of its concept. Tweety and Sylvester are domestic pets who are being sent unattended across country by train. With both a watchful official and a vicious bulldog to deal with, Sylvester has his work cut out. The Sylvester and Tweety cartoons always benefited from some extra participants and 'All Abir-r-r-d' is a good example of how much these additional characters help. Although they are not especially memorable creations, they throw some more obstacles in Sylvester's path and make for a more interesting battle. This early Sylvester and Tweety short presses many of the right buttons and, while Tweety is often particularly irritating with his forced cuteness, there's some deliciously violent antics between Sylvester and the dog, culminating in a surprisingly brutal climax which is unfortunately marred by a final unfunny non-quip by Tweety.
Determine the sentiment:

I heard they were going to remake this French classic in 2007, and I see it is in development for 2011. This will be a shame, as Hollywood kicked writer/director Jules Dassin out because of the infamous blacklist. They should not have the right to remake any of his films.

I love "caper" films and "film noir," and this combines the best of both.

Tony (Jean Servais) gets out after doing a nickle, and after he beats up his old girlfriend (Marie Sabouret), he plans a big score with his friends Mario (Robert Manuel) and Jo (Carl Möhner), What makes this a great caper flick is the attention to detail in planning the robbery. You see that reflected in the George Clooney Vegas capers. Nothing is left to chance.

The caper goes off great but Grutter (Marcel Lupovici) sends his sons, Robert Hossein and Pierre Grasset after Tony and the gang. After blowing it with Mario, they kidnap Jo's son. Lots of bullets fly before it is over.

A great film by a great director. The standard by which other caper films are measured.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

"Ordinary Decent Criminal" is sort of based on the exploits of Martin Cahill, already the subject of John Boorman's 1998 film "The General". Cahill had a rough upbringing in a slum area and graduated from petty crime to armed robbery with honours. He justified his criminal career by pointing out his poor background at every opportunity. This is a common excuse for criminals that conveniently overlooks the thousands of slum-dwellers who don't turn to robbing post offices and selling guns in order to make ends meet. Cahill made fools of the police and local authorities, not to mention the IRA, which earned him a sort of "Folk Hero" status as well as making him many enemies. However, he was basically an amoral, self-serving thief.

My primary problem with "ODC" is that the protagonist is made out to be a lovable Irish rogue. Kevin Spacey does a good job portraying Michael Lynch with a blend of oily charm and quiet menace, but the character is too amoral and selfish to be seen as any sort of hero, even an anti-hero. 

The film is well shot and well acted by a fine cast, but what lets it down is the script. Writer Gerard Stembridge can't make up his mind; is he writing an Irish "Lock Stock" or a grittier treatment of Martin Cahill's thieving career? That's the problem when a writer bases his central character on a real person. 

It's also unfortunate that "ODC" followed the cinema release of John Boorman's "The General", which was a more accurate portrayal of Martin Cahill's story. Cahill was a cunning thief who knew the value of good publicity, so it's not surprising that his exploits got the movie treatment.

What IS surprising is that a studio was prepared to take Cahill's story and give it a happy Hollywood-style ending. Kevin Spacey's charismatic-twinkly-bigamist-thief Michael Lynch gets to ride off into anonymity on his motorcycle in "ODC". In the real world, Martin Cahill was executed by the IRA, just to prove that no-one makes fools of an out-dated, sectarian and corrupt para-military organisation and gets away with it. 

The real Cahill would never have walked away from his notoriety because it bolstered his "Man of The People" self-image. Having Michael Lynch give up everything to avoid death in "ODC" is a cop-out ending to a weak and shallow movie.
The Museum of the Moving Image here in New York recently put on a comprehensive retrospective of Jacques Rivette's films. Having fallen in love with his "Paris Nous Appartient", I decided this was not to be missed.

Largely through extended shots and flexibly structured scenes, the movie depicts two avant-garde theater companies preparing their renditions of Aeschylus' "Seven Against Thebes" and "Prometheus". Additionally, we are shown the directionless day-to-day lives of two individuals distantly connected to the companies: a working class woman named Frederique who finds creative ways of hustling men out of their money, and a young man named Colin who visits local cafés posing as a deaf-mute, and plays shrill harmonica at the patrons until they pay him to go away. The first four hours or so are devoted to establishing the characters and their patterns, before a somewhat loose, whimsical plot finally emerges involving a conspiracy and the decoding of clandestine secret letters.

The film is largely about life on the fringe of society. The theater companies are a despairing affair, using their elaborate, emotionally draining exercises (which are really something to watch) to distract themselves from the fact that their acts are unlikely ever to be staged or even seen. Colin and Frederique both have very few friends, who only briefly find any excitement or purpose after the conspiracy touches them, as they are spurred to find out more about it. The film meditates on the consequences of rejecting normal society in several memorable sequences, including a long shot of Colin as he wanders the streets of France shouting poetry to himself. As such, the film has been referred to as an analysis of 1960's counterculture.

There is not a frame of the film that is not bursting with energy and vitality. The fact that much of the dialogue and movement is improvised makes the characters much more spontaneous, much more immediate. The camera also becomes an important character in this regard; throughout the movie boom shadows are visible here and there, or other similar errors, yet they seem natural and fit with the flow of the action because the camera is so important a player therein.

More than anything for me, the film seems a great example of another way of making movies, a venue for film outside the usual pattern. For me it was a mind-opening experience, even more than "Paris Nous Appartient", though the latter bears many similarities of theme and structure. A must-see for anybody pondering the nature of art.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Rent this only movie if you're in the mood for laughs (for sheer stupidity) , as this movie wouldn't scare a bunch of kindergartners at a Halloween party! The trouble is, there is too much gore for kiddies, so definitely don't put this in your VCR for the toddlers. It starts off with a little bit of promise, giving you the impression that the box cover artist may have actually started watching this film before designing the cover, but then descends quickly into epic stupidity. The "killer scarecrows" are clumsy oafs that are about as scary as the one in the Wizard of Oz, but not quite as smart. If they'd only had a brain...? I got this movie for $1.20 at a local discount/close-out store and even so, I feel somewhat ripped off. I think with all the other comments posted here, if you actually pay to see this, you can only blame yourself.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is a novelty in Danish film. The mood is not unlike that of Blinkende Lygter, also by Anders Thomas Jensen, but with a novel touch. One difference is fewer characters, leaving much more room for them to be dwelled into. And what characters?! The two butchers are perfect. Mads Mikkelsen is a dominating, deranged parody and Nikolaj Lie Kaas an indifferent looser with a twin brother more or less an unholy pairing of the two.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

Michael Jackson is amazing. This short film displays the absolute highest standard in music video and no-one will ever be able to out-beat this 'King Of Pop' masterpiece! It shows Michael turning into a zombie and dancing in the street with some spectacular choreography. The story is great, the scenes are marvelous, the music is fantastic and overall the clip is fun, eye-popping, spooky and is a real spectacle. Today everybody is still doing the same thing in music video with dancing and film-based story-lines which he innovated. This ground-breaking video is the toast of MTV and will forever be remembered for what is the greatest music video of all time!!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

exquisite!! in simple words... both Aparna Sen and Konkona Sen seem to understand each other quite well or maybe they both are just too good.this might just be her best performance as an actor and Aparna's best as a director. yeah maybe better than Mr and Mrs Iyer. Konkona plays the role of a schizophrenic. Shabana Azmi plays the role of Anjali,Mithi's(Konkona Sen's) elder sister. Shabana Azmi made the best out of Anjali's character for she had to play a strong,responsible,arrogant role of an elder sister who had the full responsibility of her family. Aparna Sen has beautifully crafted Anjali's character,a strong woman who had to sacrifice her personal life,her love for her family.

Mithi's behavior was'not juvenile at all,for you can expect this from most of Indian directors for this role.looks like a lot of research has been done to understand the role of Mithi,a schizophrenic. When at times Mithi is a normal,sweet college going girl,she also scares you when she is shown ill..both the sides have been beautifully judged and played..believe me it at times reminds you of the girl in Exorcist..not that scary though.. Overall..Marvellous piece of work by Aparna Sen,Konkona Sen and Shabana Azmi...
A funny thing happened to me while watching "Mosquito": on the one hand, the hero is a deaf-mute and the director is totally unable to make us understand why he does what he does (mutilating mannequins...er, excuse me, corpses) through his images. On the other hand, the English version at least is very badly dubbed. So I found myself wishing there had been both more AND less dialogue at the same time! This film is stupid (funny how this guy has access to every graveyard and mortuary in his town) and lurid (where would we be in a 70s exploitationer without our gratuitous lesbian scene?). Not to mention the "romantic" aspect (oh, how sweet!)...Miss it. (*)

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

negative
I don't need to say much about how good this documentary is--it's truly an amazing piece of true narrative. The story is simple enough: a white senior citizen tourist is murdered by a young black man in Florida, and the boy who is arrested is mistreated and put on trial with only the public defender and his family on his side. It's very enthralling, and the public defender is a joy to watch in all his human ways--you can't help but pull for the triumph of justice, and the ending fulfills more than could be expected of a true story.

It's a shame more people haven't seen this documentary, but hopefully you will find a way to watch it. For those interested in race relations in the United States, and the actual workings of law enforcement and the legal process, it's well worth your time and effort to find this documentary. I give it a 10.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is a funny movie, there's not a lot of those. OK, the plot is a bit disturbing, but very original. A teen trying to get even with dad, because he hasn't been around and almost sending him to jail because she lie to impress an older boy, how could that not be funny? Plus it not the typical movie featuring teens. First remake i've seen, that is better than the original, the only problem with both: Gerard Depardieu. With another actor this would be a perfect 10, because he plays all rolls the same way, sucks. Another problem it's all the women melting over him, that's not remotely believable, he is not attractive!, y had a rubber troll that was better looking than him, come on!
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
SKELETON MAN was okay for the first 5 minutes but as soon as the so-called "Special Force Agents" hit the screen, it went down hill faster than a fat kid on a sled.

The opening makes us think we might have a corny, yet fun, horror flick on our hands but no...the film makers ruin any hope of that when the "Special Force Agents" show up. I wish the screenwriter took a different route and had the "Skeleton Man" chase down some dim witted teenagers until one of them finally gets the upper hand. Instead, the "Skeleton Man" chases down some dim witted "Special Force Agents" and offs them until their Captain finally gets the upper hand.

I know the whole "stalking of dim witted teenagers by a killer" thing as been done before but it would of been more suited for a movie like this.

When the "Skeleton Man" finally does meet his "so called" demise, in a building that blows up, the Captain of the "Special Force Agents" is asked the following by a police officer outside of the building: "What the hell happened in there?" My answer to that question: "Who the hell cares?"
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

If you enjoy sitting in the dark, both literally and figuratively, for ninety minutes then this is the movie for you.

A waste of actors, resources and audience time. Ultimately a waste of space. Don't be tempted by the resume. There is nothing of any further substance beyond it. The film lacks all of the basics that you might expect from the genre; plot, character, development, denouement. The cast may perhaps take heart from the knowledge that in this instance their efforts will be entirely forgettable and, given time, their careers may perhaps improve.

Absolute tripe.
1996's MICHAEL is warm and winning comedy-fantasy that features one of my favorite performances from the John Travolta library. Travolta gives one of his breeziest and most likable performances as Michael, an archangel whose quiet existence at the home of a lonely innkeeper named Pansy (Jean Stapleton) is disrupted when Pansy reports Michael's presence in her home to a "National Enquirer"-like newspaper and the editor (Bob Hoskins) sends reporters (William Hurt, Andie McDowell, Robert Pastorelli) to the motel to check it out. Hurt, McDowell, and Pastorelli are quite good as the jaded news staffers who have a hard time accepting they've met an angel but this is Travolta's show and he rules as the pot-bellied, sugar-eating, cookie-smelling, pie-loving, Aretha-loving, bull-chasing Michael, an angel who just isn't what you think you of when you think of angels. And you have to love the scene in the bar when he and the ladies dance to "Chain of Fools". I love this movie more and more every time I watch it and it's mainly because of the completely winning performance from John Travolta.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

This film doesn't know what it wants to be: is it making fun of action movies in general? Is it satirical? Is it supposed to be a black comedy? This is truly one of the worst films ever made.

Lori Petty is annoying. There, I said what everyone else is thinking. It's bad enough that she's such a terrible actress (Route 666, Bates Motel), but she doesn't even qualify as a mediocre b-movie actress. Her screechy voice, strange mannerisms, and poor comic timing dot this film from start to finish, until you just want to put your head in a vise and end the pain.

Do yourself a favor and avoid this movie at all costs. You'll be glad you did.
What a bad movie, the premise was all there, the actors were all there. And yet a believable plot, good dialogue, characters to relate to were somewhat missing.

Typical heist gone wrong premise set against a backdrop of everyman being shafted by the system. The lead character Tye and his little brother have been having no luck and their house is going to be repossessed, along comes godfather Matt Dillon (Who does not look much older than Tye so not exactly sure how that happened)to the rescue with a plan to steal money from an armoured van which they work on as security guards. Tye has a brief flirtation with a conscience but decides to go along with it. And thus begins a truly awful hole ridden 30 minutes of unbelievable trash. I will not list all the ways in which this movie was unrealistic but let me point out the major ones:

Because of Tye deciding to be a good guy because a homeless guy became collateral damage, all of his close friends including his godfather die. His godfather who is supposedly family and the man who brought him into the caper at the last minute to help him out dies because of Tye. Tye in the process of thwarting his friends and godfather destroys all the money. The money came from the same bank that was repossessing his house. And yet he chose it over the supposed family of Matt Dillon.

There are many more, needless to say that this film was tripe and I earnestly hope nobody else goes to see it.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Wow, there are no words to describe how bad this movie truly is. I usually pride myself on being able to enjoy any movie no matter how bad, but this was just too much. I would only suggest watching this movie as a torture device. If you can get past the terrible plot and dialogue by watching it on mute, the even more terrible camera work and shoddy special effects make this movie a real horror. If your thinking about watching this because your a Sandra Bullock fan, don't even bother as she has less than ten minutes of screen time, and her acting is absolutely atrocious. Not to mention the rest of the cast, which could be replaced with baboons who would do a better job, at least then we wouldn't have to listen to the terrible dialogue.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This movie could have been oh so much better. It is a beautiful story set in very trying times, and yet it was so poorly executed. The leading actors have in the past done excellent jobs, and for the most part they do an adequate job in this film. Although at times their dialogue seems stilted and forced. The directing could have been more concise. The bulk of the criticism should go to the writers, who took a good story and made it tedious. In short, there are thousands of MUCH better ways to spend 2 hours.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
All right - it was in black and white and probably on 2" tape - which means the BBC wiped it, right? But it stays in my mind from all those years ago (1960??) as a perfect slice of history enlivened by the most innovative editing and wonderful actors full of youth and bravado.

I WANT TO SEE IT AGAIN! Are you reading this, BBC? Find your original 2" tapes or the 35mm film, deal with the actors and directors for the rights, and re-issue! I know, I know, some of them are dead, some of them are missing in action.

Where else will I be able to see Mary Morris as the 'serpent's heart wrapped in a tiger's hide'? Where else will I be able to see Paul Daneman do 'Now is the winter of discontent....'? Or Robert Hardy deliver his speech about 'that idol ceremony'?

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

positive
As to be expected, there's a pretty good reason why this film is so obscure and unknown in spite of dealing with the always-popular premise of zombies and starring the 80's B-movie queen Linda Blair, namely: it sucks! "The Chilling" is trying enormously hard  way too hard  to be a story with depth and factual background, whereas it should have just been a light-headed and gore-packed horror flick about frozen zombies. It takes an incredibly long time before anything remotely interesting or significant happens. There's a lot of drivel about cryogenics, which I learned in my physics class is the study of products and their behavior at extremely low temperatures. So naturally, in this film a bunch of people are studying the behavior of human corpses when deep frozen. Needless to say this is extremely boring, until two dim-witted night watchmen decide, during an electric power failure, that it's a good idea to put the metal-constructed cool cells outside at the heights of a thunderstorm. The coolers are struck by lightening, obviously, and the bodies spontaneously defrost and come to live to go on a murderous zombie rampage. "The Chilling" is a boring and surprisingly (for a late 80's effort, at least) gore-free horror film that doesn't even use up a quarter of its potential. All the painful attempts to build up an atmosphere of suspense and eeriness fail tremendously and I can't think of any reason why the zombie-attacks had to be so bloodless. Even in spite of the low budget available, they could have done better. The set pieces, make-up effects and costumes are pitiable. The research lab, for example, looks like a proper apartment flat whilst the zombies couldn't look less menacing with their green faces and foil-wrapped outfits. How Linda Blair managed to get involved yet again in such an embarrassing low-budgeted horror flick is a complete mystery. She's attracted to lousy B-movies like bees are to honey.

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

negative