cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Determine the sentiment:

I thought this movie was good, I loved the plot, I loved the shoot out scenes, except for a few, they were not needed and i also enjoyed Ma's character, she was a rider I liked that. I do have to say that in this gangster movie the actors were picked well because sometimes some actors just don't fit the role. However though i hate to say it, but I hated the ending, I felt as if it should have went in a different direction. Also it would have been better with a little more details, its based on a true story but there was so much of the facts left out but other than that it was good. If you enjoy movies on the past gangsters you'll enjoy this movie.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Raoul Walsh's mega-epic, stunning filmed in an early widescreen process by the great Arthur Edeson, can be slow and static in the early talkie manner, but this classic wagon train journey across America to the NorthWest is thrilling as a sheer physical production when seen on the big screen. On t.v., the lack of close-ups and distant sound reproduction may prove daunting. Young John Wayne scores easily in his first starring role with a natural delivery the rest of the cast can't command. Amazingly, the film flopped and Wayne spent most of the following decade in Grade B Western fodder.

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

positive
A four-and-a-half-hour O'Neill play gets boiled down to a little under two, and much of that running time is devoted to actors with frozen expressions on their faces as they read their characters' thoughts in voice-over. It can work onstage, but it looks hilariously stilted in this soap-opera adaptation, which soft-peddles its heroine's bad behavior and never explains why she has so captivated so many men. Norma Shearer and Alexander Kirkland, overacting ludicrously, are outclassed by a naturalistic Clark Gable--he's the only one who makes the frozen-face technique work. It gets even funnier when Shearer's and Gable's son, a surly moppet, does the frozen-face shtick. There are also Frank Morgan's brother Ralph as an unsuccessful suitor, given to soliloquizing "poor Charlie!" over and over again, and a young Robert Young and Maureen O'Sullivan. By the time they show up, the voice-overs have largely been abandoned, and it plays as a ripe soap, with a sentimental fadeout that actually plays "Silver Threads Among the Gold" as background music. Robert Leonard's direction is stodgy and he shows little facility for reining in hyperactive actors. It's certainly entertaining--there's nothing else like it, unless you count Groucho's satirical parody in "Animal Crackers," or an old Mad Magazine satire that rendered Shirley Booth's sitcom "Hazel" a la "Strange Interlude". But it isn't good.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Irwin Allen put all his talents behind this one: he's co-screenwriter, producer and director of this cartoonish "epic" about an atomic submarine and its efforts to reduce a ring of radiation circling the Earth. Potentially exciting story fails to take off, despite an eclectic cast. Varied players from Walter Pigeon and Joan Fontaine to Frankie Avalon and Barbara Eden are interestingly intermingled and provide a dash of color, but this soggy sci-fi is pretty cheesy. Good for a few stray laughs, but Allen didn't seem to know the difference between strong, solid adventure and campy nonsense. Later a popular TV series. ** from ****
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Let's face it.

This movie is incredibly cliché, as Korean romance dramas and movies go. First of all, there's a pair of long-lost siblings, one of which falls in love with the other. Second, there's a not-so-popular girl and two gorgeous, popular guys who fall for and fight over her. Third, one of the characters suffers from a tragic disease, which, eventually, takes his life.

Still, I like this movie.

Without the right actors, this movie would probably have disappointed fans of the novel. But because the actors fit the roles perfectly, the movie is engrossing--I honestly couldn't stop watching. Kang Dong Won, despite his pretty face, gives an awesome, heartrending performance, not to mention Lee Chung Ah and Jo Han Sun, plus all the supporting actors.

I'd definitely recommend this movie to everyone.
This is a strange, little, forgotten movie from the late eighties. It's one of those "Large-cast kitchen sink" movies that delivers some good gags. If you like the people in this one, give it a shot.

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

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

When I decided to try watching a movie about cryogenic zombies ("cryonoids"), I wasn't expecting a whole lot. That's exactly what I got, and then even less. Aside from a shortage of special effects (squibs?) and a severe lack of any acting talent, "The Chilling" also sports the absolute worst script I've ever seen made into a movie. I had to stop the tape numerous times during the first 45 minutes in order to repair the damage done to my intellect for witnessing such atrocious dialogue as there is found here.

Furthermore, the collection of characters is so formulaic and one-dimensional it's ridiculous: the corrupt doctor; his assistant, played by Linda Blair (we know she's his "assistant" because he repeatedly refers to her by that title); the recently-widowed businessman with a heart of gold who develops a romantic interest with Blair's character; his criminal son; the Blair character's alcoholic, abusive, unemployed boyfriend, whom we are introduced to in the most contrived use of a flashback; and, of course, the rough, tough, bearded security guard who becomes the hero.

Apparently, the preserving fluid which some cryogenics lab uses on its bodies is highly conductive, naturally resulting in disaster when all of the lab's containers end up outdoors in a remarkable sequence of events during a lightning storm (on Halloween night, no less). As for the zombies themselves, if you enjoy watching people in green latex masks walking around in aluminum foil suits, then "The Chilling" is the movie for you. The zombie action is very weak at its best; the zombies' primary killing method seems to be grabbing people by the shoulders and shaking them to death. The businessman and the security guard do most of the zombie fighting, including a highly suspenseful scene of re-freezing the undead with liquid nitrogen. Let me tell you, the steel mill scene in "T2" has got nothing on "The Chilling" in portraying an enemy getting frozen in his tracks like that.

How Linda Blair ended up stuck in the middle of this piece of dreck is indeed a mystery. True, her career didn't exactly skyrocket during the 80s (sadly), but this movie is an embarrassment for her. The script doesn't even have the decency to put her to any good use. The most that her character is given to do is shriek out things like "Here they come", "Do something", "Hurry!". The only thing I can figure is that poor Linda was compensated for her work on this film in rations of food. The hero is played by Grizzly Adams himself, Dan Haggerty. In this picture, he faces stiff acting competition from his beard and the security dog, and he does his best to outperform them both.

The only frightening part of "The Chilling" is the introduction which brings up the factual elements of cryogenics and suggests that "the film you are about to see could happen in your own community". As I was counting the number of times a few of the names are repeated in the closing credits, I was floored to suddenly see Lucasfilm get credited. Fortunately, it was only for the movie's sound production. 1/10.
What's an example of a movie review?

My only question is: Why did they make this movie? Did they have a script or did they make it up as they went along? Boom Boom doesn't look like a Charley Davis. John Garfield probably turned over in his grave if he saw this.
This film is a masterpiece. It was exhilarating from beginning to end. Writer-director Paul Thomas Anderson's story about a porn star is told with style, grace, humor, even poignancy. The actors and the characters they play are all first-rate, including Mark Wahlberg in the lead, who proves himself a solid actor and can carry a film. Burt Reynolds gives perhaps his best performance ever as a porno director who discovers Wahlberg. The film recreates the late 70s and early 80s with dead-on accuracy, from the disco scene that begins the film to Wahlberg's Don Johnson "Miami Vice" outfit that he wears in the final scene. Most regular moviegoers who see this film will no doubt compare it to PULP FICTION, but it really has much more in common with the films of Robert Altman and Martin Scorsese. The film is a triumph in style. The opening tracking shot that begins the film is just as impressive as the ones in THE PLAYER and ABSOLUTE BEGINNERS. The editing by Dylan Tichenor is simply phenomenal. I couldn't believe the editing didn't receive an Oscar nomination (GOOD WILL HUNTING was a better edited film?!). The best scene in the film has to be the one with the firecrackers. I had butterflies in my stomach because the scene is incredibly intense. When I saw the film a second time, I had the exact same reaction to the scene. Unfortunately, it may not have the same impact on TV as it did in a theater with good stereo sound. It's a shame that many people didn't see this movie during its theatrical run, because it is the best way to watch it. Anderson's use of widescreen will suffer on TV (so get the DVD or a letterbox tape). It is amazing how easy Anderson makes it all look, because this is only his second film. The music, sets, costumes, photography, offbeat characters, sex, violence, happiness and heartbreak are captured by a guy who is clearly in love with filmmaking.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

This movie has one or two slightly interesting gags but they are NOT worth the wait. After an unexplained argument between two guys picking up litter in a drive-in movie theatre we cut to a family leaving! Hollywood and driving driving driving driving their camper van across the screen again and again as inane dialogue is voiced over. At least I think it's inane, the terrible song that accompanies this montage is mixed so loud it renders the dialogue at times almost inaudible. 

Finally the camper van arrives, at night, at a gas station where the family get out, have another inane conversation, before driving off. The camera then pans across to reveal the actor we have just seen drive away. He talks straight to camera and we realise he is the director of the movie we are watching which is about him, and how he came to make the movie.

A nice idea which ALMOST (but not quite) makes the previous sequences worth the pain.

As the movie unfolds he encounters the two characters we met picking litter at the start of the movie and they all form a motion picture company.

All sorts of not very funny and clumsy comedy ensues as they put together a crew and attempt to raise the cash needed to start filming.

This movie was obviously put together on a shoe string and a promise and there is a nice little idea in here struggling to get out but the execution is so inept that the idea gets lost. Comedy is more than things just falling over and everyone talking (or shouting) at once. So much of the dialogue here is shouted by several actors simultaneously - Robert Altman can do this sort of thing well because he has a script, rehearsals, decent sound techies, and editing facilities. Everyone shouting at the one mike which, by the sound of it, was hidden in a dustbin in the next room, does not make for clarity.
Write a negative movie review.

After reading the novel which is about a one hour read, watching this film became a sad disappointing experience. Just as he did in prince of Egypt simon wells somehow managed to direct a script that took away all the drama and mystery out of its source material and turned it into this homogenized nonsense. Now I'm a sucker for cheese and camp but this movie made absolutely no sense. There was no joy in any of the performances or any humor. There were no thrills and that silly bookend with addy's character of filby throwing his hat in the air was the last hackwriting straw. I felt very violated when this movie was over and I still refuse to believe it was only 90 minutes it went on forever. I wondered how the studio and director could have OK'd such a lousy script but then my friend pitched the movie to me exactly as It was and I said wow that sounds great but what happened to the movie.
I've enjoyed this movie ever since I was a kid and I still do. I also liked Batman forever back then but the real difference is that THIS movie didn't date when I grew up. I did notice a few scenes in this film that didn't make any sense like: 'Hhmm... the crowd is angry. Hey! Where did they get those tomatoes from?' Then I thought: 'who cares? This movie is not 100% serious anyway!'

The original Tim Burton Batman was great as well but it was a bit cheesy at some parts and I didn't like all the actors. This movie improved on almost every aspect with a wonderful cast, a more Gothic style and no involvement of Prince. 

Nowadays, many fans of the Christopher Nolan movies dislike Burton claiming that the Nolan movies are more serious and therefore more loyal to the comics. I don't think this is entirely true: -There has never been an adaptation of the original concept of Batman which was a vengeful criminal killer with a gun. -Batman has taken many forms over the years peeking its silliness in the 60's (and a bit with Batman & Robin). A director is free to choose what kind of Batman he's going to portray as long if it's good.

My opinion: Batman doesn't necessarily have to be serious. It's about a man in a rubber suit with pointy ears. Burton managed to create a perfect balance between the silliness and the darkness surrounding the whole idea.

I just recently watched the Nolan movies and I love those ones as well (especially The Dark Knight). There's simply something about this movie that interests me more. Nolan's goal was to give the character much more depth and in doing so, he looked for an explanation of nearly every aspect of Batman. That's a bit too much for me, I'm a bigger fan of the more abstract version of Batman. The Burton movies are more theatrical and centered around the atmosphere.

My conclusion is that you shouldn't compare the Nolan with the Burton movies. They're just different and it's up to you to decide which one you like better. My respect is for both directors.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
As a Canadian History major, my first thing to say : HISTORICAL FACTS ARE NOT ACCURATE! How can a producer do that? The deportation of the Acadian wasn't in 1759 when we see Franklin in London, but in 1755! How can he pass that in the movie? The scenes in Londo were useless too. Then for the story for anyone that read "Les Anciens Canadians", you have the story line right there. It's the story of La Coriveau, that "witch". Add a love story too and a tragic relationship between mother and daughter ending. Sure, it brought tears to my eyes. But that's it. Then there's the fact it's apparently set up in Québec City, but it's mostly shot at the Forteresse de Louisbourg. Sure it's a historical site and it's accurate to the time, but it was obvious that the scenes were not all set in Québec City. Overall, if you're looking for a documentary of New France, go get Candad : A People's History, a real documentary on the history of Canda and NEw France. If you want a love story that will bring you tears, a story set up in a wonderful forest, watch New France.

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

negative
Write a positive movie review.

Since many other users have already explained and commented the storyline, I won't do it.

However, I'd like to restate that Bardem's interpretation is terrific, as also are those of the other actors and actresses in this film. 

Reading the previous comments I've noticed that some people criticize the fact that the film doesn't show points of view opposed to euthanasia and that those little present are ridiculed. In my honest opinion this is far from true.

There are many characters that move in a gray zone between loving Ramón Sampedro and wanting him to stay, and understanding his desire to die. Most obvious of those are the family. For instance, Ramón's sister-in-law never talks for or against euthanasia. Another such character is Gené (the social rights activist) who, in the last moment, tells Ramón to re-think it all. The scene clearly shows that she doesn't want him to die.

Then there are characters who are clearly against euthanasia. Ramón's brother is clearly against it, as is his father ("There's only one thing worse than the death of son, and it's having a son that wants to die.") Other users have commented that the discussion between Ramón and the priest is ridiculed and filmed to make us think that Ramón is GOOD and the priest is BAD. Well, no doubt the scene is comic, but that doesn't mean the priest is caricatured or ridiculed. From my point of view, the comedy in this scene comes from the fact that the priest is trying to convince Ramón to keep on living using arguments totally alien to Ramón's thinking. The priest's speech goes on the line of "God gives and God takes", "We aren't the owners of our own lives, they belong to God"... and so on. The comedy arises from the fact that Ramón is atheist and all the priest is saying to him is therefore nonsense.

This film is the antithesis of manicheism, it leaves the spectator the chance to think on the subject and make up his/her own opinion. And above anything else is a chant of FREEDOM.
Matthau is a widowed hospital doctor enjoying his single status and the footloose and available nurses on the staff whilst colleague and friend Richard Benjamin looks on with amusement and amazement. Their boss is hard-of-hearing going on senile Chief of Staff Art Carney who is up for re-election to that post.

Matthau is content playing the field without commitment until he meets single mother Glenda Jackson who insists upon being the only woman in his life while she is in his life. At the same time, he comes under pressure to respond to the amorous advances of a potential litigant in a malpractice suit, and to support the shambolic and incompetent Carney in his attempt to be re-elected Chief of Staff.

This is a superior old-fashioned romantic comedy graced by four Grade-A actors and an excellent supporting cast working with a first-rate dry, caustic and sarcastic script. Carney steals every scene he's in and, in the parlance of IMDb, has us rolling on the floor laughing out loud whenever he appears on screen. We are otherwise entertained by the on-off relationship of the two leads and various sub-plots.

Lacks the ambition to be a great film, but remains one of the best of its kind and watchable and re-watchable for its comedic value alone. Deserves more attention than it seems to have received and well worth the cost of the DVD or video cassette.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
If you are looking for a modern film version of Buster Crabbe or Johnny Weismuller's overcoming the machinations of unscrupulous, white safari guides or cunning, black tribesmen, while saving the animal kingdom, this is NOT the movie for you. This is a recounting of the Tarzan "legend" from its beginning in intelligent, adult terms. It is beautifully filmed and faithful to the Edgar Rice Burroughs stories.

Tarzan is no action hero, but a man torn between two worlds - the natural and the civilized. In a stunning performance, Christopher Lambert portrays this angst with absolute realism. If he slips up just once the cat will be out of the bag: the audience (especially the adult audience targeted by the film) will laugh, and the film will completely lose its grip. It will plummet into the cheesy depths. But Lambert never lets that happen. (Forget what you may think of him in other movies; when I saw this film at the theater on its original release, I thought he deserved an academy award.)

The supporting cast is uniformly excellent, as other commentators have noted. I disagree with most of them in that I didn't find anything wrong with Andie McDowell's performance. I wouldn't have nominated her for an academy award - the role is undemanding - but she is completely up to it, such as it is. I don't know why her voice was overdubbed, either.

The cinematography of the African segment of the tale is absolutely beautiful. It captures both the beauty of the African wilderness and the exotic expectation it holds in the collective imagination of those who have never been there. The scenery is lush and exotic, and the colors are vivid.

But this is also a "period" film, and the cinematography also magnificently depicts Victorian England - the countryside, the city and the interiors. The costumes are outstanding. The soundtrack is beautiful without being overwhelming or obtrusive.

There are some disturbing scenes - especially for animal lovers - but no more disturbing than a few scenes in Dances with Wolves. This is an excellent film about the conflict between civilization and nature, personified in the young Lord Greystoke, convincingly portrayed by Christopher Lambert.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

I saw the movie at the Nashville film festival on May 1, 2003! It was amazing! All the things that I had read about Stuey were portrayed incredibly well by Tony Vidmer (writer, director, producer, editor), Michael Imperioli (incredible job as Stuey), and all the others involved in this. I'm glad he (Vidmer) didn't go down the "Leaving Las Vegas" routine with Stuey's bad habits, but instead put us inside his life, family, and his gift. Tying the whole story from the motel room where he died was a great vehicle and showed his screenwriting skill. A big "thumbs up" on this one!
Write a positive movie review.

Normally I am a typical "creepy-crawly-hatin'" girl, but after watching this film (on YouTube of course), I'm having different perspectives. And also I did not know that my favorite animation studio - Fleischer's made another film that's about community of insects whose city garden home is threatened by humans (lighted cigars and cigarette butts,footsteps,etc.), and how a plucky young grasshopper named Hoppity saves the day and wins the heart of Honey the bee; I love the lovely Ms. Honey. You know, after watching the film, the bugs reminded me of the some of the "jitter-bugs" from Don Bulth's Thumbelina. And out of the songs in the film, I love "We're a Couple in The Castle;" when I sing that song, it almost made me cry.

This wonderful film was the second (and final) feature to come out of the Fleischer studio. The film was originally going to be released on November of 1941, but since the Fleischer's rival, Disney, released Dumbo weeks earlier, Paramount changed the date to December of the same year, but Mr. Bug unfortunately went into a, then unrealized, trap of terrible timing. Having the misfortune of opening two days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Mr. Bug was a financial disaster and led to the ousting of Max and Dave Fleischer, from the studio they had established in 1919, and reorganized the company as Famous Studios. Another huge factor in their departure was the fact that Max and Dave Fleischer were no longer speaking to one another due to disputes (how sad it was). Overall I love both films from the Fleischer bros. - Gulliver and Mr. Bug.
So when I first saw commercials for Greek I did have a few questions to how they were going to approach Greek life, if they were going to give away sacred frat and sorority secrets, if they were going to focus on the brother and sisterhood a fraternity or sorority brings, or what most college kids think of Greek life as a huge party.

Luckily, it covered everything. The story plot was great, it gave you a character to love, hate, someone you want to be like, someone you don't want to be like, and of course a crazy roommate!

It was one of my first looks at what writers believed Greek life to be like, and I can honestly say they hit the nail pretty dead on.

I love how one of the biggest things they covered throughout the season was the relationship between Rusty and his crazy roommate. Its hard enough moving away from home, and being forced to live in a small room with someone you don't even know, then come to find out.. you have nothing in common. Probably every college bound freshmens worst nightmare.

Rustys sister Casey was pretty much the typical girl on campus EVERYONE is jealous of. What didn't she have? Oh thats right.. Evan all to herself. Rebecca and Evan had an "affair" early into the season, which made you feel fairly sympathetic for Casey. Her character evolved, and her relationship with Rusty became more and more loving and outgoing. 

Cappie is one of the most fun loving characters, and absolutely insane. One of my favorite episodes included him getting completely trashed at a strip club, and Rusty having to call Casey to bail them out. I like how they addressed the issue of gay people in Greek houses, Calvin was a very real feeling character, and I really respected him because he stuck to his standards. So Jen K was fairly crazy, but she actually liked Rusty. It was surprising and I continued to question her from the start, but of course, I did want it to work out between her and Rusty.

I am definitely looking forward to the return of Greek. It takes you into the truth of Greek life, something that a lot of people look past. One of the biggest things that frats and sororities are known for is parties and drinking. Greek is a great show, and the characters are easy to relate to.

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

positive
Giorgino is a strange, dark, obsessive object; the casting is impressive, the plot is powerful, reminded me of Edgar Poe's tales. Probably not a masterpiece, but it does leave us with the remembrance of strong images, fine music, fear, sadness, confusion, and a sentence that says it all : the wolves are coming. GIORGINO is quite forgotten now, and when it was released nobody seemed to appreciate it. That's a shame. If you ever have a chance to see this, well... give it a try.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Did someone find the plot somewhere in the film?. Perhaps it is the thing missing in this pretentious exercise of cinema about cinema. It is quite surprising that Gordon says that "A movie without a plot is nothing"... It is possible that characters have more to say that the own Wim Wenders. Was this phrase in the original plot or the actor decided to send a hint to the director?.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

(Spoilers more than likely... nothing really important you couldn't have figured out yourselves) Yeah, it's really weird. I rented it at a Blockbuster for the reason it had absolutely NO description of the movie on the back of the box, only a list of the bands that had songs in it. But after that, I had a dikens of a time finding it, even here on IMDB. I kept confusing it with "Night of the Demons," but, you know, they're basically the same thing. 

The parts I loved most about this movie was the whole thing in the garage. That black gym guy was hilarious the way he screamed ALL the time. Even when screaming wasn't really necessary, he'd let out a "LISTEN UP NOW!! BLOCK THE DOOR WITH CARS!!!!" and so, they'd run cars head on into other cars. But, then he got balls and shafted by a zombie with a broom stick I believe it was. The other part that kinda caught my attention was the part with the crash outside the building with the guys that they girl didn't want to come over... To what significant aspect of the movie did that give us? What was it? Why was it there? Why did the movie end with a guy breaking the TV's in a studio? I saw that there was a zombie running towards the screen, but he was kinda far away. I mean, he could have just turned the TV off. Yes, this movie was shot on a whim and yes, I hated it. Good day...
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Being raised at the time this movie was released has probably influenced my shallow mind, but still, this isn't a bad movie by any means. It's a movie about a hostage situation involving a prep school populated to some extent by endearing teenage boys who can't seem to get out of trouble. What's wrong with that? It doesn't have any big special effects, but so what? Who needs special effects? Cinema's decline began around the same time that special effects were popularized. A coincidence? I think not. It turned movies with potentially good plot and feelings and turned them into a big, substance-less light show for innocent kids and the self-medicated. Well, you know, not all movies need special effects. About three fourths of the movies on the IMDb top 250 are without special effects, but almost all of the Top Grossing movies of all time have some special effects. Think about it: Star Wars, E.T., Ghostbusters, etc. All good movies, but the rest of the top-grossing movies are usually cliched tripe with non-sensical plots and lots of eye candy. Well some movies don't need ny of that junk.

Excuse me for going off on a tangent, which I normally do, but I'm just so fed up with that special effects junk. Back to the point: Toy Soldiers is simply a great movie. I admit, some of the content is a little corny and ripped off, but so what, every movie rips off another to some extent. Think of Resovoir Dogs. Countless "appreciation" sites dictate the fact that beloved Quentin Tarentino, who I admit I like, has copied many, many, many movies in the making of his first major film Reservoir Dogs. Many say that the entire plot is ripped off almost scene for scene from japanese and chinese gangster movies which Mr. Tarentino loved so much, and probably still does. Sorry once again for the tangent.

Toy Soldiers is fun. It has the whole insubordination from teenagers to unwanted members of authority, i.e. hostage takers. It's fun to see kids take over when they're being held to something they don't want to do. Hell, teenage angst-inspired rebelion was the key topic to a great majority to 80's comedies. Plus there's the tension and thrill of having the characters use fire-arms and knock out the bad guys, etc. Plus there's some emotional points to the film. When one of the characters dies the others have to cope and adjust. It's not perfect acting but it beats most of the other tripe out there.

In short, Toy Soldiers is exciting, interesting, and fun. How dare you jaded blowhards rate this movie poorly! Shame on you all!

Personal rating: 8/10
This movie is scary at times, perhaps no more so than when a naked George Kennedy tells his hooker girlfriend he wants a little more sugar. Thankfully his nakedness is covered by a blanket, but the image is still more horrifying than anything you're likely to find in, for example, Schindler's List.

The dialog in this film was inspiring; it inspired me to watch another movie. In one scene, when a stewardess remarks about male pilots, Kennedy asks, "Why do you think it's called a 'cock' pit?" Charming.

And yes, contrary to what some have written, this film is very, very bad.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Firstly, I am a huge fan of crap films. B grade is always good for a laugh. Unfortunately this film is just plain bad. I dressed up as a Zombie for a party and my make up looked better than the ones in this film. Especially the big guy at the beginning, it just looked like a kid had drawn on his face with crayons.

The acting is so bad I need not comment on why. The effect are also extremely amateurish, with obvious blood tubes firing a straight jet of blood out the back of zombies heads when they get shot. 

It also seems many people commenting on this movie are trying to boost the rating. Nobody without their finger in the pie would rate this film above a 5/10. Frankly it is disgraceful that people who worked on this film are boosting their own ratings.

I suggest everyone avoid this movie, it isn't worth wasting the 90 minutes of your life.

Absolutely awful.
Certainly this film is not for everybody---but for anyone with a sense of humor and love of period film Ð buy this immediately! Where else can you get a run down of 70Õs fashion, a period vocabulary primer, karate trained hookers, crime, a rap about the TitanicÕs sinking, shoot outs, and a co-star named Queen Bee (watch for her moving crying scene early on in the wardens office!) With a filming style thatÕs a cross between a porno movie/Dawn of The Dead/ and Car Wash, you cannot go wrong. This is one to watch over and over againÉafter you put the kids to bed.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Blake Edwards' legendary fiasco, begins to seem pointless after just 10 minutes. A combination of The Eagle Has Landed, Star!, Oh! What a Lovely War!, and Edwards' Pink Panther films, Darling Lili never engages the viewer; the aerial sequences, the musical numbers, the romance, the comedy, and the espionage are all ho hum. At what point is the viewer supposed to give a damn? This disaster wavers in tone, never decides what it wants to be, and apparently thinks it's a spoof, but it's pathetically and grindingly square. Old fashioned in the worst sense, audiences understandably stayed away in droves. It's awful. James Garner would have been a vast improvement over Hudson who is just cardboard, and he doesn't connect with Andrews and vice versa. And both Andrews and Hudson don't seem to have been let in on the joke and perform with a miscalculated earnestness. Blake Edwards' SOB isn't much more than OK, but it's the only good that ever came out of Darling Lili. The expensive and professional look of much of Darling Lili, only make what it's all lavished on even more difficult to bear. To quote Paramount chief Robert Evans, "24 million dollars worth of film and no picture".
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Al Pacino was once an actor capable of making a role work without resorting to constant use of profanity. In other words when he could act, he didn't have to talk like some street junkie. McConaughey must have been impressed by Pacino because he became a promoter of the "F" word also. This might be the kind of society that they actually live in, but most of us have the common decency to watch what we say in mixed company. I don't recall the exact words that a professor used in explaining the constant use of profanity, but it was something like this. "It shows a lack of intelligence, poor language skills and disrespect for all those that have to listen." Maybe it is time that Al takes some acting courses again to sharpen his talent. Oh yes, the movie... Probably the worse thing that McConaughey has played in. Hopefully his next role will be in the company of more talented people. Rene Russo as always was hot.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: You know, I'm sure the boys were sitting around the office one day and said, "HOW CAN WE MAKE MORE MONEY?" They had made every possible variant of toy they could make with their current characters. So they decide, let's steal the star wars idea, A PREQUEL, and we can make up all new characters, and sell them as toys. Incidently something they did in puppet master 3, but who cares? Anyway they pick a point in time before the first movie when Toulon is still alive, he and the puppets are sitting around, and a wooden head roll on the floor and the puppets want to know if that is a dead family member or something, it doesn't matter. So the tale of the puppet master ancestry begins. It's long, it's boring, no body cares.

The funniest part is, they tell the origin of these new characters in the movie, but give no clues of their fate. SO GUESS WHAT, once the revenue from the new toys pays off, they can fundsa new (and 4th straight rotten) sequel, called "PUPPET MASTER 8 THE SEQUEL TO THE PREQUEL OF THE FATE OF THE DEAD RETRO PUPPETS!" hold your breath!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
..."Inglorious" as our local theater decided to display its title on their marquee, minus the second word. It is terrific cinema.

I don't hesitate to recommend this film to all but the over-squeamish. Let them never know what they're missing.

I did hesitate to give it ten stars because of my experience of Tarantino's previous films. In every case, save "Reservoir Dogs," they have improved with additional watching.

So although I gave it ten stars, I did so reluctantly. It leaves me no "up" to go to.

Yes Christoph Waltz is the Nazi we've all imagined the worst to be. He is cultured, sophisticated, suave and most sadistic, the kind of man who can make a glass of milk a threat and who puts out his cigarette abruptly in a strudel, grinding it into the whipped cream as if he were grinding his heel into a victim.

To understand Tarantino's films, you need only have a sense of dialogue, color and pacing. The colors are as bright as necessary and when necessary, brighter yet. In the French farmhouse of the opening scene, they are muted and dark, but excessively so. Outside a brilliant sun is shining, but in the one room of the house, everything is bathed in shadows and black.

It is a brilliant setting for an interrogation by Waltz, as the "Jew Hunter" of the SS, who dangles his host French farmer over the precipice of revealing what he cannot reveal numerous times, then pulls him back with obsequious lines of friendship and understanding.

A second sadistic German, well-played by August Diehl, later functions as important actor in the final plot twist. Diehl's Nazi Major, who has an ear for German accents, is almost as good as Waltz....almost.

Film classes will study much from this movie. They should look lovingly at the superb pacing. Tarantino knows just how long to draw out a scene, building suspense in the manner of Hitchcock, then at just the breaking point, suddenly coming to a resolution.

For color, look for a final shot at a French Theater, where its secretly Jewish proprietor is staging a surprise for the upper reaches of Nazi leadership.

We see her, played by Melanie Laurent, awaiting the hated German dignataries who will arrive for a film preview of the latest Deutsch film masterpiece, a propaganda piece about a German hero and his dubious accomplishments.

Laurent is framed on a balcony, reflected in the glass mirrors of the gorgeous theater, her red lips and low cut dress reflecting everywhere the intensity of her designs on her guests. It is a single shot that would be worth an entire film.

There are thankfully many more such images, many more paced scenes of exquisite dialog and suspense.

In short, see it. I'm sure you'll see it again and again.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
For the most part, I considered this movie unworthy of a comment, but the last 10 minutes prompted me to write one. You see, right then we learn (SPOILERS...if they can be called that) that the Devil's emissary has no chance of properly preparing the domination of the world by his master, because he is not skilled at martial arts! "Prosatanos" has been lying in a hole for centuries, waiting for "human greed" to release him, only to be defeated in a simple one-on-one match against 54-year-old former karate champion Chuck Norris! Imagine what would have happened to him if he had taken on Jackie Chan... (*1/2)

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I have never seen a movie so bad. It's not even entertaining enough to be a drinking game.

It's SO bad, I don't even want to talk about it... and that's the whole point of this, isn't it? PLEASE. Don't bother to see this movie. 'Nuf said.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This movie is breath-taking and mind-blowing. But I think maybe it can only be appreciated by die-hard RPG funs. It is like a game. One problem is the plot is too game-like and just has too many twists. The twists are excessive. Jude Law gives a very good performance. I really like him in this movie, just as Jerome in Gattaca and Gigglo Joe in A.I.

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

positive
Who ARE the people that star in this thing? Never heard of them!! But this is one of the funniest comedies I have run across. It should win the Putz Puller Prize for Parody. The absurd starts with Dr. Jeykl snorting his powder and turning into a sex fiend.He is pursued by libido driven nurse early in the movie in one of the funniest scenes of the movie. Pay attention to the hospital PA system in the background; rather like the system in MASH. The final scene with Hyde accepting the award has had me laughing for years. Oh... and the "Busty Nurse" is Cassandra Peterson, who went on to become Elvira, Mistress of the Dark. 

If you liked the Mel Brooks classic movies (Blazing Saddles, etc.), I suspect you'd like this one.

Damn shame you can't get it on DVD anywhere.

It's available on DVD now !!!!! Good thing DVDs don't wear out from use !!!!!

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

positive
I first saw this movie on an Alaska Airlines flight, and have since seen it twice more. It simply is -- and is simply -- one of the best films in years. I found myself having enjoyed it after my first viewing, but a little cloudy on what had happened. After seeing it again a few weeks later, things began to fall into place. It wasn't confusing, just deep. In fact, the depth of the movie may not be appreciated for a long time. For example, it occurred to me only after my third viewing that Sammy Davis Jr Jr (Grandfather's dog) is more than just a pet -- perhaps she's the stand-in for his dead wife. Witness how fiercely he protects her. There is symbolism galore, and none of it sappy or indulgent, just real. The adventure of their trip keeps the story-line in perpetual motion, and even when they arrive, you're not sure if it really was the destination. As the movie continues, so does the adventure and I got the sense the destination was merely a way-point. The sound-track is fun, the scenery compelling -- and both decidedly eastern-block. I could go on and on about the deeper meanings within the film, but I'm not entirely sure I've discovered all the nuances yet. Besides, it's more fun to tease these out yourself. As much as any film can be, "Everything Is Illuminated" has proved to be like a fine wine that sweetens with time. I highly recommend seeing it -- twice.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
It's rare for a film to sweep you away within its world and leave you wanting more once the credits roll. Hayao Miyazaki's Ponyo is such a film.

The film is the story of a young goldfish named Ponyo who wishes to become human. She swims to shore and is found by a young boy named Sasuke who promises to take care of her. Course Ponyo's father, an ecologically obsessed sorcerer named Fujimoto, tries to keep Ponyo from becoming human in order to maintain the balance of nature, which is eventually upturned when Ponyo finally transforms into a little girl, causing a massive typhoon.

Ponyo is a very rich film. It is full of wondrous fantasy, lovable characters, and genuine heart. What director Hayao Miyazaki has done here is tell a simple little story, and while so doing creating authentic movie magic.

Ponyo is an enchanting experience. The love between Sasuke and Ponyo is very pure and true. As well the environmentalist within Miyazaki is still as evident within this film as in all his previous works. Miyazaki shows the filth and grime that fall into the ocean in an almost startling light, not to mention Ponyo's father is on an obsessive mission to clean the world's oceans. While the story is simple, Miyazaki manages to add this extra layer to provoke thought with expert proficiency.

The film is a beautiful work of art, each hand drawn cell looks like a wondrous pastel painting. The film looks very different than many other Studio Ghibli productions, but the artistry is still just as spectacular as ever before. The scenes underwater are simply beautiful to watch, Fujimoto's fortress under the sea is highly inventive, and the sequence where Ponyo runs across the jumping fish within the typhoon to reach Sosuke is iconic.

Course it is thanks to its wonderfully executed characters that makes this film such a memorable experience. Sosuke is a young boy who acts older than he actually is, and the energetic Ponyo is a laugh a minute. Every character is just so enjoyable and highly memorable.

Overall Ponyo is a wondrous experience, enchanting in every single way. While the film may be sold as a children's fairy tale, I believe many adults will be swept away within its fantastic world along with their children. While the film may lack the density of some of Miyazaki's previous works, here he keeps it pure and simple, being true to himself, delivering a film that is funny, heartwarming, and entertaining all in one. This is a magnificent film.

I give Ponyo a perfect 10 out of 10!
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What a tedious turgid boring mess. This is a classic example of all that is wrong with contemporary English theater & film. About as exciting as a closet full of dirty socks. The very opposite of living film. Only the presence of Joanne Whalley gives it any spark.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I had to see this on the British Airways plane. It was terribly bad acting and a dumb story. Not even a kid would enjoy this. Something to switch off if possible.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I've heard people compare this movie to Sideways. How this comparison was made, I'll never guess because this movie was in no way comparable to Sideways.

These 2 films were as different as Star Wars and the Thornbirds. The only thing they had in common at all was they both had wine as a subject.

Though the interviews in this documentary were semi-interesting, they were ruined by the absolute worst camera work ever...attempted. I've never seen worse camera work in my life and I'm comparing it to home videos accidentally taken by 5 year olds.

I give this two stars, ONLY for the interesting interviews with French wine types and for showing how pushy and corrupt the American wine companies are (Aren't all companies pushy and corrupt?) I'd give it -10 stars (Yes, that's NEGATIVE 10) for the deplorable, terrible, horrible, awful, VERTIGO-INDUCING, 5-year-old-could-do-better camera mess.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative