cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Although I'm not too much of a religious person, I still had relatively high hopes for this movie, as it does have the amazing Steve Carrell, and its prequel, Bruce Almighty, was actually a creative and clever Christian-themed comedy. However, Evan Almighty comes nowhere near this originality and freshness that the original has, and can't decide whether it's a comedy or a sentimental movie about faith and family values. If it had chosen one clear path of which of these themes to focus on, it could have lived up to its potential, but instead the result of mixing the two is a film that has a very flat and dry sense of humor, cheesy dialogue and motifs that attempt to give the movie profundity, but instead practically insults the intelligence of the audience, and also a very confused and clouded presentation of the movie's opaque message. It was very obvious that Evan Almighty was very poorly written, there are numerous plot holes and elements in the movie that make absolutely no sense. For example, although a large variety of exotic animals from all over the planet swarm to Evan as he builds the ark for their salvation from the flood, is their inclusion really necessary when the only "flood" that happens in the movie is downtown Washington D.C. and a suburban neighborhood, meaning they are at no risk of being wiped out? The filmmakers it seems lacked the originality to modernize the Bible story whatsoever, and instead just had it take place in a present time without changing anything to the plot, leaving many elements that just don't add up such as this and make it obvious of the idiotic motifs and writing within the movie. Overall, this work is tragic in that the acting talent of Steve Carrell and Wanda Sykes isn't exhibited because of the bland characters they portray, and that it was so poorly written that it skews and clouts many of the film's attempted themes, and makes a mockery of the first film. Finally, Evan Almighty also is an insult to the brilliant actors in it and any halfway-intelligent moviegoer, in that it fails both of them miserably.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

putting aside the "i'm so sure"s and "totally gnarly"s this is one of the sweetest and lifelike romances portrayed on film. deborah foreman (where is she now?) as julie and nicolas cage as randy are as classic as romeo and juliet, tony and maria, jake and samantha... you can't help but fall in love with them. plus the soundtrack - the plimsouls, sparks, the furs, the flirts, and of course, modern english - is also outstanding. for fans of films about young love, i'd equally recommend the recent film all the real girls by david gordon green.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Note: I've tried not to give away any important plot twists (or the ending) but if you're concerned about that, please think about viewing the film before reading further--Thanks!

This was obviously a fairly high budget production, released by Paramount. The story follows the (supposedly true)exploits of hiway-man Jack Shepard in 1700's London. He was a locksmith who got blackmailed into a life of crime by the nefarious "Thief-Taker" to save his brother's life. After being double crossed by the Thief-Taker, we turns into a sort of Robin Hood type figure and gains the support of the common folk. He proceeds to make escapes from several prisons (including the infamous Newgate) as well as having time to "entertain" numerous noble ladies.

I really enjoyed the film, even though the plot was a bit predictable. The film was shot in Glencree and Wicklow Ireland and the sets were very well done and seemed realistic. I think Clavell captured the bustling atmosphere of London in the 1700's quite well and I enjoyed his creative use of camera angles. And, unlike many films depicting this period, Clavell pulls no punches in showing us the deplorable conditions in which the poor lived (in one scene several folks fight over a meat pie that has rolled through the filth in the street).

Overall, I really enjoyed this film. I will admit that it lacks the wonderful scenery and underlying political commentary that Clavell's next film The Last Valley has (a parable to the Vietnam War), but it still merits a viewing or two. It is regrettable that it has not ever (to my knowledge) been released on video or DVD.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Thats not saying much. This Killjoy film has better cinematography and is more professional looking than the last. That doesn't mean it's more professional sounding. That horrible last film was about gangsters killing a kid and then being haunted by a voodoo clown. I thought the guy that played Killjoy in the last one was a bad actor, but wow!!! This Killjoy is honestly the downright worst actor I've seen in any movie, and I've seen a lot of movies. Thed last movie the clown came in about 15 minutes in, this one's shorter and the clown doesn't even come in until 40 minutes in, and it's only 65 minutes long!!! I give it a 2 because the acting from some characters is OK.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Awww, I love this! The Tale of the Cat and the Moon doesn't really need an synopsis, as that's what it is... the cat chasing the moon, to a Spanish poem. It's the artistry that's interesting. In fact, there was this animated short called the Fan and the Flower that was an Academy Award winner last year (2005)... yeah, almost same thing, which leads me to believe it might just be a rip off.

But this is a really good short, with stark black & white shapes shifting and transitioning into beautiful motion and poetic seduction... If you believe cats are poetry in motion, see this and you'll believe it more.

Also, it has such a touching end.

--PolarisDiB

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Lucio Fulci's Cat in the Brain is an inventive and somewhat egotistical tale of a director's decent into madness. The director in question is Fulci himself, who stars in the film. Fulci has become known to horror fans everywhere as 'the godfather of gore', and for good reason, as he has provided us with some of the nastiest and most gruesome films ever to grace the silver screen; from the eyeball violence in films like 'Zombi 2', to a man been hacked to death with chains in 'The Beyond', all the way to the full on gore fest known as 'The New York Ripper'; if you want gore (and let's face it, who doesn't), Fulci is your man. However, all this catering for gorehounds like you and I has taken its toll on Fulci's mental state, and he's quickly delving into madness, brought about by what he films. Fulci's problems don't end at his mental state either, as his psychiatrist that he has gone to see about his problem has took it upon himself to take up murder as a hobby, using Fulci's films as blueprints for the murders!

I've got to say, the acting in this film is absolutely atrocious. There is one scene in particular that involves a hooker, and it's only fit to be laughed at, for both it's acting and it's stupidity. Fulci takes the lead role of the film (obviously). He's not an actor, and it shows, but his performance is actually the best in the film. It's even safe to say that one the whole, the acting is bad for an Italian horror film. Of course, nobody goes into an Italian horror expecting good acting, so it's somewhat forgivable, but I do think that Fulci could have hired some better ones. Bad dubbing doesn't exactly help either. However, something that does help is the fact that the terrible acting is counterbalanced by lots of gore, and it's extreme to say the least! People get their heads cut off, a woman is slain in the shower (and unlike Psycho, here we REALLY see it), people are hacked up, fed to pigs and there's lots and lots of cinema's finest melee weapon - the chainsaw on display, which delighted me no end. The amount of gore is massively over the top a lot of the time, which gives the film something of a 'spoof' feel, but Cat in the Brain is obviously a tongue in cheek film anyway.

It would be hard to make a film about yourself and not come across as being a bit of a big head, and Fulci does indeed come across as a bit of a big head in this movie. His name is mentioned often, and he's on screen nearly all the time; it's not too much unlike 'New Nightmare' in the ego stakes, but it's obvious he had a good time making this, and I for one had fun watching it, so we can forgive him a little egotism. The film's ending lets it down - I saw it coming a mile off, but then didn't seriously think that the movie would take that route, but I was wrong; it did, unfortunately. The ending left me cold, and the film is a better watch if you turn it off just before the final two minutes. However, despite it's ending and terrible acting, Cat in the Brain is a lot of fun and will please Fulci enthusiasts no end, and it is therefore recommended.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: It has been a tradition since my first VHS recorder for me to collect several of the incarnations of the old chestnut by Charles Dickens, and I taped this one and "Karroll's Christmas" this year. Fortunately, when this one was run on the Hallmark Channel at the unGodly hour of 3 AM, I was spared having to edit commercials from it. This was, however, it's only saving grace. 

The writing was excruciatingly dull with almost no clever scenes to save it from being anything more than a teeny-bopper soaper like Beverly Hills 90210. In this one, a good man who was cast aside for her celebrity seems the only logical explanation for her transformation into a Scrooge-like TV talk show hostess. It wasted Dinah Manoff who just plays bitch goddess to the other bitch goddess Tori Spelling (who, by the way, had more coats of paint on her face than some colonial houses) and Bill Shatner is perhaps one of the few fun things in this otherwise dreary adaptation. 

Some of the best opportunities are wasted like the entrances of the ghosts. Aunt Marla's entrance could have been spectacularly funny in the hands of a decent writer, but this Christmas turkey didn't have one, evidently.

Tori Spelling may be a lovely person, but she has all the acting skill of a mannequin, and that makes for a bad show all by itself. 

Yes, it was good to see Gary Coleman work again, but the script gives him nothing to do really except roll his eyes and spout truly lame dialogue.

And what is most infuriating was that the transformation from Scroogedom to Tori "sweet and light" is as convincing as a passionate conservative. Now, if anyone wants to write the ultimate Scrooge tale of a George Bush and Karl Rove, we might have a refreshing change from the usual bad Christmas Carol Clones.

I suppose if you're a fan of Ms. Spelling and/or 90210, this might be your cup of Christmas cheer. I'd prefer a stiff shot of scotch and a cold beer to wash it down myself. This one I just may cast away before it is with me here for a long long time.

God save us everyone!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

So this ugly guy with long, nasty hair and his girlfriend end up in this house and they argue and argue about his old girlfriend. There was suppose to be something scary in it but I didn't see anything scary at all. There is some mention of a demon from the sea but that doesn't go anywhere at all. I wish it did because then it would've taken the tension away from the jealous love triangle. The title of the movie makes it look like it would be a scary and exciting movie but it is so far from it that I couldn't believe it. I waited and waited for it to end and was so happy when it did. It did not live up to the title like it should have so boo hoo hoo. The cover had a cool picture but I shouldn't judge a cheesy movie by its cover.
This was Chaplin's first all-talking picture, and the results are mixed. The movie is a biting satire of Hitler and Mussolini, their henchmen and their fanatical way of life, especially regarding the persecution of the Jews. It was daring and forward for 1940 and must have made a lot of people squirm.

When compared to Chaplin's earlier works, this is quite pale in comparison. The sweet, funny style of his silents, in my opinion, is far superior to his first talkie. There are lots of meaningless bits that drag on. If this was a silent, it probably would not have happened.

I find one of the funniest moments to be the musical barber moment and the globe dance. One of the most touching moments is, obviously, the speech at the end.

The Great Dictator is an effective and at times moving film that is a very big part of both Chaplin's history and movie history. It is flawed, but Chaplin is in great form.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

GEORGE AND MILDRED was a spin off from the mid 1970s sit-com MAN ABOUT THE HOUSE . Though I haven't seen the series since it was last broadcast I do remember it being fairly amusing with most of the comedy arising from the eponymous couple going to live beside the snobbish Fourmile family , a sort of LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR without the cynical racist gags .

Having seen this " big screen version of the show " I find myself asking what it's a big screen version of ? Certainly not of a popular mid 70s sit com of the same name . For some reason the movie jettisons all character interaction from the television by having George and Mildred leaving the street where they live behind and getting caught up in a plot involving some serious gangsters who want something George has inadvertently picked up and which leads to some cringe making situations and lines like: 

" Did he give it to you " 

" No that's the first time a man has resisted my charms " 

" I meant the envelope " 

You do get the impression that screenwriter Dick Sharples ( Who never wrote an episode for the original sit-com ) has never seen an episode of the source material and has got the show confused with the CARRY ON series of films . In many ways it resembles the same mistakes of the latter LOST IN SPACE movie in that it has absolutely nothing in common with the series that spawned it
What's an example of a movie review?

Being a fan of the series I thought, how bad can the movie be? Well I got my answer. Some movies should never be made. Why call it a remake of the series when the only similarities are that there are three main characters. The Pete character in the series wasn't a whiney little baby as portrayed in the movie. The only good thing in this movie besides the music and that Clare Danes is pretty was that it was short. What's with that dance scene??? The only reason I didn't walk out of this film was because it was so bad it got funny. Maybe that was the plan! It's really bad when a cheap 60's TV show is better then a 90's 20 million dollar film. El Mariachi cost only $7000 and is a much better film. Don't even waste your money when it comes out on tape, it's not even worth renting.
It's not like an historical movie, it's not a movie with unforgettable love stories, it's not a movie with a spectacular scenario, but i can surely say it's a movie with a great atmosphere...

It had that 60's kind of bohemian and rebellious spirit: a group of friends living in a poor apartment in Paris, each one making art, dreaming of changing the world, doing drugs and loving in his very own way.

It takes a lot of patience to watch, and a special mood, that if you're not in, you might find it extremely boring and dull.

I liked a lot the very realistic approach of the events that took place and their immediate effect on student's lives: the fear for their future, the difficulty of earning their living, the obstacles in following their dreams.

What i absolutely loved was the black & white image. The still camera angles were amazing, they were like freezing moments. It left me the impression of a long slide show of old and very emotive and suggestive photographs. I actually had to see the movie again, just to take those amazing screen-shots.

In one word: beautiful...
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

i have been watching this movie repeatedly, since it came out. even though it is 8 years old now, it still cracks me up. the jokes are still hilarious and the way the characters are portrayed will make anybody of any age laugh like they've never laughed before. Enjoy it
What's an example of a movie review?

I watched this cooking show for a few times before I wanted to pull my hair out. Just one question.....Who CAN'T cook a slapped together plain meal in 30 minutes when everything you need is at hand, already bagged, sometimes pre-chopped and you have very little else to do except chop a few greens. Also, almost every cooking show on TV is 30 minutes and most of these chefs do all of their prep work (except for Sandra Lee), during their show. Oh and yep....they do full meals too.

Love the comment by the guy who hated the "EVOO" comment. Add "DE-LISH" to my list of stupid tag words. 

Then you have the obvious....a Loud, gregarious woman who is truly her own best audience. She laughs at her own lame comments, mugs too many times for the camera because she wants to convince us that she's as good as the thinks. 

NO she ain't "the cutest thing." She's a 40-something year old woman who isn't DE-LISH.
This is your typical junk comedy.

There are almost no laughs. No genuine moments. No memorable lines. No scenes where you think to yourself, "that was clever". Nothing. The plot is embarrassingly bad. 

It's ugly to look at and boring as hell! There is no substance here. This movie has nothing. It doesn't matter if Farely was in this or not. A crap movie is a crap movie no matter who's involved. 

Also, David Spade is a terribly unfunny comedian who plays the same lousy character in ever movie/TV show that he's in.

This movie was dead on arrival. There is no life here. No fun. No intelligence. There are plenty of other "dumb" comedies more enjoyable that this one. This film is just pathetic. 

2/10
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Where to Begin, I like the scary snow-monster named Jack Frost. The whole concept works well for me, we thought he'd be back and he was. Changing the local to a tropical resort works. Seeing old friends and meeting new characters. Scott MacDonald does a great job as Jack Frost, you can tell when an actor has fun playing a villain, you can see it or in this case hear it in the performance. Yup, Jack Frost 2 is a welcomed sequel that is better then the first. I do have one complaint, the little Jacks or the Jacklings as I call them. They looked like hand puppets. I think they could have done a better job with the Jacklings, the mouth could have opened wider, but the CGI was good and as a whole the whole movie is worth watching over and over again. If you liked JACK FROST, then you will like this sequel. No questions or debate, 9 BIG STARS.
Might contain spoilers.

This is just a good movie. Lots of good silly stuff to laugh at. However, do not watch the TV version, they cut to much out. Dom Deluise is rather awesome as the mafia Don who is hired to kill Robin. All I can say about his ten minutes: it's a long drive from Jersey. Also you gotta love them checking the script to make sure Robin gets another shot. Also: 12th Century Fox.

Any bad stuff? The rappers at the beginning and the end seem rather out dated. The songs were rather lame. One time while watching this movie, I could think out a few more times when they could have thrown in another joke or 2. 

On the whole, however, an enjoyable movie experience. A must watch for comedy fans.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

Sean Astin pulls off another amazing performance in "Toy Soldiers". He plays the highly intelligent prankster, Billy Tepper along with Wil Wheaton and Keith Coogan who play his best friends, Joey Trotta and Jonathan "Snuffy" Bradberry. During a regular day at Saint Anselm's school for boys, a group of dangerous terrorists take all the boys and teachers as hostages and threatens to blow up the school if the leader, Luis Cali (Andrew Divoff's), father isn't released from the American prison, but these aren't just ordinary boys that are taken hostage, most of these kids are the sons of very powerful people in America and half of them were expelled from other schools before they came to Saint Anselm's. They're mouths and actions just may get them killed. When the government is desperately trying to figure out a way to help, Billy, Joey, Snuffy and some more boys decide to take matters into their own hands.
Write a positive movie review.

While many people found this film simply too slow and simplistic I really connected with it. There is no plot as such, rather the film takes the form of a human survival story about three people trapped up a tree with a man eating crocodile lurking somewhere in the water beneath them.

Personally, I thought the acting was mostly very good, despite the roles being quite demanding at times, and I felt a sense of warmth for the characters. The situation they were in was quite terrifying and I really felt nervous for them. I found the whole film quite nerve wracking because of the sheer helplessness of their situation and the constant threat to their survival.

The crocodile effects were handled surprisingly well for such a low budget film, and believe me, I have seen my fair share of dodgy croc movies. The creature moved well and had real menace and, although the audience I was with didn't seem too keen on the film as a whole, they still jumped and gasped whenever the crocodile appeared.

Script-wise, I would have made a few changes, particularly towards the end, but this was not a major problem. For fans of slow-burning survival horror set within the realms of reality this will be an engaging film but unfortunately I think for many audiences seeking a thrill ride and higher production values from their cinema experience the point will simply be missed.
Determine the sentiment:

Just when I thought nothing could be as offensive and/or irritating as a Billy Mays infomercial, I had the intellectually shattering experience of renting this piece of garbage. Peter Barnes and John Irvin should be brought up on criminal charges for smuggling this script into the public venue. The actors need to be charged as accomplices, serving no less than a lifetime away from the public eye.

This production offers the disclaimer, "For dramatic effect, we have taken poetic license with certain facts", or some such inadequate statement to fully brace you for the absolute repugnant rewrite of a Bible story which needed no drama added. What they did add was enough to make your I.Q. drop three full points for every five minutes of viewing time.

The "poetic license" taken, invents characters so bizarre, you'll recognize nothing but the names of a few, and, of course, the ark.

For some reason, Noah and Lot are both living in Sodom, so maybe Abram was vacationing in Switzerland on a skiing trip. Lot's wife, played by Carol Kane, is a harpy, and when she's turned to a pillar of salt, Lot breaks off her finger and carries it around in what appears to be an empty baby food jar. If that's "poetic", I'm a kumquat.

When Noah - who has now begun drinking wine in quantities that could help float the ark - whines about the tough job of the building project, he awakens one morning to find that God has delivered enough precut lumber to lighten his burden. At least I think it was God. It looked like a delivery from 84 Lumber, neatly stacked and bundled. Maybe 84 Lumber is really an agent for God????? Rather than bore you with the cargo being loaded, I'll regale you with the account of the pirate attack on the ark. Incongruous, you think? This movie is filled with such insulting nonsense. After an untold time on the waters, Noah spies a pirate ship heading right for them. And who might the salty sea-captain be? Well, duh, it's Lot, of course! My only surprise was that his uncle Abram wasn't aboard. If you're going to slaughter a plot line, slaughter all of it. The piracy attempt is unsuccessful, and the swashbuckling was pathetic, not poetic. I think it was around this mark that my nausea prevented me from punishing myself anymore.

An ugly, senseless, moronic distortion of anything remotely resembling a Bible account. On a scale of 1 - 10, this movie is premeditated mind abuse. Stupid and insulting, you'll be more entertained by reading the Yellow Pages.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

'R Xmas is one of the only films I've seen where I can almost say that simply nothing happens.I felt as though I watched a drug dealing middle- class couple,with child,walk around,eat,smoke,converse(excuse me,swear)through most of the film.And I don't believe I'm missing the point.I think this film was well directed,well acted(although the husband's performance was rather wooden),and the constant feeling of impending doom around every corner certainly kept the viewer involved.But when the dust clears,your left with zero(just a boat-load of fade outs).I didn't want car chases,gun violence,beatings,etc.In fact,I'm sick of violence.But my goodness,let's at least get a bit deeper into all these characters(let's get to know each of these corrupt officers a little better-not just show glancing shots of them as street thugs).Why was the dialogue so juvenile? Everyone spoke as if they were in junior high.I believe even this side of our human race can say something other than fu_ _,sh_ _,etc.The pacing and the storyline of 'R Xmas I found quite interesting,but the execution was plain and simple-empty.4/10
First of all, I just wanna say that I'm a very big Naruto fan. I love the Anime and the Manga stories. Also, the first movie just confirmed that Naruto is all about great fun, great action, great story, ... But then came the 2nd movie. I was very hyped because the first movie turned out great. But it didn't satisfy me one bit... The story was lame, action wasn't all that great... especially compared to the Anime series... same goes for the quality of animation. I found it very poorly... Could the story get any lamer... ANY ??? Where's the kyuubi of Naruto ?? Not once does he turn demon... I mean ... COME ON !!! My advice is... see the series ( until episode 140 , then it's just fillers ) and then read the Manga because that's still great. Ignore this movie and hope for something better in the future...

All and all I gave it a 4, just because it's Naruto...
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Despite having a very pretty leading lady (Rosita Arenas, one of my boy-crushes), the acting and the direction are examples of what NOT to do while making a movie.

Placed in southern Mexico, Popoca, the Aztec Mummy (real Aztecs, by the way, DID not made mummies) has been waken up by the lead characters and starts making trouble in Mexico City suburbia, during the first movie (The Aztec Mummy). In this second part, the leading man and woman want to find th mummy and put it in its final resting place (a fireplace would have been my first choice...)

Into this appears The Bat, a criminal master-mindless stereotype of a criminal genius who creates a "human robot" (some idiot inside a robot SUIT) to control Popoca and (get this) take over the world. The final match between the robot and the mummy is hilarious, some of the worst choreography ever witnessed. The funniest part is that this movie was made and released by a serious Mexican movie studio!

The acting is just as awful hearing the movie in Spanish as it is in English (they dubbed the over-acting!). You should watch this movie through MST:3000. The comments are even funnier.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Watched this film at a local festival, the Silver Sprocket International Film Festival Florida . What a lovely film. A simple, uncomplicated morality tale about a young care free young man having to take responsibility for his actions. It neither pretentious or flashy my two teenage daughters loved it and for a change I wasn't embarrassed by any of the film content or language. A real family film and the best British comedy film I've seen since Billy Elliot.The film went on to win not surprisingly the top festival awards of Best Film and Best Director. Ten out of ten.
Rita Hayworth plays a Brooklyn nightclub dancer named Rusty who specializes in cheesecake chorus revues; she manages to get herself on the cover of a national fashion magazine, but her impending success as a solo (with romantic offers all around) has smitten boss Gene Kelly chomping at the bit. Terribly tired piece of Technicolor cotton candy, with unmemorable musical sketches (the two worst of which are irrelevant flashbacks to the 1890s, with Hayworth portraying her own grandmother). Kelly, as always, dances well but acts with false sincerity; when he's serious, he's insufferable, and the rest of the time he's flying on adrenaline. The script is a lead weight, not even giving supporting players Phil Silvers and Eve Arden any good lines. *1/2 from ****

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Having first read the novel, I don't mind,for the purposes of filming, how differently it is scripted, as long as it adheres to, or at least includes, the plot. For reasons known only to Hollywood, important parts of the story are completely ignored, and a different story line added. The reason this novel passed the test of time, is, no doubt, due to the interweaving of both the characters, and plot, as a whole. To interfere with this structure, is to destroy the intricate balance of the story line, and therefore the intension of the story teller. Although a matter of opinion, the casting of this film leaves a lot to be desired. Characters, described as very fat, should, at least, be made to look portly, to allow for the character to have credibility. The days of slavery can't be over, or surely, actors of this calibre would have been in revolt, at such a travesty of the story. The face of Marian Halcolme is described as being manly in appearance,... Tara Fitzgerald's very feminine appearance doesn't ring true. Again Laura Fairly is described as being 'fair', if not 'ethereal', so, with dark hair, she does not quite fit the impression gleaned from the novel. ....Badly done, Hollywood!

J. Hunter
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Not too good a movie. Sure, it contains action, but the effects aren't all that good for a '08 movie. Gunshot effects are downright horrible. Acting is "meh" 

It is nothing like Far Cry, other than names and the very basics of the story (genetically enhanced super soldiers going amok). The super soldiers are very different, the mercenaries are different, the setting are completely different (tropical island in the pacific in the game, island in northern-ish America in the movie).

I loved playing Far Cry. I loved the story and setting. I hated the movie.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Luther the Geek (1990) is a dull horror movie and is really bad even by Troma's standards!! It's about a freak who bites the heads off chickens, and kills people by biting their necks out, and he actually thinks he's a chicken himself!!!!! Luther gets released from prison after 25 yrs because apparentely he's been a "model" prisoner and deserves another chance in life (which is VERY hard to believe after you see how he acts and treats people throughout the movie).

After killing an elderly lady in a supermarket car park, he manages to sneak into a womans car, and proceeds to torture her, her daughter and the daughters boyfriend at their family home in the country.

Then we get treated to a long winded and boring movie, with awful acting all the way through, before a useless cop turns up to try and kill Luther once and for all!! Oh and the film has a ridiculous and laughable ending too!!! I love low budget horror movies and i think "The Toxic Avenger" is an all time classic, but i'm afraid Luther the Geek is just boring, illogical and dull, not much in the way of gore too, just afew bloody neck bitings and thats about it! 3/10
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This film has it's heart in the right place, but unfortunately, it isn't much of a film. It is more of a documentary under the guise of a narrative. Bamako is basically a newspaper op-ed piece put on celluloid. However, your average well-researched op-ed piece is far more cogent and concise than anything presented here. The filmmaker is trying to relay to the viewer the hardships of African life, in particular the country of Mali, due to the unethical practices of the IMF, G8, and World Bank, by using the setting of a mock trial against the aforementioned. There is an extra 10 minutes dispersed throughout the film that makes a half-hearted attempt at a narrative plot, and a bizarre Hollywood Western-style shootout scene, where the director seems quite pleased with his own cleverness (hence, the frequent Godard comparisons).

Of course, as the film begins, what and who is on trial is never explained, but as we know by now, the French refuse to spoon-feed their audience.

There are many impassioned arguments made, but they are often long-winded, delivered in a shrill monotone (one that becomes quite easy to tune out after awhile), and very light on specifics. The last point is the most frustrating of all since there is a very well-reasoned specific case to be made against the institutions on trial here. Unfortunately, all we get in 2 hours is that the IMF and G8 are evil oppressors and should forgive 3rd-World debt. We are given no more than the occasional hint to the specific reasons why the organizations on trial are guilty, but never a clear case. The mock-trial arguments and the footage of the surrounding village makes the suffering of these African residents clear, but one wonders why we must sit through 2 hours of it, when a far more precise picture could be painted in a 20-minute Newsweek article, or Bill Moyers episode. In the end, there is something very important to be said on this issue, it simply isn't presented very well, or very clearly, in this pretentious, indulgent piece.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
In a sense, this movie did not even compare to the novel. However, it was good to have a visual of what the Congo looked like and also the natives if you are not good at visualizing as you read. I would never recommend watching the movie rather than reading the book. I hardly suggest even watching this film, let alone any other films based on this literary work. This movie; and many others, did not fulfill this book. One important part that is missing from the movie is MArlow's sense of how government of lack of there in Africa was forming an early genocide. Also in the movie, MArlow and his companions didn't stop and get the note and wood. Likewise, Kurtz' African mistress knocks Marlow out towards the end of the story which has a major influence in the story but was not in the book. In the novel, Kurtz died on the ship, however he died in his hut in the movie. The fiancé's reaction to Marlow's interpretation of Kurtz' last words also differed. This movie is only effective if you wish to visualize more clearly the novel.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

Simon West's remake of the 1979 horror classic is a pathetic attempt to bring old school thrills to a contemporary audience. Starring talented teen Camilla Belle, When a Stanger Calls fails to even elicit a shocked, or even surprised face. Poor attempts at scaring the audience range from blurred coats that look like people to building the tense music up for a cat running out of the shadows. The plot follows Jill Johnson (Belle), a teenage girl that has to pay off a bill to her father via babysitting. She is invited to work for the night at a house by the river, and thinks it a perfectly easy way to make cash. But little does she know, a stranger lurks in the house, and constantly harasses Johnson via the phone. A pathetic excuse for a film.
As you might not know Eça de Queiroz is one of Portugal's most rightfully celebrated writers. He was witty, he spared no one in his critics and must now be rolling in his tomb. And that's not due to this movie being bad, which it is, but as a result of the treatment dispensed to one of his masterworks "O Crime do Padre Amaro". It's treated like cheap, throwaway trash.

When it was publicized that this was to be a "modern and urban" take on the book I feared for the worst, normally modern in these contexts means taking the liberty to take the p**** when doing an adaptation, to half arse it in the shoddiest possible way. And so the moral and social dilemma of a priest having a secret,forbidden affair are substituted by extra-long passages of people dealing drugs and singing hip-hop for no particular or pertinent reason to the plot. It's just there like it might very well not have been.

Oh and there's lots of sex so you can at least be counting on that when you put this on. Remember how every movie in the 80's, no matter the genre or the tone always found a way to sneak in some nudity? If it was a thriller and they had no need for it they simply found a way that when they were capturing a felon he "happened" to be in bed with a woman that would prance around screaming (naked of course) when the cops barged in. Ahem, gratuitous is the word I think. Not that there's anything wrong with nude scenes but here they make the creators of this movie look desperate simply because there's nothing else to the movie, it's totally devoid of what do you call it dramatic content.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This is not especially well written. The songs are not memorable. The cast, however, squeezes a lot out of this Martin and Lewis in the Navy situation. They both look great as young sailors. They are believable. The scenes on the submarine show how cramped it must have been on those underwater missions in the 1950s and before.

Lots of sailors in many scenes. Hundreds perhaps, in a big outdoor exercise field, and again in a boxing arena.

You will see James Dean in his scene. He does stand out even though he is an extra here. In a scene where Jerry walks across a busy street we see some of his "almost accident" comedy which he would bring into play years later in The Patsy.

Dean giving Jerry boxing instructions is a good comedy skit to watch for. Jerry in the boxing ring shows his high energy that was his trademark in the late '40s and early '50s. Dean and Jerry dancing is a bit of a treat. Not great, but better than most non dancing movies.

Worth seeing if you don't mind black and white. Good ending.

Tom Willett
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I have read each and every one of Baroness Orczy's Scarlet Pimpernel books. Counting this one, I have seen 3 pimpernel movies. The one with Jane Seymour and Anthony Andrews i preferred greatly to this. It goes out of its way for violence and action, occasionally completely violating the spirit of the book. I don't expect movies to stick directly to plots, i gave up being that idealistic long ago, but if an excellent movie of a book has already been made, don't remake it with a tv movie that includes excellent actors and nice costumes, but a barely decent script. Sticking with the 80's version....Rahne

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Riotously cheesy lunacy about lava spewing from the La Brea tar pits in Los Angeles. Even if you attempt to suspend disbelief by ignoring this ludicrous premise, you'll still be howling with laughter at the inane dialog, nonsensical plot contrivances, and wildly reckless scientific plot holes that parade across the screen.

I have a theory: every successful actor is doomed to appear in at least one bad movie at some point in his/her career. This was Tommy Lee Jones's turn. Although he makes a decent effort, the script is just so pathetic even he goes down in flames (oops, sorry about that). Most of the supporting cast is also choked by the hackneyed writing; a few of the actors simply phone in their roles. Anne Heche deserves special Hall of Shame recognition for her awkward portrayal of a scientist. She is about as convincing in this role as Pee Wee Herman, and even he would have at least done a better acting job.

Since the scientific plot holes are too numerous to list here, I would instead suggest that you screen the film with friends, and have a game of "Find the scientific absurdities." The loser could be forced to listen to tapes of corny lines from the movie like "Everybody looks the same" over and over. Here's a sample of the kind of nonsense you can expect: a scheme to blow up a building is devised, engineered, and the dynamite set and detonated all within a space of about 20 minutes. 

Let us not forget the obligatory disaster movie clichés: divorced dads, scientists who get ignored by everybody, obnoxious cops, tough street kids, bratty teenagers, greedy investors etc.; all are present and in abundance. The film also bashes you over the head with a relentless barrage of political correctness.

For fans of cheese and silliness only. All other viewers: beware.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: After seeing this piece of crap you will know why the limeys drive on the left side of the street...this movie is an absolute NO-BRAINER! The jokes (if this is the right word for it...) are mostly sub-standard (about 98%) and do miss any punch-line at all. Save the money and get drunk. You might enjoy this movie being totally wasted, perhaps!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Steve Smith has finally run a fairly weak series right into the ground with this movie. Poor actors thrashing a horrible script pretty much sums this one up. Two hours of your life you'll never get back! Go get a root canal instead - you'll enjoy it more.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

The recent documentary "The Adventures of Errol Flynn" is an in-depth look at the Ultimate Hollywood Hero. Bogart,Cagney, Wayne and the like were basically blue collar types in their screen images but Flynn was an aristocrat in his style and manner, the younger son out to carve out his own fiefdom for a sword,thunder and romance analogy that ironically he found himself trapped in. If he hadn't been under contract to Warner Bros. he would've of been perfect in the Cary Grant role in Suspicion: the good looking charmer whose 1000 watt smile blinds one to the fact that he's a predator. And he could've starred with his best leading ladies sister Joan Fontaine. That was Flynn's trouble he was the Ultimate Screen Hero until his own habits and bad timing caught up with him. Grant and Flynn in a way are similar but Flynn was the more macho of the two;it is possible to see Grant as Captain Blood but Flynn in The Philadelphia Story Mr. Blanding Builds his Dream House,or Monkey Business,or Operation Petticoat would've turned those roles on their collective ears because he's too damn sure on his feet and the sexual tension he would've brought naturally would've made the story lines wobbly. But this wobbly biography is just a plasticized view of Flynn and his era. There are times when I half expected a laugh track or an audience to go "Ahhh" at some point. It doesn't go deeply into Flynn's life just the screen magazine view. It also doesn't delve into his struggle to be considered more than a derring-doer. Like the cleaned up biographies of Lon Chaney( the father,not the Wolfman,or Lenny"Of Mice and Men) and Buster Keaton done in the '50's this is just a time killing piece of fluff
Jack Webb's portrayal of the Marine drill instructor shaping new recruits in basic training requires no interpretation. Straight forward, direct, up front, are all applicable to this classic. In a time when parsing the statements of our leaders is a necessity in order to understand what they are saying, this movie that plays no games with our language or our moral fiber. Right and wrong are clear and easily defined. If you like clear, well understood dialog in a disciplined military setting, this movie should suit you.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
There are worse ways to spend an evening than watching this movie, although it IS a tad predictable. Drew Barrymore does a very good job of being the outcast nerd in this film - excellent casting choice. What I found a bit hard to believe is that the popular girls finally accept her - in my experience that crowd has a longer memory than that, and knowing how AWFUL Drew's character was (ostrich feathers?) at the start of the school year would have kept them miles away, regardless of what rumors her brother drums up. (And does "Kole Slaw Food" really make HIM all that popular? I doubt it). As for rooting for Drew's character to win big as a reporter - well, I would have hoped she could have come up with a story long before the prom. A bit contrived. Having said all that, it was a cutsie piece of fluff that will be entertaining as long as you don't expect too much.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Colombian terrorists hold hostage a military school in the U.S. until their demands are met. The students decide to fight back. Will they be able to do it?

Silly premise but the film actually works. The group of kids who fight were all up and coming when this film came out in 1991: Sean Astin (looking very cute); Wil Wheaton (looking miserable); Keith Coogan; George Perez (the token Latino who is very handsome, very muscular and is mostly shown in nothing but tight underwear); T.E. Russell (the token black guy) and Shawn Phelan. None of them are very good actors (except Astin), but who cares? This is a mindless action film. The only other good performances are from Denholm Elliott (having a ball as the headmaster) and Louis Gossett Jr. as the dean.

Other than that--there's lots of action, suspense, explosions and little brains. In other words---FUN! 

Only complaint (and this is minor)--it's a bit too long (there are THREE endings) and there is LOTS of casual, bloody violence (the R rating was well-earned). Still, I enjoyed it a lot.
Write a positive movie review.

This film is not your typical Hollywood fare, though the pickings are so bad I often tend to stay away from movies rather than be disappointed. However, this little low-budget gem is thoroughly loveable and enjoyable and definitely a keeper. The actors are as varied as the characters they portray, the Buffalo setting is charming (what a pretty city), and the story sparkles. The lack of gratuitous violence, sex and the "f" word doesn't detract in the least! Take the kids, take grandma, take a break from Hollywood! I give it an 11 out of 10!