cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Write a positive movie review.

Now before people start having a breakdown about this movie (those who play rugby anyway) this is a film! It's been given the Hollywood treatment to entertain people and therefore those who play rugby (myself included) are naturally gonna pick holes in the choreography of the game in the film. Althogether it is a decent film and bring to the attention the morals and ideas behind the game of rugby.

The film is based on a real team, a real coach and his work helping guide kids in the right direction to be better people in the future, and also is based on real people who have played for the highland team. Its just a typical sports movie with a character who is misguided and eventually finds his way on the right track again through the rugby medium in this case. Is generally a feel good movie that is enjoyable but has flaws in terms of it's portrayal of the game. however, like i said it is a film under the Hollywood treatment.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Most of this political thriller presented as a mostly run of the mill movie with a somewhat better development of many of the major characters, that was much appreciated, until the BIG twist and powerful climax that recalled twists experienced in "Silence of the Lambs," or "The Sixth Sense." Reese Witherspoon as the distraught wife of the missing Egyptian husband and Yigal Naor as the strong-armed interrogator offer strong performances. Jake Gyllenhaal unfortunately is handed a more two-dimensional character and has to struggled with a stereotypical presentation of the emotionally torn CIA analyst that has been presented many times before in other movies. Early on there is the nice scene with an explosion that resembles a scene at the end of "Saving Private Ryan," the silent scene that was used so effectively in reflecting one consequence of violence. The script also provides a little more glimpse into the mind-set of the "enemy" but still doesn't allow the audience really much understanding, again permitting the audience to wallow in stereotypical characterization. The cinematography and photography also is somewhat of a letdown because unlike "Jarhead," or "Blackhawk Down," the crisp, raw visceral presentation is missing not allowing the audience to really be there in the movie, there is some distance that keeps the audience from realizing the intensity of the emotions occurring on the screen. However, overall, the movie redeems itself by the end, offering the audience a measured look into the complexity of the United States' use of rendition and the possible complications and consequences that may occur through its use. Eight out of Ten Stars.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

"For a Squadron Leader - normally the only guy trained and equipped for navigation in a squadron and very hard to replace - to risk an expensive plane and himself to pick up a crashed fellow pilot, no matter how close a friend he is, in the face of oncoming enemy troops, is hard to believe, especially when they both have to share a cramped Spitfire cockpit - two into a Skyraider, OK, but a Spit?! Come on, this part of the film is a Biggles adventure, not fitting a film that one is supposed to take seriously!" as said by Tord S Eriksson (Gothenburg, Sweden) is rubbish. Not at all Biggles. One true story of the war comes to mind of two grounded spit pilots, who planned and flew (illegally) a strafing mission over France. One had to crash land and his friend landed his spit under fire, while German infantry was moving in on them, and flew them both out of there. In a spit. They were BOTH severely injured in former fights, one had an artificial leg from the knee down. Now that may sound like something out of Bigles, but it happened. Ill get sources if needed
My one-line summary hints that this is not a good film, but this is not true. I did enjoy the movie, but was probably expecting too much.

Adele, who is solidly portrayed by Susan Sarandon, did not come off as a very likable character. She is flighty and irresponsible to what would be an unforgivable degree were it not for the tremendous love she has for her daughter. This is the one thing she knows how to do without fail. Adele's daughter, Anna, is a sad girl who is so busy making up for her mother's shortcomings that she does not seem to be only 14-17 years old. This, of course, makes Natalie Portman the perfect choice to play Anna since she never seems to be 14- 17 years old either. Portman pulls this role off with such ease that you almost forget that she has not been making movies for 20 years. Yet, even with the two solid leads, Wayne Wang never seems to quite draw the audience in as he did with The Joy Luck Luck and even more so with Smoke. Though I have not read the book, the film feels as if it has made necessary changes to the story to bring it to the big screen, changes which may drain the emotional pungency of the story. I enjoyed the film for the fun of watching two wonderful actresses do their work, but I never got lost in the experience and I never related to their plight.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Vadim changed Brigitte's image and way of life from that of the young society beauty he had married to that of a rebellious and challenging teenager of the 1950s 

"Une Parisienne" succeeded in launching her ravishing figure as the teenage goddess, the casual sexuality, the provocative gaiety in confrontation with men 

Charles Boyer  as Prince Charles  was the perfect, ideal choice of those magically romantic moments His deep and vibrant voice spoke a promise of new adventures in love His deep, wondering eyes bespoke a worldly knowledge untarnished by cynicism He had the boudoir grace of Valentino without the hysteria or the sometime effeminacy of the great lover Under Michel Boisrond's direction, Boyer was an old-style romantic without the grand manner
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Can't say this wasn't made well. At a recent film festival the director admitted some scenes took 30 takes. And there isn't the slightest indication he didn't get exactly what he wanted. But this is an oddly non-Hispanic film in the same way West Side Story was many years ago. Both the leads, a brother-sister team, are excellent and memorable in their parts. The setting, a sort of underground car repair district in Queens, is completely foreign to most people and is worth the price of admission by itself. But there's something unsatisfying about the key issue in the film, namely, what the sister feels she has to do to get by. I can understand the brother's reaction, but it just seems a little too easily come by to me. The movie seems to suggest that people like these don't need our help, that they'll find a way to survive without the usual support systems. I wouldn't encourage anyone to believe that. There would be far more resistance to the choices made here than depicted. Other than that as an entertainment it works well. As an accurate depiction of a culture, not so well, I think.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

My cousins and I have watched this movie ever since we were little. I don't know exactly what it is about this movie, but we latched on to this endearing movie and it has become a special part of our family's memories.

I totally and absolutely recommend this movie to anyone who likes good wholesome family movies because that is exactly what this is. The things that the four kids get themselves into is absolutely hilarious to watch. It is an old movie but don't let that fool you. This is one of the best movies out there that shows such strong sibling bond for each other.
Shahrukh Khan and Yash Chopra films have never disappointed. Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge is a romantic classic. Dil To Pagal Hai was fresh and perfect to watch. Mohabbatein remains as one of my favorite movies ever. And Veer-Zaara was magical. Darr, though not the best, is a romantic thriller that is different from the aforementioned movies, but definitely worth a watch. And SRK, who blew me away with an excellent performance in Baazigar, repeats a villain act. And this time he gets an experienced Juhi Chawla and Sunny Deol to support him.

Before I comment on the acting, it is not just the acting, but the wonderful script that makes it worth a watch. It is the writing that compliments the great acting. The story is gripping, but the characterization is what stands out. The comedy track goes along well. But the movie has the tendency of shifting at romance too much. The viewer is bound to lose interest and you will make a couple of yawns. But the movie is still good.

Shahrukh Khan is brilliant in his author backed role. Shahrukh Khan once again is sympathetic and cruel. You are bound to cry at the end. Juhi Chawla is decent. Her screams are bound to become annoying after a while. But in facial expression she is excellent. But her ending scene she is brilliant (though she was overshadowed by SRK). She has an author backed role that makes her very likable. Sunny Deol is adequate. His character was very likable, but too perfect. And it gets boring after a while. He does a good job though. Anupam Kher is really funny, but his role felt a little out of place. Tanvi Azmi supports well. 

The songs are enjoyable and come at the right time. Jadoo Teri Nazar (Magic At Your Sight) is my favorite song, and presentation is very 90's film like. Tu Mere Saamne (You are in Front of Me) and Likha Hai (Written Here) are nice love songs. Darwaza Band Kar Lo (Close the Door) is a decent love song also. The instrumental song is danced to perfection as well as the naughty wedding song Solah Button. The movie may not be perfect, but it is well worth your time especially if your favorite actor is in it.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Ugh. Unfortunately this is one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. None of the characters are remotely likable, which makes this film difficult to watch. They're all miserable thirty year olds who don't take responsibility for their crummy lives. I was only able to make it through a half hour of the film, so there's a chance things got better afterward, but I doubt it. I can't imagine five people as self-absorbed as they are would manage to remain friends with each other for ten years.

Three sex scenes in the first half hour were also disappointing, as they had no relevance to the plot, and were clearly a gratuitous (failed) attempt to bring some life to this otherwise dull film.

Save your time and money, and skip this movie.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Given that Roger Corman attached his name to this production, I had high hopes for this film. Corman directed many memorable low budget horror flicks in the 1960's. I particularly enjoyed his adaptations of Poe's stories such as `The House Of Usher,' and `The Pit And Pendulum' and `The Raven' which starred the late great Vincent Price. These films had solid acting, atmosphere, suspense, strong characterization, intriguing plot development and delivered some chilling moments. Sadly, `House Of The Damned,' for the most part, sacrifices these qualities in lieu of cheesy low budget special effects, gratuitous nudity and mindless gore topped with cliche fast edits and camera angles.

`House Of The Damned' starts off interestingly with some beautiful location shots in Ireland, but it's straight downhill from here. Unfortunately, instead of spending some time building atmosphere, creating characters we might care about, or building suspense - the director opts to begin running up the body count. After a brief introduction to the lead characters, a young couple and their daughter, the audience spends the balance of the film being bounced from one `spooky' event to another which, in this film, substitutes for coherent plot development. The lead characters are so ill conceived and are so badly acted - the audience doesn't care what happens to them. To make matters worse, the `spooky' events are either utterly cliché or unconvincing due to low tech - low budget special effects. The soundtrack has been lifted from `The Omen.' The plot, what little there is, borrows heavily from `Poltergeist' and `The Legend Of Hell House,' but lacks any of the qualities which made these films convincing.

If you interested in seeing well done haunted house flicks, I recommend you check out classics like `The Haunting (1963),' `The Innocents (1961) or look into Corman's early American International films and pass on `House Of The Damned' unless you're masochistic or mindless.

3 ½ out of 10.

Rob Rheubottom

Wpg, MB. Canada
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

"Miss Cast Away" is an amusing trifle, which dispenses with serious plot or character development to pack in as many gags as possible. Best enjoyed with a large audience that is open to such entertainments and perhaps, has had a few drinks. Most of the jokes are current-event based so in future years this film may become a time-capsule of turn-of-the-21st-century pop culture references.

The 30i to 24p conversion of the footage does create a jerky appearance in some parts, most noticeably the opening aerial shots.

The appearance of Micheal Jackson is indeed a strange non-sequiter event. But I, for one, find it encouraging that Mr. Jackson has shown a helpful interest in one of his protégés even after he (the director) has passed from the cute-preteen-boy stage.

The effects work is not as bad as one review suggested. Most of it was done by a one-man crew in a brief span of time consisting of animator William Sutton, whose name seems to have been omitted from the IMDb credits. His work is an extraordinary achievement and really helps to fill in the gaps in this movie. I hope he's finally been paid!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This movie has everything! It has a good storyline, good acting, great scenery, adventure and some brilliant gags! Chris Farley plays Tommy Callaghanhe mega successful company 'Callaghan Auto Parts' has to go on the road to stop the company going under after Big Tom dies. The trouble is that Tommy knows nothing about break pads and needs the help of Callaghan Auto Parts worker Richard (David Spade). From the moment the two dorks hit the road, the movie is just so much fun. If you love slapstick with a great storyline you'll love this because the gags keep coming thick and fast and the movie will just make you laugh out loud! It was so sad about Farley's untimely death in 1997, but a credit to his genius is 'Tommy Boy'. Get it, chill out and enjoy this brilliant slapstick!

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

"The Yoke's on Me" is undoubtedly the most controversial film in the Stooges' 23 years of shorts. The reason is understandable; by today's standards, this film can be considered racist. For this reason, it is rarely shown, if ever, on television.

Let me just state that, for the record, the Japanese seen in the film were not soldiers; they were Japanese-Americans sent to a relocation center during World War II. They were treated and shown as the evil enemy in this film. By all accounts - including the US government, who made an apology and reparations in the 1980s - Japanese-Americans during World War II were as loyal and hardworking as any American. Their imprisonment during this time is a dark blot in American history.

There are some Stooge laughs in this film, but the memories of how Japanese-Americans were treated during this time sullies the entertainment value. Let's not confuse the loyal Japanese-Americans with their representation in this film as evildoers. Loyal Japanese-Americans and the World War II-era evil empire of Japan are not synonymous. 2 out of 10.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
...I saw this movie when it first came out in France, in my hometown, 54 years ago, I was nine, and today I still remember each black and white frame, especially the black ones, because it was so tense, scary, those sneaking attacks through that dark pass in the mountain, the two soldiers, prisoners forced to fight each other by their captors, the last battle with the uncovering of the wagon with the Gatling in it firing away, the last fight between Peck and the chief, and the Happy End which let me take back my breath. I haven't seen it since then, and I don't know if it would be a good idea to see it again today, it was such a fabulous moment for the kid I was.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I first watched this show hoping for a few laughs, good acting, and good plot. Sadly, I got none of those things.

First off, this show is completely unrealistic. How can someone go to a boarding school that's super hip, awesome location, and barely any rules? Plus a sushi bar. A SUSHI BAR. No school has a sushi bar. And what's up with the huge, ultra cool, ultra hip dorm rooms? This doesn't happen in boarding schools! Everyone in this show seems to be perfect. Zoey, looks perfect, has the perfect friends, never has to do homework, and is super popular. Sounds more like a villain to me! I hate how they use so many cliques in this show, Example: Dana the skater chick. She is completely ignorant and wears "edgy" clothes. The jokes are old sooooo old too! I wouldn't watch this show if I were you, it's one of the most horrible shows I have ever watched and I hope it gets canceled soon! Rating: 1/10
This review has been written by someone who has read it (several times) and knows what they are talking about!. Firstly I have read others comments and noticed that some of the objections were really quite stupid. People who have read the book and other Jane Austens or for that matter any good book, will know that sticking to the book is vital you have to trust an author with what they do. If the viewer does not like it BECAUSE it sticks to the book well it shows they do not understand Jane Austen and obviously are not a true fan.

Firstly if the viewer truly loved the book or Jane Austen in general, watching it for four hours should not prove difficult. Secondly, their society did care a lot for looks and so big, fancy hair styles would show off how rich you were, which in their day was a key factor for getting along in "good" society. I have to confess the female costumes were not brilliant but there were only a few bad ones and the males made up for it, also this prejudice for the Naval men not in their uniform is in nice words very silly!, today people do not go out with their uniform away from school or work because they have casual clothes and it was just the same in the 19th century. Also as it goes the acting is very good, it is subtle because that is how Jayne Austen writes! and the scene at the end is beautiful. You can not compare the filming to that of the 1995 version as technology has improved so much since them it is ridiculous to compare them in that. The actress who plays Ann is too old but her air of acting and how she does it makes up for it.

People seem to prefer the 1995 version for some reason that I can not comprehend!. It does not stick to the book at all and so is flat, the ending is sentimental, they change major scenes, the only good actors are the leads and they I give you did a good job for what was given to them. Obviously the people who really, really like it are (I am sorry) stupid as they do not understand Persuasion and so need it to be overdone. The 1971 version is beautiful, romantic, was written by an excellent script writer (same who did Inspector Morse), had very good actors and really it is a film you can watch many times and during each you can be delighted with it.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Young Michael Dudikoff like young Lord Greystoke was abandoned in the jungle on a Pacific island as an infant. But instead of being raised by the apes, he fell into the hands of a Japanese soldier who was still living there because he hadn't heard the war was over. And like young Luke Skywalker it turns out he fell into the hands and learned the fighting skills of a Ninja.

Good thing because they were separated and the young kid came down with a case of amnesia, but those fighting skills didn't go away. The orphaned kid, now named Joe Armstrong enlists in the Army and gets himself stationed in the Phillipines. Meanwhile his Obi Wan Kenobe played by John Fujioka gets rescued himself and goes to work as a gardener on the estate of planter and terrorist go between Don Stewart using a cheesy accent that seems to vary between French and Spanish.

As these things happen everybody meets and Dudikoff both solves the mystery of part of his past and saves the commanding officer's daughter from the bad guys in this Golan-Globus Production. Charles Bronson was getting a bit long in the tooth now and Golan-Globus needed a new star for their action flicks. Michael Dudikoff filled the bill quite nicely and made quite a few films for them including several American Ninja sequels.

This film is all action and Dudikoff dispatches bad guys at a record pace. What he doesn't do, Steve James does doing his best Rambo imitation and showing his considerable martial arts skills.

The film has enough holes in the plot to drive one of those army vehicles through you see in the story. But that's what the ticket buying public doesn't care about. Dudikoff certainly looks magnificent stripped to his fighting clothes. No wonder so many sequels were made.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

This is a beautiful, funny, vivid film. It's even better than "Nuovo Cinema Paradiso" -- which it parallels but doesn't replicate. The story completes a full circle and had the theater beaming as the credits rolled. A hundred years after this story takes place, we're just as intrigued by flickering images in a dark theater.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
First and foremost I would like to say, that before i watched this film i considered myself an accepting individual. Someone that cared about others, appreciated others, found no/barely any judgment against other people, and this film has (i think) changed my life or viewpoint dramatically. When i watched it, I didn't know particularly what it was about, i knew it was about some type of forbidden relationship, but other then that I was clueless, and as I began to see what was taking place between these two wonderfully depicted characters, i was in shock, disbelief, confusion and surprise. The first time i watched it, i was blind. Blind to their love, to their intimacy, to their connection, to their pureness as human beings, to their relationship. I watched it a second time, because i finally figured out how hypocritical I was being, saying to myself and others, "Oh i accept all types of people, and try not to judge them" while still judging this wonderful and amazingly insightful story, because of my fear I suppose. The second time I watched this film, I opened those eyes of mine that had stayed closed the first time, and really looked, not at the type of taboo relationship part that I'd heard about all my life, but simply at two human beings in love. And I loved it, i loved the storyline, i loved the slightly broken yet strong individual people in the film, i loved the sharing of feelings, and i loved the strong bonds created. It is a really eye opening, beautifully done film that made me cry at times, and I hope that people who read this and are going to watch the film eventually, remember that everyone deserves love, no matter what shape or form it is presented in....
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
A teenage film about angst, friendship, loyalty and growing-up but this isn't a happy outing on its part due to the circumstances and life-changing dilemmas surrounding the premise. What eventuates is quite numbing, haunting and downright cold. However I was expecting something a little more powerful and effective and while engrossing and unforgettable it didn't entirely stir up much in the way of emotions. The performances are reasonably a mixed bag, but there's a brutal honesty to them all. Dennis Hopper and especially Daniel Roebuck are amazing Crispin Glover eccentrically over does it and Keanu Reeves' dead as wood turn seems to pay off in his custom slacker role. Joshua John Millar is quite good and so is Ione Skye. Jim Metzler chimes in with a short, but highly engaging performance. The story is dramatically confronting, character-laced and harrowing in its eventual breakdown where it infuses a gritty and painful punch. Jürgen Knieper's swirling music score is simmering with anxiety, tension and wonder as the morals and commitments are tested and learnt.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

When I first saw this show i thought to my self " What is this!!!!!?" Its one of those shows where there is a perfect fake high school world with stupid problems that are considered "huge". Then there's Sadie. This complete misfit for her friends and well her family. Shes completely obsessed with nature not that thats a bad thing but she compares high school students to animals! like what is that!? also they made her another Lizzie Miguire clone ( yeah because the world definitely needs another one of those!) shes also very perfect like most TV girls are which makes me sick! So please this is a stupid show it makes no sense just skip it unless you liked Lizzie McGuire or any other shows like that.
Write a negative movie review.

It is hard for a lover of the novel Northanger Abbey to sit through this BBC adaptation and to keep from throwing objects at the TV screen-in fact, if Jane Austen herself were to see this, she would be somewhat amused and possibly put out. Maggie Wadey's adaptation has made Northanger Abbey into what it satirized, the Gothic novel (and the readers of Gothic novels).

The role of Catherine Morland in the adaptation is portrayed fairly closely to Austen's Catherine, a open-hearted, generous girl whose imagination simply runs away with her. But the Henry Tilney of the novel is not a snuff-taking, cane-wielding, sappy-line-making hero of a Gothic novel-he is a tease, a nearly-handsome man with a messy room and a living (that's right, Henry Tilney is a clergyman, a charm that is completely dropped from the script). Some of the best scenes from novel, when Henry, completely deadpan, outrageously teases the literally-minded Catherine on diction, journals, Mrs. Radcliffe, etc., are not portrayed in the adaptation. A large section of Henry's personality is lost when those scenes are not adapted. Besides, Peter Firth's appearance is not accurate-Henry Tilney is supposed to be 24 or 25, dark hair and a brown skin, not 35 or 40 and blond.

There are so many other absurdities within the adaptation that invoke surprise and disgust-who is the Marchioness, and what is she doing in the story?! Why is John Thorpe less of a dunce and more of a schemer? Why is Northanger Abbey a castle? Catherine of the novel, with her romantic visions, expects hidden passages and dark tapestries, but is very disappointed to discover that Northanger Abbey is actually a comfortable, modern house-another element of satire! Why portray General Tilney as a drunk? Why does Catherine have those strange visions of Mrs. Allen threading her finger, etc.? Catherine's imagination only runs away with her at Northanger, with Henry there to correct her gently. And lastly, why are so many facts concerning the Tilney family and Mrs. Tilney's death altered unnecessarily? To make the story more `horrible?' All of these oddities and more simply are too strange to be overlooked.

 >
Determine the sentiment:

Once upon a time Quentin Tarantino was a relatively successful filmmaker.

Now, unfortunately, he not only makes terrible films, but puts his names to ones like this.

A supposedly cool retro flashback to biker movies of the 60s and 70s, this plumbs new depths.

Believe you me, I enjoy it when a blouse falls off in a film more than the next man but even I felt kind of sleazy watching this. To use a word I never thought I would, its msysoginistic (you see, I can't even spell it.) The plot (in the vaguest sense of the term) is as incomprehensible as Vinnie Jones' accent, the fact his terrible acting does not stand our particularly is as damning a testament as one can think of.

This is just terrible. Shocking. It almost made me cry. In horror.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I saw this series in 1999 in London TV and was blown away. Like another user commented - This is what i would have liked to see when i first watched "Jurassic Park" - Life and death of Dinosaurs in their natural habitat as a documentary. The CG are very lifelike, and the diversity of dinosaurs and habitats shown makes it also very educational.

The series takes everything factually known about dinosaurs, adds a lot of good ideas on "what it could have been" to make up what then looks like a documentary series. What i missed was some small bar-graph constantly in one corner of the screen, moving between "fiction" and "fact" along with the narration and the pictures, because you often wonder how much is educated guessing, and how much is pure fantasy.

To some clues on facts & fiction, you have to see the 50 minute "Making Of", which is not only very educational about the CG process and collecting and including the paleontologists knowledge into the series, but which also is very funny (Dinosaurs smoking cigarettes and complaining about CG animators).

I highly recommend to watch this series before going into the upcoming Disney Dinosaur movie or watching any Jurassic Park (like) movie again. It will surely make you much more critical towards those movies. The Disney Trailers looked especially bad.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
If this is the best Commander Hamilton movie, I have no curiosity about the others.

A movie actor's greatest tools are his eyes, but when Peter Stormare wants to show great emotion, he closes his, so for five or six seconds we get to admire his eyelids while his feelings remain unknown behind them. Lousy acting technique.

Stormare also flinches sometimes when he fires a gun, turning his head away and clamping his eyes shut. Watch carefully. James Bond can rest easy with competition like this.

There are some interesting supporting performances from other actors, but not enough to hang a whole movie on. The cinematography is good-looking, doing a fine job of capturing the Nordic cold. Even the Sahara winds up looking cold. Perhaps Hamilton carries his own climate with him.

There are some individual good action sequences here. Unfortunately, the only sense of humor on screen belongs to the villain, which turns the hero into a big pill. James Bond's jokes may not be particularly good, but at least he doesn't look constipated all the time.

One positive point in the movie's favor is that the psychotic, contorted, vicious hatred of Israel in Guillou's books has been left out. What has been kept in is worship of a noble, heroic PLO, that he shows us functioning in Libya without the dictator Khaddafi's knowledge or supervision. This fantasy is hard to believe, since Khaddafi actually threw the PLO out of Libya for four years at a time. And at the end of the film, Hamilton gives the PLO a very disturbing gift. Where will they use that gift? Hamilton doesn't care.

We're a long, long way away from "For Whom the Bell Tolls" here.

Commander Hamilton will remain a local phenomenon. While Henning Mankell's books sell well around the world, Jan Guillou will never have the same success.

As for this film, bleeeeaaahhhhh.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This movie should go down as one of the funniest movies in history. Its cousins A mighty wind, Spinal Tap and Waiting for Guffman are terrific in their own right but Best in Show takes the cake. 

A movie about the idiosyncrasies of dog owners that show their dogs competitively, it's the intricacies of the characters that make it so good. After watching the movie about 75 times I have come to the conclusion that there is no weak character or actor in this film. There is very little interaction between any of the "groups" of characters but that only seems to add to the beauty of the film. 

If you watch this movie and don't find it as funny as I am billing it as, watch it again. The first time I saw it I thought it was serviceable but not overly hilarious. It is a film that grows on you. Defininatly a movie that you will find yourself quoting frequently. 

Characters: Hamilton and Meg Swan: A+ if you get the DVD check out how these characters were "born" amazing that these two could hit it so on the head. And to find out that they really didn't go by a script and sort of made it up as they went. 

Gerry and Cookie Guggleman: A Cookie is especially funny and she does a fantastic job of selling the Cookie character. Gerry (Eugene Levy) delivers his standard stellar performance of the hilarious discombobulated type weaker half. 

Stefan Vanderhoof and Scott Donalan- A+ Find me a funnier character than Scott Donalan, I DARE YOU! He will forever be typecast as this character to me as he was so natural and didn't seem forced at any point. Stefan (Micheal McKean) was very good as well and they interplay here (and a brief appearance with the Gugglemans) goes to show why he is always in these films. A great actor with razor like wit. 

Harlan Pepper- B+, I don't want it to seem like he isn't funny, he sure is but being the only "Solo" act he can't be quite as funny as the others above. He does use the dog more than others and has some other idiosyncrasies going for him.

The rest are all great as well, there is no weak character. See this film at least twice. Buy it, you will not regret it.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Well, this may be one of the worst movies ever, but atleast there are some nice t*ts in it. The movie is a very bad spoof of The Blair Witch Project, and should be watched only by those wanting to see some t*ts, and NO point other than to flaunt them.

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

negative
This movie really sucks.

Just try to stay awake for 5 minutes while watching this baloney about a nice girl (Joan Woodbury) who gets involved with the 'underworld' because she needs money (and because she's too lazy to take a job from friends after they offer it to her). Alan Ladd was supposed to be the star of this thing, but he's nowhere to be found for the first freaking half hour and when he does show up, he stands around like a constipated mannequin. A real dud with enough talky scenes and unlikeable (as well as stupid) characters to make you wish somebody would shoot anybody, like really fast.

Bring a pillow.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This film is great - well written and very entertaining. David Duchovny shows, once again, that he is much more than Fox Mulder, and the performances by the old men are funny as can be. Old married folks (like me) will appreciate the connection between two hearts.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

Some folkie friends recommended this, but as a film it's really lacking in originality. I found the characters to be unflattering stereotypes, and the plot is predictable almost from the beginning. However, if you like traditional English/Appalachian ballads, it will keep your interest long enough to hear the next one. I've also read that the soundtrack is nothing like the music in the movie, with professional musicians filling in for the actors.
John Huston, actor and director better known for more robust fare such as "The Misfits" and "African Queen," directs his daughter, Angelica Huston, in what would be his last film. Indeed, the film was released after Huston's death. Based on James Joyce's novella of the same name, "The Dead" tells the quiet story of a New Year's celebration in 1904 Dublin. Huston, his cast and his screenwriters, including his son Tony, have created a gem of a movie. The novella is among Joyce's finest works (as well as being the only one that is filmable). The film is a tribute to Huston's genius. He has taken a small,beautiful story and has made a small, beautiful movie. Donal McCann and Angelica Huston shine (although "shine" is too showy, too flashy a word to describe their quiet, understated performances). "The Dead" reflects the Huston family's love for Ireland and is, in its own quiet way, a fitting final movie for a legend.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I remember seeing this movie as a child in the 60's. It took my breath away then at young age. I was glued to my seat in front of the black and white TV. The cast was one of the best i have seen in my life. The musical was one the greatest ever have been written. Please to the Gershwin and Goldwyn Families please release this on video or DVD so that the generations now and in the future can experience what I'm sure what so many of us have done when we saw this great work of art .Please consider, let not this great man's work go unseen for years more. I,m praying and hoping that the hearts of these families will be soften and let the world see this great movie again.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

This movie turned out to be better than I had expected it to be. Some parts were pretty funny. It was nice to have a movie with a new plot.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: MANNA FROM HEAVEN is a terrific film that is both predictable and unpredictable at the same time. You know that the characters after finding out that the so-called "Gift From God" was actually a loan, will pay back the money and that everyone will be happy at the end, but how they get there is not as obvious. The scenes are often funny and occasionally touching as the characters evaluate their lives and where they are going. The cast of veteran actors are more than just a nostalgia trip. Frank Gorshin, Shirley Jones, and Cloris Leachman prove that they are capable of more than playing the Riddler, Mother Partridge, or Mary's friend Phyllis while Jill Eikenberry and Wendie Malick play characters different than we have seen on their TV series. Ursula Burton's portrayal of the nun is both touching and funny at the same time with out making fun of nuns or the church. If you are looking for a movie with a terrific cast, some good music(including a Shirley Jones rendition of "The Way You Look Tonight"), and an uplifting ending, give this one a try. I don't think you will be disappointed.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Yes, bad acting isn't only one thing to mention. Bad script,not so bad music. Unfortunately.

Nice girl and nice boy with perfect bodies and super teeth just isn't enough for me and for you too.

First thing in the morning after crash they go to swim to the sea, to have some fun !!! Smiling ...

They find everything in the sea. I mean things like fishing-net, knife, scuba dive things, ropes, bottles, husband ...

Woodoo stuff , are you kidding. Stupid. They are so happy on the island, they are going to die, and they are happy. Love, peace. Love. Just stupid.

Terrible, skip this one please.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

Great just great! The West Coast got "Dirty" Harry Callahan, the East Coast got Sharky. Burt Reynolds plays Sharky in "Sharky's Machine" and I enjoyed every minute of it. Playing a maverick narcotics cop in Atlanta, GA is just what everyone wants. Instead of suspension, he's sent to vice squad. Like in the Dirty Harry movies or any other cop movies, the captain is always going to be the jerk. When I was a kid, I was curious what that movie meant "Sharky's Machine". Well I knew who played Sharky, I wonder what his machine was. It was his GROUP of fellow cops. After uncovering the murder, he goes all out to find the perp. When it turns out to be a big time mob boss, Sharky doesn't play around. When he gets the other prostitute into safety, Sharky fights back hard and good despite losing a finger to the thug. And I also like the part where the bad gets blown out of the building through a plate glass window. That was the BOMB! Randy Crawford's "Street Life" really put the movie in the right mood, and the movie itself is really a great hit to me, ALWAYS! Rating 4 out of 5 stars.
Determine the sentiment:

I had never seen this movie before it aired on a local cable sci-fi network. It reminded me of the Irwin Allen TV series of the late 60's (Time Tunnel etc). Excellent effects (they beat Star Trek 5 done 20 years later, but then that wasn't very hard to accomplish).

I found the script very intriguing and mature for this type of production. They would have needed a few touch ups to tie some loose ends on the characters' level, but for a kid movie its surprisingly interesting (especially the the glimpse at futuristic euro- politics, surprisingly similar to today's European Union!)

The plot is indeed reminiscent of Twilight Zone in general (as other users have pointed), but in this case it's a compliment.

Great sets, by the way!

7/10
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

When I borrowed this movie, I wasn't expecting a high-quality performance, but this was just sad.

Most of the acting was so unbelievably bad that you couldn't easily get into this movie if you tried. There's nothing quite like seeing a kid announce things like "Oh no! My Dad is invisible!" or "I wonder what this does?" in the same monotone that one might announce traffic advisories over the radio with. There are some good actors, but they are wasted on smaller parts.

The story is decent, though it would be fairly easy to guess, considering that there aren't too many real plot changes. Lots of holes, too. For example, the Dad is invisible, and the inventor figures out what part is needed to make him visible again. So the boy goes and steals the part from an electronics store. Couldn't he just ask his Dad for the cash?

This shows up in the Comedy category, but most of the comedy in this movie was fairly dumb, like the Invisible Dad taking off his clothes while invisible and then almost reappearing naked during a meeting, or walking around with his head covered at all times. Funny at first, but it gets old.

2/5, because it is watchable, and it's one of those movies that are funny in their own way... like the monotone recitation of lines.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

The Toxic Avenger, hideously deformed creature of super-human size and strength is back in this sequel that gets mostly everything wrong. Toxie goes to Japan to find his father at the suggestion of his psychiatrist, whom is in cahoots with an evil corporation who just want the avenger gone to get a stranglehold on Tromaville in his absence. With new actors for Toxie and his girlfriend, who has a different name in this one, a much less grim, much more comical tone, and a plot line that can't hold a candle to the original. Even with the totally uncut version that one can only get if you buy the Tox Box DVD set, the gore is the only thing going for this one. And if you happen upon ANY other version forget about getting any enjoyment from this one at all. While the first one is a low budget classic, this simply is not.

My Grade: D+ 

Eye Candy: Erika Schickel has a very quick nip slip; Phoebe Legere goes topless; one villianess gets fully nude; and a few extras in a bath house scene show various amounts of skin 

Tox Box unrated director's cut DVD Extras: Intro and Commentary by director Lloyd Kaufman; Second commentary with director Lloyd Kaufman, Troma editors Gabriel Friedman and Brian McNulty; Toxie on Japenese TV; Interview with Fangoria managing editor Michael Gingold; Interview by Videohound's Mike Mayo; the same damn Radiation March that's on EVERY Troma DVD; Clip from Lisa Gaye; "Toxie 15 Years Later" mockumentary; 2 PSAs; Troma Intelligence Test; Troma Studio Building Tour; Ad for Lloyd Kaufman's autobiography; Stills gallery; Theatrical trailer; and trailers for: "Toxic Avenger", "Toxic Avenger 3", "Def by Temptation", "Class of Nuke 'Em High", "Sgt. Kabukiman N.Y.P.D.", "Tromeo and Juliet", "Bloodsucking Freaks", & "Surf Nazis Must Die"
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Dark and bleak sets, thrilling music that cuts through your spin like aknife (or razor) a perfect cast lead by Broadway greats Hearn and Lansbury. This is exciting theatre flawlessly transferred to the small screen. Sondheim is the most talented songwriter of our age and Todd is his Masterpiece, from the Brechtian opening ballad to the darkly humorous Act I finale- "A Little Priest" where Lovett and Todd fantasize about the victims that will wind up in their meat pies , this play never ceases to thrill,excite and satisfy. Betsy Joslyn also excels as Johanna, even she, as the plays ingenue seems slightly mad.Edmund Lyndeck turns in a bravado performance as the corrupt Judge who lusts after Joslyn and is the subject of Todd's vendetta. Lansbury and Hearn command the show as only two great actor/stars can do. Other musical highlights include Todd's "johanna" Lovett's "worst pies in London" and the Act II opening 'GOD THATS GOOD", And that is a title to describe this production !
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Although I enjoy Steve Carrell's work, Evan the Almighty, like so many other overdone films turned out to be a lot worse than I hoped it would be.

This turned out to be a cheesy family movie, the kind that employ famous comedian to improve their image, but ultimately fail to deliver.

The usual Carell's dorky humour is almost absent from the movie and though he did make me chuckle a few times, there was nothing hilarious about him in Evan the Almighty.

His 3 kids, although were probably somehow important for a biblical character, were really quite useless in the movie and terrible actors. Even his wife, was somewhat of a third leg for such a simple storyline.

Spending so much money on making a comedy was a huge mistake. Although, Carell's career might profit from this movie, there's no real reason to go see it.

If only there was a little less of his family, a little more of Carell, Molly Shannon and maybe some other SNL cast, it could have actually been a lot more entertaining.

4/10 for a few chuckles here and there.

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

negative
i totally loved this movie, tried to buy it and can't find it. a must see, a movie you can watch again and again, funny but also a tear jerker in one. really good album for the movie. it's a really good 80's movie, i wish i could find a copy to buy this movie, cause i would,the actors in it acted really good.there's a lot of people out there that probably could relate to this movie.that's what makes this movie so good. so go out and try to rent this one, you won't regret it. it's an older movie but it's worth watching, i would not be surprised if they made a remake of this movie soon, but i'm sure it would not be the same. anyone who hasn't seen it, go rent it.

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

positive
It was an interesting and entertaining movie well worth watching. The acting was decent but it may be out of date for some people. I was glad to see cast members of such highly acclaimed movies as "Raging Bull" and "Goodfellas" in this movie A great and dramatic ending and pretty good writing.

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

positive