cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Determine the sentiment:

This film had all the ingredients of a good adventure movie, but it revealed incompetence at almost every level.

The presence of Roger Moore in the cast list is usually a sign that the movie is not going to be anything more than mediocre, because Moore always has lead roles and he can't act. But this movie also had Ian Holm and Lee Marvin in it, and was based on a Wilbur smith book, so I thought I'd give it a chance when I saw the DVD for sale in the bargain bin...

It was a mistake. The opening scene appeared to start in the middle of a reel, with sound suddenly appearing as if the first second of the soundtrack had been truncated. The scene showed a dreadnought at sea with a German crew. This bad editing was a sign of things to come, but the scene with the dreadnought was interesting enough to keep me watching. The special effects were good, and the crew wore the proper uniforms and spoke in German, indicating that the director at least paid attention to historical detail. I was surprised. 

So I kept watching, and then Moore appeared and my supicions were confirmed. Bad acting, clichéd lines, clichéd cinematography and cheap humour...but worst of all, there is a disastrous attempt to blend the light-hearted feel of the film with serious drama and tragedy. It just does not work.

The film ends as suddenly and as badly as it started  in the middle of a reel.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I saw this movie about 12 years ago and I can still remember it as if I just saw it recently. That is how much this movie has affected me.

Considering this is a movie from the 50's I think it was ahead of its time. It surprised me as in how it maintains its integrity in this subject some might have considered taboo back then. Very realistic in showing the tumultuous and heartwretching journey that an addict chooses to embark on. One can only imagine how the audiences were affected by the realism of this movie back in those days.

I personally think is was one of Frank Sinatra's top five performances in the big screen.

When others are discussing movies dealing with Mental Illness and/or addiction I always recommend The Man with the Golden Arm as one of the top five to watch.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: WARNING!!! SOME POSSIBLE PLOT SPOILERS, AS IF THAT WAS POSSIBLE!!!

Okay, if you haven't figured out the plot yet, I am going to give it to you. Two couples head out to a camping site, but a clown masked killer shows up and causes all sorts of mayhem.

Now it is time for me to give these couples some advice.

1. Never, ever go to camp dubbed Camp Blood by the locals. 2. Don't have sex or make out in front of the killer. 3. Don't go chasing after the killer if he or she runs away. 4. Don't yell profanity at the killer. 5. Make sure your cellular phone works before you go camping. 6. Everybody needs to bring a sharp or dangerous weapon and carry it on themselves at all times. 7. Wear loose and comfortable clothing and bring a good pair of running shoes. No tight and binding clothing and no high heels or sandals. 8. Wear glasses or contact lenses if you need them so you don't stab the wrong person. 9. Always carry your car keys on you. 10. Put out a camp fire when you go to bed. 11. Watch your step. If you trip on something, your going to break a bone. 12. Check the backseat for uninvited guess. 13. If the killer has you cornered, at least put up a struggle.

And guess what? At least one, but usually all four of the main characters breaks all of these common sense rules. They are the dumbest characters ever to grace a film.

Now for some brief comments. This slasher film was on a very tight budget. So low four of the 7 or 8 actors play more than one role. The acting, writing, direction, sound, lighting, camera work, plotting, editing, etc. are all bottom of the line. But like the classic film JACK O this works on a sooooooooo bad, it is very entertaining and campy fun level. So rent this and have a good time and laugh. My rating: 5 out of 10.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Keys to the VIP, an original series by the Canadian Comedy Network (comedynetwork.ca) scored big with this entertaining, yet inspirational gameshow. This show is hosted by four funny, good-looking guys who judge others on their 'game' (ability to pick up women). Each episode features two guys who go head-to-head in various pick-up games. There are three different sections and the winner scores a night as a VIP in an exclusive Toronto night-club.

Being a guy, I naturally find this show hilarious. We all know that it's hard to confront women and watching these guys do it naturally sparks the curiosity of men. The guys who compete on this show might even give you a few pointers -- if you pay attention.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I just got this movie for Christmas and have already added it to my favorites list. A cute and simple story which makes a beautiful movie. Who could not love Uncle Felix or not have their mouth water at the sound of all that food. Definite points go to Sydney Greenstreet for his performance of Alexander Yardley and also to Reginald Gardiner who played John Sloane, the impossibly boring fiancee. Truly a gem to be watched every Christmas.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Okay, I'll say it. This movie made me laugh so hard that it hurt. This statement may offend some of you who may think that this movie is nothing more than a waste of film. But the thing that most people don't get is that this movie was intended to be bad and cheezy. I mean, did people actually think that a movie about a killer snowman was intended to be a masterpiece? Just look at the "scary" hologram on the jacket of the movie and you'll find your answer. Instead, like the original Jack Frost (which I thought was just as funny), this movie turned out to be a side-splitting journey into the depths of corny dialogue, bad one liners and horrible special effects. And it's all made to deliver laughter to us viewers. It certainly worked for me.

For example: Anne Tiler (to her troubled husband): What makes you frown so heavily darling?

If that chunk of dialogue doesn't make you laugh, then you have serious issues. Who in their right mind would utter those words in real life? Of course, no one because it was meant to sound ridiculous! Just take one viewing of this movie with an open mind and low expectations, and hopefully you'll see what's so damn funny about Jack Frost 2.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Although it's been hailed as a comedy-drama I found "Crooklyn" to be mostly depressing. It's hard to imagine how Spike Lee could look back affectionately on so much chaos, petty cruelty, irresponsibility and mean-spiritedness.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

The film itself is only a compilation of scenes which have no inherent meaning to someone living outside of Russia. I won't deny that some of the images and techniques were quite revolutionary at the time (filmed 1928) but the problem with the film is that it has no interest to the intellectual or common man. We are merely watching an arranged form of pictures, ranging from a one arm man beating a horse, to a toothless soldier in the war. Everything in between is awkward, haphazard and quite unnecessary. It would have been possible to invent a forum which kept the viewer interested but this would not be it although the method of the director is quite brilliant.

In all, one should view this if they are an art student, on hallucinogenic drugs, or a student of pre-Tarkovskian cinema.
This is a poor excuse for a movie. A film noir done by Busbee Berkeley? Please! First, let's forget about the plot, a truly simple-minded version of a cynical tough guy turned into a saint by the love of a pretty blonde. Yechh. So what turns her from despising him to loving him? Along with a group of other guys, he helps keep a kid from drowning as they all swim in a water tower and try to survive as the water is siphoned off, stranding them. It isn't exactly heroics, but she's suddenly smitten. It's truly painful to watch Claude Rains trying to portray a hard-bitten, tough-talking, noir-type cop. A crooked grimace is his main and rather pathetic acting tool, along with a growling voice. Most of his energy seems to go into trying to hide the intelligence that shines in all his other roles. How he ever got talked into taking this job I'll never understand. Enjoy it, if you can, for a few period details, the old cars and gas pumps, but don't expect a decent film experience. It wasted 1-1/12 hours of my life.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The only interesting part of this movie was it's jazz and reggae New Orleans back drop. It tries to be one of those movies that has two struggles the heroine has to overcome, one from the past and one from the present which she fails to do convincingly. The acting's bad and the direction is even worse. I'm not surprised at all that this went straight to video. The end result of this film leaves no one satisfied or convinced including the actors themselves.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

I have watched this movie quite bemused. I am not sure whether it was attempting to be a horror gore fest in a Rob Zombie type affair or an exploration of real events.

In either case it missed its mark. It's not particularly historically accurate with characters being chopped and changed for the sake of the story. 

The performances were neither compelling nor bad.

For me, I would have preferred a more psychological approach and this film could easily have gone down this route without spoiling the overall effect.
"Snow Queen" is based, of course, on the fairy tale of the same name, collected in (at least) Andersen's Fairy Tales - and, unlike many other recent productions based on other fairy tales, this one retains the spirit of Faerie, an accomplishment not easy and not well understood by many, especially among Americans. Talking animals, arbitrary prohibitions, appearances of goblins, dragons, and demons, are not to be questioned in a fairy tale; they are as natural an element of Faerie as, say, gravity is in the scientific world, and the reason or explanation for them is completely beside the point of the story. Nor is the story bound by modern Hollywood rules of composition: direct, often to the point of being grotesquely linear in lesser works, and obvious (in retrospect, at least).

With this defence against the common criticisms of those who do not understand fairy tales, "Snow Queen" is a delightful movie with wonderful visual effects, skillful acting, and great sentiment. The only flaw in the movie was, I think, not that it was too fantastical but that certain parts of the dialogue were too glaringly modern in slang and expression, a mar on its otherwise timeless nature.

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

positive
This is one of those so-called "Hollywood Social Commentary" films that wants to have it both ways. And believe me, in this film, both ways are clichéd and stereotypical. STOP-LOSS is a 21st Century John Wayne Film dealing with some anti-war sentiment but clearly ending on the note that "If you are a MAN in today's society, you get your act together and march off to war with your buddies." In many ways the film was a great sequel to TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE as it portrayed a military equally as insane and out of control, a quasi FRAT PARTY/ANIMAL HOUSE extravaganza mixed in with a Texas Red Neck world of repressed homo-erotic proofs of masculinity. This movie had it all in one scene after another of clichéd imagery. And then rebellious military deserter Ryan Phillippe goes on a "Road Trip" with best friend's girlfriend, an artificial storyline manipulation to visit families of dead servicemen, maimed soldiers in military hospitals, etc. and finally to broach the issue of fleeing to Canada or Mexico. But male honor and patriotism win out in the end, as all freshly scrubbed and handsome, he rides off into the sunset on a bus with his buddies back to Iraq and a world that a few minutes before he assured everyone he could never again tolerate. FULL METAL JACKET meets SANDS OF IWO JIMA . But in the end, John Wayne rides again! And a Hollywood Blockbuster ultimately gets to keep both sides of its audience in the palm of its hand.at least it would like to think so. As far as I was/am concerned, just take me back to the more convincing reality of IN THE GARDEN OF ELAH.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: For people like me who were born long after the '60s ended, we can only learn about the era through cultural artifacts, of which "Hair" is one. This is certainly a well done tour de force. One can get a sense of how things were for the hippie culture. Probably the most impressive scene - for me at least - is when the group crashes the rich people's party. As for the movie's final scene, one might interpret it as the symbolic end of everything that the '60s represented.

But no matter how one interprets this movie, it's important to understand that even though the '60s themselves may have ended, the movements that typified them still exist in small enclaves. It's a time that people won't soon forget.

Anyway, this movie is one that I definitely recommend. Milos Forman scored another great one here, right between his two masterpieces "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and "Ragtime" (so why did he later make a piece of crap like "Man on the Moon"?!). Starring John Savage, Treat Williams and Beverly D'Angelo.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Poorly done political actioner. Badly photographed, acted, and directed. Every single scene is underlighted, including those very few that are shot during the daytime. It doesn't matter what the location is. At an important conference in the White House, no lights are on, and the only available lighting is a gloomy blue that is filtered through a few windows. The primier of China conducts an earth-shattering phone conversation under conditions of such intense chiaroscuro that he should be contemplating a bust of Homer in a Rembrandt painting. Honest. It's as if he had a tiny spotlight on his face and was otherwise in total darkness. The slow motion deaths are by now obligatory in any ill-thought-out movie.

Roy Scheider and Maria Conchita Alonzo do well by their roles, but Scheider is rarely on screen. The other performances are dismissable. There is a pretty Oriental woman in a short tight skirt who totes a gun and is right out of a Bond movie who's accent suggests a childhood spent in Basset, Nebraska, and who should have remained the model she probably started out as. Whoever plays the surviving Secret Service agent aboard the cruise ship was probably picked for the part because he looked most like Johnny Depp, not because of any display of talent. The Chinese villains, representing both Taiwan and mainland China, hiss and grin as they threaten the heroes. 

The script is pretty awful, recycled from other, better films. There is a lot of shooting aboard the ship and practically everyone winds up mincemeat. Two thirds of the way through, the ship explodes into the expected series of fireballs. Then the movie splits into two related parts. Part one, another shootout, this time in a waterfront warehouse. Part two, an exchange between the Vice President, now acting president, and the oily Chinese premiere, lifted out of both "Dr. Strangelove" and "Fail Safe." We unwittingly launch our missiles. They launch theirs in retaliation. We cannot convince them that our launch was accidental, even though we offer to help them destroy our own missiles. There is even the George C. Scott/ Walter Matthau general who argues that their "nucular" armory can't match ours so we should hit them with everything we've got. More fireballs. 

The end comes none too soon.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
The filmmakers try to paint the influence of the Mondovis and Robert Parker as a travesty on par with the German occupation of France and the reign of Fascism. But they never find a victim in this film. We hear wine makers, critics and distributors bemoan that while the wine industry grows it becomes increasingly homogeneous. But the film never makes a case that this has resulted in the loss of any good wine or exploitation of any person or culture other than naive Wine Spectator readers with lots of cash. If they want to pay hundreds of dollars for a dull wine, so be it.

If this were a film about the diamond trade, where the DeBeers corporation's market domination results in human suffering, the muckraking style might have been appropriate. But as it is it just comes off as anti-American, anti-modernization and anti-capitalist. Had the filmmakers been around in the 1870s they most likely would have protested the grafting of American vines in the effort to save French wine.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

Bart The Genius Whilst not the first Simpsons episode, Bart he Genius more or less is the first typical episode. There's no gimmickry or theme it's just your typical Simpsons episode in set-up. It always seems to me that it's an episode that grows on you. There are certain elements I don't care for, largely the blotchy animation which can be forgiven. But over time I take a liking to this story of it's uniqueness.

For example, it'd be very hard for a live-action sit-com on a standard budget to do this episode due to the various different sets that show in this episode, the computer bays in Ms. Melon's class, the opera and so on. My point is with that, The Simpsons realises one of the biggest strengths in animation. The sheer lack of visual limitations when compared to live-action.

On a writing stand-point it's also highly intelligent and fresh. The concept is pretty unique, and particularly the problems faced. Instead of the ol' fail-safe that work was too hard, it was simply Bart's social isolation from his classmates that failed him (although the exploding science experiment may prove otherwise...which I also think is one of the best visual gags of the series.) The ending seems a little unoriginal, largely because the Bart running naked into his room to avoid Homer was already done in the shorts, but still funny for Marge and Lisa's short back-and-forth if for nothing else.

Ultimately it's a very good episode, with lots of interesting new point in the series, though not exactly perfect.

Oh, and the now iconic name Kwijybo was of course unleashed onto the world.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Oh gosh,I'm really fed up with all these generic Japanese horror films about long-haired female ghosts and ghostly kids."Ghost Train" is no exception.It is clearly influenced by "Ringu","Ju-On","Shutter" and "Pulse".Two years ago I was into such modern ghost stories,because they usually managed to give me some goosebumps,unfortunately there is nothing fresh or interesting in "Ghost Train".In fact the film is really boring.Noriko goes missing in a subway tunnel-like an elementary-school classmate-Nana must investigate a mystery of multiple disappearances,with the help of a youthful train conductor and another "disappeared" child's mother.The film offers some mildly creepy moments,however the CGI effects are laughable and the climax is illogical.Skip it.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Can there be a worst film? Even Ed Wood at his horrific worst couldn't come up with something this bad. Cheesy, stupid, long-winded, preposterous...and those are the good points. I saw this trash back in the early 80's when I was incredibly bored to begin with, and actually sat through the entire thing without blowing my brains out, although that probably would have been a more pleasant experience. I actually remembered it because it was so bad. It makes me sad in a way because some of the best directors got their start by making TV movies (ie Spielberg) and it was a wonderful way for them to get their initial material before the public, but crap like this just totally killed the entire process.
Write a positive movie review.

All in all, an excellent movie from that time and source (coming from Warner Brothers as it was peaking in craftsmanship and style just before WWII), provided you don't take it at all seriously. The movie really makes no claim to being historically accurate, and is certainly no more or less accurate or believable than say, JFK. (This one may actually be more honest about it, though, as it essentially admits along the way that it's not to be taken as particularly fact-based, but more of a stylishly semi-heroic portrayal.) It's worth noting that audiences of the time were no more naive about the story than we are today; the NY Times review conceded that audiences would "dismiss factual inaccuracies sprinkled throughout the film," described the biographical account of Custer's life as "fanciful," and pointed out that the presentation of Custer's motivations regarding the final events were at odds with various historical accounts. They could have really gone overboard in building up Custer, one supposes, but they succeed admirably in depicting him as not necessarily the sharpest or most diligent guy around, but appropriately determined, principled and inspirational.

Flynn and DeHavilland, doing their 8th movie together in 7 years (and their last), are so comfortable together, and play off each other so easily at this point, that it's not too difficult to overlook how thinly their courtship is written here. With a first-time pairing, it would be hard to imagine what could really draw Elizabeth to Custer, but these two make it work. The movie is also missing their director from their previous seven films together (the greatly underrated Michael Curtiz), but given that he had worked with them on the previous year's similar-themed Santa Fe Trail, it's understandable if he chose to opt out of this one. (They all started together with Captain Blood and The Charge of the Light Brigade - both terrific - so we can't really blame them if they started having a tough time keeping it all fresh.)

Raoul Walsh, the director here, is certainly more comfortable with the action sequences - which are outstanding - and everything else outdoors. The interior scenes are a little more uneven, but the studio craftsmen succeed in compensating for that very well, as does Warner Bros' outstanding cast of "usual suspects" and new faces (Greenstreet, Gene Lockhart, Anthony Quinn, Arthur Kennedy, etc). I would have liked it better if Kennedy's character had been a bit less standard (I generally like his work), but here he seems to be hitting roughly the same notes in every scene; the part could have been better written - and I suppose they might have been unsure of what he could handle, as he'd only been in films for one year (Walsh probably took him for this after doing High Sierra together).

Various highlights include the depiction (probably imagined) of the genesis of "Garryowen" as the cavalry theme. The last half hour is particularly outstanding, especially with the parting of the leads echoing the end of their screen partnership, followed by the final battle scenes. A thoroughly rousing adventure.

8 of 10
Woof! Pretty boring, and they might as well have shot it in black and white, it was so colorless.

The movie starts with rolling text explaining cryogenics, and asking whether god or Satan is behind it. There are some protests outside a cryogenics lab. Some people rob a bank, and many of the robbers and guards get shot. The father of one of the robbers (I think) arranges to have his son frozen. There's a lot of jumping around in the beginning from scene to scene introducing characters without us knowing how they relate.

There's a power outage, and the cannisters containing the frozen people get struck by lightning, and they emerge as zombies. They're all wearing silver mylar-like suits, and their skin is dark green and wrinkled (no idea why they look so bad - being frozen evidently didn't preserve their looks), and they have silver eyes. They go around killing people, sometimes lurching like zombies, sometimes moving like normal people.

Linda Blair keeps showing up every once in a while, to what purpose I'm not really sure. I think her character works at the cryogenics lab, but she's not very important to the plot, and her role is very small.

The movie ends with some freeze frames with text captions that tell us what happened to the characters next, which are pretty silly.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Susie Q. is one of those rare, and sweet movies that give you a warm feeling. It's bittersweet, but wholesome, and it's characters are fun, and captivating. At first, I thought the movie would be the cliché cuddly movie that would bore me after five minutes, but was I wrong. It made me tear up at times, and it's plot was enticing, making me root for the good guys. I loved the movie, and still remember it today, 9 years later!! I recommend it highly to ANYONE, and the movie is family oriented, so you won't have to worry about unsuitable content. Truly, if Disney would show more movies that are up to par as Susie Q., it would be the most popular family oriented channel in the world. Now if only Disney would show it just ONE more time!^_^ Go Susie Q.!!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

This movie is just about as good as the first Jackass, but with slightly more disgusting skits. I wouldn't say this was as good as the first, but it came very close. Jackass fans will not be disappointed, but if you didn't like the first movie, you will hate this one. There are scenes that will be seen as Jackass classics (the elderly suits with "additions", the "cab ride", and many others), and those that you will wish you never watched (eating crap, drinking semen, etc...) Overall this movie was a good watch, and I am glad I got to see it. I'm sure this movie will not have the best rating due to critics that rate it (I sat in the press section and most of the older viewers seemed disgusted), but don't let that stop you from enjoying it.
Fans of Euro-horror flicks - Portland's video/DVD store Movie Madness has a whole section devoted to this genre - can't afford to miss Sergio Martino's gut-busting "L'isola degli uomini pesce" (called "Screamers" in the United States). Here's the lowdown: some shipwreck survivors land on an uncharted Caribbean island in 1891. The island is inhabited by a landowner, a scientist (Joseph Cotten) and his daughter (Barbara Bach). Sure enough, it turns out that the landowner is making the scientist create a race of fish-men. And while the fish-men remain calm as long as they can drink their potion, they get nasty otherwise.

This movie is sort of a mixture of genres: Euro-horror, swashbuckling, voodoo, and maybe a little bit of "The Island of Dr. Moreau". But it's mostly an excuse to have the fish-men disembowel trespassers; ya gotta love that! I wouldn't be surprised if the Euro-horror genre gave Quentin Tarantino some of his ideas for "Grindhouse". After all, the European horror directors have no scruples about what they show. This is one that you're sure to like.

So Joseph Cotten is the only cast member from an Alfred Hitchcock movie (I mean "Shadow of a Doubt") who later co-starred with Ringo Starr's soon-to-be wife and Audrey Hepburn's ex (by whom I mean Mel Ferrer) in an Italian horror flick. The things that we see in life...

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

positive
I understand that people have different expectations of low-budget, arthouse movies. I also know that John Sayles has a sort of glow about him, that earthy, intellectual anti-hollywood vibe, a la Tim Robbins, the Coen brothers and Atom Egoyan, that makes him a darling with the critics from the get-go.

But this is not a good movie. I'm sorry, it just isn't.

It meanders. It has too many characters. Its tone is uneven, its point of view is muddled, the acting is all over the board, from naturalistic to over the top. It lingers for long moments with minor characters we don't care about and cuts away from tense scenes just when things are getting good.

It misses the mark.

The worst flaw in the movie is that the two closest things to a protagonist, Edie Falco's Marly and Angela Bassett's Desiree, are straight-jacketed in characters that have no drive. Marly is an apathetic drunk, steeped in her life's own inertia. Desiree is a woman trapped in her own repressed pain. When your two main characters' world-views can be summed up with the phrases "I don't care" and "I want to leave here," why should the audience give a rat's patootie?

I'll be plain: Sayles writes funny dialogue. He's very adept at crafting a scene. The problem is, these scenes don't go anywhere. There's no spine to the movie. No drive. The movie doesn't create rooting interest in any of the characters. In my opinion, he's also too preachy about big bad corporate America gobbling up the little guy. 

If you want to see a quality "small" movie, see David Lynch's "Straight Story." Pass this one up.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Sri Lanka... not a country I've ever given much thought to, I have to admit. I didn't even know it was near India, let alone that there has been a bloody civil war going on there since 1983. It seems that the rebels of the Tamil minority have been in an ongoing conflict with the military regime that runs the country for many years, causing many deaths and widespread suffering on the island.

Mani Ratman's latest film, A PECK ON THE CHEEK, tells the story of a young girl named Amudha, who is separated from her Sri Lankan parents by the war and raised by a young Indian couple. Amudha is a bright and mischievous girl, whose life is turned upside down when her parents tell her that she was adopted as a child. Although her adopted parents love her as much as could be, and have raised her without prejudice along with their biological children, Amudha cannot help but want to learn more about her biological family.

Mani Ratman is probably best known for his 1998 film DIL SE, which hides a story about terrorism and politics inside a love story (or is it the other way around?). A PECK ON THE CHEEK inhabits similar territory, but is perhaps more ambitious in the ground it covers. The central theme that binds the movie is of love between all the various members of a family, and especially that between a child and her adopted parents. It's a pretty honest and open look at feelings, that can be extremely touching and heartwarming at some times and quite painful at others. It's an emotionally complex film, with characters that are somewhat idealised but still behave in a very human way.

The film revolves around 9 year old Amudha, played with charm and vivaciousness by young actress P.S. Keerthana in her first and only acting role. She's a princess and a monster, always getting into trouble but so disarmingly charming nobody can stay mad at her for long. The young actress is perfectly cast for the role, and does a tremendous job in the various and often difficult emotional scenes required of her.

A PECK ON THE CHEEK has such an innocent name I was quite unprepared for the intensity of the experience. Never has such a small act come with such an enormous emotional impact, I dare say. The film is a bold and artistic effort to explore issues that are not frequently covered on the silver screen.

Mani Ratman's direction is superb, very confident and mature - the most sophisticated work I've seen from this director yet. The film is visually very stylish, with some excellent camerawork and imagery. A.R. Rahman provides the film's soundtrack, which is not as good as his classic DIL SE or BOMBAY music (based on first impressions at least) but still shows his great musical talent.

I'm not aware of a DVD release for the film yet - I saw it in Tamil with English subtitles thanks to the San Francisco International Film Festival, of which the film was undoubtedly the highlight. The production is a truly world class effort, and I am sure it will be popular with western audiences as it begins to receive wider exposure.

Recommended.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This is a haunting short film. Both James Franco and Rachel Miner deliver performances that hurt, ring true and stay with you. Since this is called a tragic story this isn't much of a spoiler. But I wanted to change the outcome, even though it is right for the story, because I had already come to care about these people. I can only think of a few short films that have had that effect on me. Beautifully shot, acted, edited. High caliber work all around, even to the use of just the right sound and/or music to advance the story. The end credit song finished the job, wringing even more emotion from me. This is first rate from beginning to end. Kudos to the writer/director and all involved.

This is my first review of a film in the comments section. I promised to do so in exchange for a copy of the DVD. The review could be good or bad, just my honest opinion. This is it and it's the least I can do. I am so glad I got to see it.

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

In the wasteland that Hollywood Productions have become of late, this movie - in and of itself - is truly "MANNA FROM HEAVEN"!!!

In what could best be described as a "cute" movie, approximately 350 years of movie acting experience (allright - give or take 100 years!) joyously lights up the screen to tell a tale of deceit, remorse, and redemption about a Catholic Family in Buffalo, NY.

Truly well-positioned to take its place in the "feel-good" movie genre, this quiet little independent film by the Burton Sisters' FIVE SISTERS PRODUCTIONS COMPANY will leave a smile on your face and joy in your heart, all while renewing your faith in mankind.

From the spectacular opening scene shots of Buffalo, NY to the final credits, the film manages to tell a tale that could have been told of any family, anywhere. Yet, somehow this particular gathering of family and "family by association" in a small, non-descript house in Buffalo more than fits the bill. If you've never been to Buffalo, you'll leave the theater with thoughts of "shuffling off" for a visit! Shots of the city landmarks and surroundings help to bring a quaint, down to earth tone to the film - which suits it just fine. The quiet beauty of the "Queen City of the Great Lakes" compliments, rather than detracts from the tale that is being told. If only more movies would take advantage of the natural beauty of this country's "second cities" instead of running off to a soundstage somewhere, the end results would be so much more believable.

Great performances by Shirley Jones, Frank Gorshin, Wendy Malick, Jill Eickenberry, and the rest of the ensemble cast prove again that true talent outlasts Hollywood's "flavor of the week" any time!

GO SEE THIS MOVIE!

You've wandered in Hollywood's desert for too long!
Determine the sentiment:

Well, This was my first IMAX experience so I was pretty blown away about that, primarily; although with hindsight, I can't help wishing that it had been some other (less monochrome)film.

Magnificent Desolation very much had the "Programme for Schools" feel the way it listed all the astronauts and this made it feel a LOT like reading National Geographic Magazine in 3D. Weirdly it actually had a very two dimensional quality that only occasionally exploded into reality and a lot of time it felt like some PowerPoint Presentation. There was a moment in the film when an unnoticed abyss opens; seemingly at your feel, that had a bit of a WOW factor but to be honest, that may have had more to do with me being an IMAX virgin.

The commentary, provided by Tom Hanks, I personally found very, (what's a nice way to put it??) "flag-wavingly nationalistic" which didn't go down too well in central London, judging by remarks overheard as we left.

Over all, I loved the IMAX experience, but dearly wish a different film had been on on that day. The Moon isn't a particularly colourful subject and to be honest, a lot of the 3D effects were lost in the monochrome scenery. All that would have been well, were it not for the documentary inserts and distractions like the interviews with American schoolchildren which spoiled it a bit
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Distributor: GOODTIMES home video 

Plot: A pretty high school student is marked for unrelenting terror in this suspense filled made for TV movie. Gail Osborne is new in town. She makes friends, has a boyfriend and everything seems to be going her way. That is until she gets an ominous and frightening phone call while babysitting. After more and more phone calls, she is raped. throughout most of the movie, she tries to find proof that the person did rape her.

Audio/Video: This 1987 VHS edition from Goodtimes stinks. There are constant lines at the bottom and top of the screen.

Extras: No extras from Goodtimes home video.

Final thoughts: This suspense filled made for TV movie was made in 1978, so don't expect many deaths (there are none). If you can find this movie with the Worldvision home video logo on the front, then buy it. But the Goodtimes version is pretty crappy. This can be a little boring, but if you are patient, the ending is pretty good.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This is the best direct-to-DVD effort from Van Damme that I have seen yet. Van Damme plays a border patrol agent who is out to stop heroin smugglers trying to cross into the United States. The action in this movie is great and the fight scenes rank with Van Damme's best. Costar Scott Adkins shows why he should be the next big star in the martial arts genre. For further evidence check out "Undisputed 2". Adkins is so good in fact that before I watched "The Shepherd", I thought that Van Damme might not look very believable in defeating him on screen. Van Damme holds his own though and although he isn't quite as athletic as Adkins is, he can still kick with the best of them. All of the fight scenes in this film are very well done and the gun battles are above average for this type of film as well. The only negative thing I can say about this movie is that the story is a little underdeveloped. I think Van Damme's character's motives should have been presented earlier in the movie, especially in regard to why he carries around a rabbit. The reason he does is very cool but you don't find out until the very end. There are a couple of other things that are never really explained either but this is a Van Damme movie so you know where the priority lies in making this kind of movie and it ain't character development. Overall though, this is a solid action movie that I recommend. So run for the Damme border!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

The actors are so bland that it's almost impossible to tell them apart (Pauline Kael said of this movie: "The actors have names, but they're truly anonymous"), and the special effects are really bad. They simulate weightlessness with people hanging on cables and by recycling the trick that let Fred Astaire dance on the ceiling in "Royal Wedding" (but none of these guys move well enough to make it look convincing). 

The low point of the movie is when one of the characters, an airplane tycoon, is trying to convince some other "giants of industry" to come in with him in a moon-rocket consortium, and he shows them a Woody Woodpecker cartoon that explains how a rocket works at a 2nd grade level! (And to think that Robert Heinlein worked on the screenplay...)

The only plus is that the production design manages to communicate a sort of "Amazing Stories" sensibility, and even that is done much better in the producer's (George Pal) subsequent movie "When Worlds Collide", which has similar bad acting, but is much more entertaining. However, Pal's best sci-fi movie has to be "The Time Machine".
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

i stopped this movie at 48 minutes and change... i don't know...maybe it's because i'm not Swedish...or french(the cannes commenter)...or any of those OTHER sleepy places from which the previous reviewers held forth... born and raised in NY. lived near san francisco for a quarter of a century. and now Holland. i love a good independent film as much as the next movie enthusiast... but this, in a word, isn't funny. see? now THAT's funny...that you're thinking that i made a mistake. i said, 'in a word' but then said, 'isn't funny'... nope. no mistake. if this is your type of humor, i'd say you haven't really had much of a life... consider your appreciation of this film a symptom... and PLEASE don't EVER write another review...i have a tendency to believe them when they're unanimous. even if there only were about 3 reviews before mine...i figured i might ACtually be able to save someone ELSE the boredom...the anticipation of laughter that never materializes... i DID smile once or twice, though... when i started the movie...and when i stopped it. that should be 10 lines.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Three zany couples, all SIX OF A KIND, become entangled in a madcap search for stolen bank loot.

This is a lively, hilarious comedy, with the six stars - Charlie Ruggles & Mary Boland, W. C. Fields & Alison Skipworth, George Burns & Gracie Allen - all heartily engaged in doing what they did best: getting laughs.

Ruggles & Boland make another of their film appearances as husband & wife - this time rather more amorous than usual. They were a perfect team - she the strident lioness, he the nervous rabbit - and they dominate most of the screen time here. From beginning to end, they are a delight.

Burns & Allen continue the patter they originated in Vaudeville, perfected on radio & would eventually take to television, with George the perpetual straight man & Gracie the eternal fool. At times in the film she tends to go a bit over the top, but it's difficult to dislike her. Her heart was obviously made of solid gold.

While Skipworth is given rather short shrift - only fragments of her formidable personality flash through - Fields is in his element as the disreputable sheriff of Nuggetville, Nevada. Whether explaining how he got the nickname Honest John' or skulking about at night looking for the missing moola, he is never less than wonderful. Best of all, he gets to perform his entire classic pool routine, preserving it forever for a grateful posterity. Finally, he executes the near miraculous - he gets Gracie to shut up.

Paramount was so pleased with the success of SIX OF A KIND that they wanted to hurry the principle players into another comedy. Only Fields demurred. He felt he had now arrived at the point where he no longer needed to share a movie with other celebrity comics. The Studio finally agreed and began preparation of Fields' first solo starring feature, YOU'RE TELLING ME (1934).
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

There's really not a whole lot to say about this. It's just really, really bad. The acting is bad, the script is bad, and the editing is probably one of the worst jobs ever. It's so sloppy and choppy that it serves only to confuse the audience. There's no real to plot to speak of, mostly it's a really fake looking monster fish attacking Europeans trying to pass themselves off as Americans. Pass on this one.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

The extraordinarily adorable Suzy Delair plays a statuesque performer obsessed with succeeding in the theater. Her husband and accompanist, played by Bernard Blier, is a composed but jealous man. When he finds out in a less than preferable way that his flashy wife has planned a rendezvous with a lecherous old businessman with the intention of advancing her career, he loses all control and threatens the businessman with murder. Now, at that point, I must stop describing the film to you because it skates on such thin ice with its twists, revelations, ambiguities and suspense that to imply any of it would endanger it. I am not sure how good or bad that is for this French police procedural emanating from the song- and-dance community, though it is certainly interesting that what we do know throughout is who did not do it. We just don't know who did.

The story depends upon the procedure of following clues, where ideal alibis fail and where cautiously created fabrications and deceptions disintegrate. Interestingly, this is a suspense film in which suspense is generated in spite of the knowledge one would traditionally think too much too soon.

Quay of the Goldsmiths is the least dark of Henri-Georges Clouzot's films. It's nowhere near as sinister as the shocking Les Diaboliques, as tragic as the riveting Wages of Fear or as eery as Le Corbeau. Maybe it is due to the vibrance of the dance halls and theater settings of 1940s France, which all work as the milieu of this crime thriller.

Clouzot both understands and approves of his characters, even the more rotten ones, where he has more of a vindictive streak with his other films. Where he may have had understanding for the scheming women in Les Diabolique or the truck drivers who sink to the level of risking horrible death in order to oust themselves from miserable life in The Wages of Fear, there isn't necessarily support or agreement on the part of the filmmaker, for these are characters who plainly made the direct decisions that determine their fate. All the characters in this more settling film have scenes and moments that endear us to them, even the harsh, cold detective played by Louis Jouvet, who worries about his young adoptive son amid all the trouble and despair that happens in his life at any time with the drop of a hat.

There is humor and unabashed sexiness, the latter mostly on the part of Delair, that neutralize the pressure to a degree. Clouzot was quietly practicing his craft, patient till he made his unrelenting later films, in which he would permit his audiences no pardon from the tension.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: The net is an excellent movie! It's about Angela Bennett(in a great performance of Sandra Bullock) who is a computer expert who works for the Cathedral Company, cleaning virus and testing games for the clients. Angela is a typical nerd who doesn't have friends outside of the cyberspace,almost doesn't take vacations and go out, and stays almost all the time connected. One day her friend Dale Hessman(Ray McKinnon) asks her to help him,sending Angela a disk with a strange program that has many confidential informations. At the same night, when Dale was going to meet her, he is suddenly killed in a plane crash.Going to Mexico in her vacation,Angela meets a beautiful guy called Jack Devlin (Jeremy Northam)who shows to be a cold blood killer bastard and one of the guys behind all the secret of the Diskette.

Her life then turns into a nightmare: All her records are erased and she is given the new identity of Ruth Marx, a woman with serious problems with the police.

This movie is great because it shows how we, humans,depend a lot of the computers and machines(sometimes more that we should) and how vulnerable we are if someday ,someone decides to control and change our personal records,without letting us the chance to prove the error.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive