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

It seems no matter what I see her in, Christina Ricci seems full of promise but fails to deliver. Sure she can cry and scream, but Prozac Nation sees Ricci totally out of her depth, perhaps I'm being too harsh.... okay, I'm shifting the blame to the director. Jessica Lange is outrageous and almost reaches Faye Dunaway heights of megadramatisation. Unfortunately I think Lange peaked with Frances and it was all downhill from there. There was every chance of this film being slick and witty while tackling depression head on. What we get instead is poorly acted hysteria dressed up with a stereotypical try hard eighties veneer. I really had no sense of the films eighties backdrop, since I was unsatisfied with the lame attempt at making believe it was the eighties just because ms Ricci wears a madonna inspired dress to her "lost my virginity" celebration. Cmon everyone, you are ALL better than this. The filmmakers should hang their heads in shame, and as a result of disappointment, Elizabeth Wurtzel could probably make a bundle if she sued for "irrepairable emotional damages" as a result of the finished product. go on lizzie, sue! I would
A bad bad movie... terrible plot, hinges on Bolo Yeung's charater, but he speaks maybe 20 words in the entire movie and only has one fight scene - still in great shape considering he was also in the kung fu classic "Enter The Dragon" Interesting to see William Zabka ("Johnny" from The Karate Kid) in another martial-arts role.

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

negative
Write a positive movie review.

The Muppet Movie 

directed by 

James Frawley

Kermit the Frog and friends relive the tales and stories of how they all came together.

The Muppets star in their first feature film, bringing the magic they are known for to a bigger picture. The story is not too complex and is written as a prequel of sorts. The well written jokes appear as each character gets a worthy introduction. The cameos aren't just thrown in either, but written in as interesting characters, making one of the many peaks for our furry friends.
What's an example of a movie review?

I must have seen this on the television when it was first broadcast some decades ago. I thought it was brilliant then, and as I remember so much of it now I may have been right. While I have lived in and around London I cannot call myself a Londoner and do not know it at all well - who does other than taxi drivers? Once the viewer understands the premise; that here is a group of men trying to learn the seemingly unlearn-able and rise to the status of demigods, then the rest is sheer joy. The characters are well contrasted, their family relationships are equally diverse, and so differently affected by the events of the film. Don't think this is a documentary - it is pure drama, and The Knowledge is one of the characters. I have never seen anything like this film, before or since. Watch it!
First of all, I have to say that I am not generally a big fan of werewolf movies in general. It's not that I don't like them, just that I don't like them a lot. There are some that I have enjoyed...Werewolf of London (1935, Stuart Walker), An American Werewolf in London (1981, John Landis)...and some that I have thought were okay but nothing special...The Wolf Man (1941, George Waggner), The Howling (1981, Joe Dante), Dog Soldiers (2002, Neil Marshall) are some examples...but overall, the werewolf sub-genre is not my favorite. But I had this one on one of those 50 movie sets so I thought I'd give it a watch and see how it was.

Spoilers follow...

The Mad Monster is a werewolf tale, but the werewolf is primarily used as a vehicle for revenge by a mad scientist, Dr. Lorenzo Cameron (George Zucco). Dr. Cameron has discovered a way to transform human beings into beasts, specifically wolves, but was ridiculed and ostracized by the greater scientific community. Forced out of a prestigious position, he goes mad and plots revenge on those who mocked him in an old country mansion, where he lives with his daughter Lenora (the lovely Anne Nagel) and his assistant Petro (Glenn Strange) of limited mental abilities. Using his serum, Dr. Cameron transforms Petro into a werewolf and sends him off to kill his old rivals. Eventually, though, the werewolf Petro gets out of control and both the mad doctor and his creation are killed.

The movie also plays out somewhat as a murder/crime drama, with Lenora's journalist suitor (Johnny Downs) investigating the doctor's strange behavior and the rash of murders. The story seems to borrow many elements from other big pictures that came before it. There are reminders of Frankenstein (1931, James Whale) in the creation of a monster which runs amok, and the creature killing an innocent child. Visions of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931, Rouben Mamoulian or the 1941, Victor Fleming version) and The Wolf Man (1941, George Waggner) also come to mind. And that is one of the problems with this movie in my view-it comes across as a mediocre melding of some great films. It doesn't add much to the genre.

True, there are some redeeming qualities. George Zucco's performance was convincing, and the scene showing Dr. Lorenzo talking to his visions/hallucinations of his tormentors works well for me in showing his insanity. There is some reasonable character build up, at least in the case of his character. But Glenn Strange's character is not at all convincing, and seems to have this comedic quality-whether intentional or not, I'm not sure-that just doesn't fit into the movie as a whole.

I seemed to like it more than most IMDb users based on my rating of 4/10, but it was still a below average film. Perhaps worth a view if you are a fan of early werewolf movies or a big fan of the 1930's and 1940's horror films, but unlikely to appeal to you if you are not.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This was a pretty good movie that was overall done quite well. The idea about Mercy (won't spoil) was original also. I think Angelina did a good job as one of her first movies. The only things I frowned upon were some of the corny fight scenes (won't spoil either). I liked the first movie and I liked this one as well. 7/10

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

positive
First, and foremost, I take issue to the title of this movie. 'Chupacabra' is not a Spanish word. The name to which they are referring is 'Chupacabras'. I imagine they dropped the 's' because it sounds plural that way, but I assure you, it is singular in Spanish.

Next, I thought this movie had been done years ago. It came off as one of those B horror flicks I watched when I was an early teenager at home when my stepdad was out of town. Then it would have been kind of scary.

Let's talk about the special effects. The most important 'effect' is the costume used for the Chupacabras. Given that it is the main character, you would think some serious money would have been put into it, but that isn't so. The shape, color, and texture were all goofy like some stupid haunted house at Disney World.

There were times when the Chupacabras was walking where no man could walk. His movement were jerky and strange at these times, but moving around on the floor looked like any normal man.

Another thing I take issue to is that there is no animal in the world that goes around slaughtering everything it sees with no regard to actually eating it. The Chupacrabas would kill one, then the next, but it never seemed to actually eat the victim. You say, "It's just a movie," and I agree. But the idea is so far out there that it's stupid.

What country is Dr. Pena from? He sounds sort of Jamaincan/Hawaiian/British/Something-Else, but I think he's supposed to be Latino. The problem is, his accent is so bad that even a Russian could tell he wasn't Latino.

The soldiers fired round after round at this thing, and weren't making a dent, yet the continued to fire. I'm no military man, but don't soldiers, especially the special tactical forces such as this, have to have some wit about them to perform their duties? Wouldn't they figure out that it was a waste of time to shoot and try something new? They didn't. They just kept firing away while the Chupacabras continued to slaughter, and not eat, them.

Did they have to kill the little dog? :) Anyway, my vote was 3 for this flick, because it was bad. Why did I watch the whole thing? I'm sure you've done the same on occasion, so don't give me an flack. ;)

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

negative
Checking Out will be released Friday September 15th, 2006. through the AMC theater chain starting in New York City. Times Square, 66th and 3rd Ave, West 84th Street. This film has been one from the heart, for the heart. Mark Lane, Jon Karas,Richard Marcus, Jeff Hare, Dana Harrloe,Matt Jensen Ed Abrams, Nick Pike, Peter Falk, Laura San Giacomo, David Paymer, Judge Reinhold, all the cast and crew knew from day one that this film was something special. The need to comfort the elderly is intended, the closeness of family is more apparent now then ever. I would recommend this film to all ages and races. This story rings the truth to anyone with or without family.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

I can barely find the words to describe how much this piece of trash offended me. Why is it that American filmmakers always go out of there way to portray Jamaicans as a bunch of backwards ass bush babies and worse yet, cast people to play Jamaicans who sound utterly ridiculous when they try to imitate the accent? We are not all extremely dark, we do not all walk around carrying machetes whether for work OR PROTECTION, we do not walk around naked in our homes and we do not practice VOODOO!! We are doctors, lawyers, architects, Businessmen and women, musicians, actors AND FILMMAKERS. I am sick and tired of watching all of these portrayals of Jamaicans as a bunch of dreadlock wearing Rastafarians who do nothing but sit around all day smoking weed on a beach or shooting guns in the air (When we're not living in our tree houses). YES, we wear clothes. YES, we have electricity. No, weed is not legal on the island AND CHANCES ARE WE SPEAK BETTER English THAN YOU! The worst part is, this isn't just me being angry and bitter, these are actual answers to questions that most Jamaicans who have traveled overseas have been asked at some point. Read a book before you assume what's it's like in another country and worse yet, decide to make a movie about it.

WELCOME TO JAMAICA! The land where all we do is murder white people and beat our bongos drums...Tales from the Crypt has officially sickened me, along with the entire crew of people who worked on this garbage, especially the writer.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

I'm not sure what it is but there seems to be some curse when it comes to films about the elusive Bigfoot. There has yet to be a film that intelligently approaches the subject, nor one that creates any real suspense. Both "Legend of Boggy Creek" (1972) and the first film entitled "Sasquatch" (1978) have become minor cult classics, but neither were very memorable. Both films were targeted at family friendly audiences, thus inhibiting themselves from actually trying to scare anyone. "Harry & The Hendersons" (1987) was the first big budgeted film to use Bigfoot, with a terrific creature design by Rick Baker. However, they too chose to aim for younger audiences, but this time as a comedy (as did "Bigfoot" in 1995). I've long awaited for someone to tackle the subject as a thriller, perhaps in the vein of "Jaws" or "Predator". When I saw this at my local video store I thought my dream had come true. Boy, was I wrong! Lance Henriksen plays a billionaire who leads an expedition into the pacific northwest in hopes of finding his daughter as she was on board a small plane when it crashed in the mountains. The premise is interesting and sounded promising. The truth is it never builds any real suspense. I never found myself at all interested in any of the characters as each of them were very two dimensional and rather bland. Even the always dependable Henriksen seems to be phoning in his performance. Every time he appears on screen he looks plain bored. He should be as there is no action to speak of for the first hour of the film. As for the creature, where do I start? I figured at the very least we would get a cool looking monster running around in the woods, but instead we get this bald (yes, I said "bald!") man with pitch black skin and patches of fur here and there. Picture a cross between "Swamp Thing" and Chaka from "Land of the Lost" and you'll get the idea. Nothing like the artwork on the cover box I assure you. Sloppy editing and careless direction also adds to the confusion as half the time everything seemed out of sequence, while the other half of the film was constantly used up with these long, slow fade outs (which made no sense or served any purpose). They even stole the whole infra-red vision P.O.V from the creature in "Predator", which just looked too silly and out of place to be effective. Maybe all this proves is that Hollywood should just forget about trying to make anymore Bigfoot films, as they have yet to make one that works. So far each one has been as scary as an episode of "In Search Of" 3/10
It is OK movie if it would be done by high school kids for their friends. It is way below limits be called "professional". There isn't plot, no actors' play and visual looks like you see it through the plastic film. I was so glad that I have FF button on my remote, 32x worked really well. I understand that everyone need to start somewhere, but it shouldn't be reason to bring it to the public. If you have concerns about quality and budget - "Open water" was made on $60000 and more than half went to the guy who provided the security in the ocean and trained sharks. And that movie looks 100 times more professional and it was an event in the indy film-making.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Compared to the recent gore flick HOSTEL, which this movie reminded me a lot of-- I would say that See No Evil is slightly better but not by much. The very complex plot involves a handful of delinquents who are sent to clean up a rundown hotel for a shorter jail sentence. The kids soon end up being killed off by a lumbering religious psychopath who is cleansing them of their sins (I guess). The one thing I dreaded most prior to seeing this was the fact that it stared a WWE wrestler, Kane. He ended up doing a decent job considering he only had 2 one-word lines in the movie. There are a couple fairly gory moments, mainly involving eye-gouging and a quite memorable scene in which a girl gets a cellphone shoved down her throat-- probably the most effective demise in the movie.

I can't say that this movie really shows us anything new and is definitely far from great. Can't recommend it.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Everywhere I hear that people are calling this show bad because its premise is too far fetched....well maybe a do-good cab driver in Philly is pushing it a little (at least the cab drivers ive met), but that's what makes the show great.

The fact that this show is a little off the reality track is an issue but its still enjoyable and fun. Its highly watchable and even though u know Mike wins out in the end he never wins in life. David Morse is a great actor and does a great job in the title role. His supporting cast is great and i must say the location of the show is especially great!

All in all I watch this show not because im looking for a good dose of reality or a show with lots of action, I watch this show because its got great acting, a good premise, and a great story-line every week. It's also a plus when i can pick out the landmarks he drives by, or know what intersection he's at. I Love this show and I love Philly!! Give this show a shot!
Nothing better than an android boasting 80's technology and a coming-of-age storyline to pull your thoughts from the depths of your mind front and center to be taken captive by a beautifully lovable cast. Growing up in the 80's gave me the priceless opportunity to see re- runs of "not quite human" on many special occasions. Considering the fact that my parents were never present during the viewings, I would guess that I would most likely not enjoy it near as much as I did as a child. So perhaps this is a film to dig out of your VHS collection and hand to your kids, it can be found on the same tape as "The apple dumpling gang" and an episode of "tour of duty," that is if you recorded in LP mode of course.

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

positive
I rented this movie because I am a huge Dudikoff fan. I figured it couldn't be that bad. Boy was I wrong! At the 15 minute mark , I was begiing the others to let me rip the DVD out and fling it back to the rental store, but they refused. They swore it had to get better.

They were wrong! This movie was lacking everything. The actors delivered their lines with as much emotion as a comatose rock! The plot was ridiculous and I was offended that Hollywood assumed people were dumb enough to enjoy it. None of the characters interacted very well with each other. Ice-T gives one of his worst performances here.

After watching footage of the wrong plane, bad guys standing up to get shot, and clips being emptied and missing everything, I wanted to scream and bang my head on concrete. The movie hit its plateau of ignorance when the people on the space station used an elevator to travel. Space suits are not needed and there is gravity in space regardless of what real astronauts may say.

I didn't finish this movie and hated it. I don't want to finish this movie. This is slow suicide. I could feel my cerebral cortex planning to avenge the torture I put it through.

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

I have only seen the minimum wage episode yet i have no intention of watching the others, how can that be? Morgan starts theatrically complaining about his awful situation living on minimum wage right at the beginning of the episode and the complaining never stops. Ever. Luckily for the viewer, his skinny girlfriend is just as annoying as Morgan (if not even more annoying).

And then to top it all, they go to the movies and buy bottled water for 2,50 and after that go to a restaurant to eat out all the while they naturally *drumroll* complain about being poor.

I don't care if the other episodes may or may not be better than this. No one should be forced to watch this crap.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a positive movie review.

This is a truly great and beautiful movie. The underlying theme of this movie is the innocent child (Heather Graham as Joline) struggling to make her naive wishes for how the world should be make sense while being incessantly beaten down by the real world. It's not an unhappy movie, though - exactly the opposite. It's a funny movie with a sad side, but just thinking about the movie makes me feel so happy. Near the beginning of the movie, beautiful, vulnerable Joline confronts a drug addict attempting to break into her friend's car. She reasons with him, convinces him to seek help, and gives him $30 as a start. At the end of the movie, he reappears to pay her back, explains that he is off drugs, doing well, and he thanks her. I can hear the cynics groaning. Of *course* that would never really happen. This movie doesn't take place in the real world. It takes place in the world we wished we lived in. The sad part is realizing we don't live there. The happy part is knowing there are people wishing we did.
OK ... The end of this may be something of a letdown after what has come before ... And Klaus Kinski should have had his 10 second appearance cut out ... But there is no getting away from the fact that this is a really wonderful atmospheric Euro thriller ... I can't believe I have never seen this till now ... Its good to know there are films out there that are still worth tracking down ... And this really is ... Stunning visuals ... Haunting ... And builds an amazing atmosphere ... Florinda Balkan is perfect as our heroine ... And the scene on the beach with Nicoletta Elmi is some of the most relaxed and perfect acting you could see ... Lila Kedrova is spot on as a fellow visitor to the town who may or may not be who she seems ... If you miss the hay days of Euro cinema then chase this out ... There's a decent widescreen print going round ... And please get this out in a restored DVD someone ... They did it with the directors " Fifth Cord " ... And this is a much better film

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

positive
I first seen this movie in the early 80s and we used to have it on betamax. As we all know, betamax went the way of the 8-trak tape, sigh, it really had nice picture quality too. Anyways, I'm glad I found this movie again, I've been searching for it for more than 10 years! This movie falls into the category of movies like Airplane: continuous jokes, oneliners, funny actions (bodylanguage). Mark Blankfield is absolutely hilarious. His transformation from the shy Dr. Daniel Jekyll into the sex-crazed partyanimal Mr. Hyde is unforgettable, complete with goldtooth, chesthair and goldchains. The part I loved best was when he hijacked the car from this poor guy and then drove to Madam Woo Woo's. Totally psychedelic experience without the drugs! If you need laugh therapy this is the movie to do it. When I first seen it, I had tears in my eyes and my belly was hurting from constantly laughing. This is a movie I could watch over and over again. I highly recommend it.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: It is a shame that a movie with such a good cinematography as this one had no plot to be supported by the work of Sarah Cawley (cinematography) and Adam Lichtenstein (Film Editing), and above all, no sense of what goes on in Mexico City. The movie tries to be a very realistic depiction of life in city, but it is unable to do it. It is a shame, a lot of film wasted. An American woman tries to find her brother who has been kidnaped. The first account of the story is powerful and interesting, very realistic, but it seems that there was no effort to come with a better narrative of the ordeal, especially when it comes to the issue of the attitudes of the US embassy personnel in Mexico City, when dealing with an issue like this one. Compare, as an example, with Frantic(1988), which deals with a similar issue. Something similar can be said of the role of local authorities. Compare, as an example, with Todo el Poder (1999). The movie is worth watching if you want to get a sense of the looks of the City itself, paying little or no attention to the rather weak "plot" and the many twists that require a rather extensive suspension of disbelief. Who is going to believe that a Mexican patrol from Mexico City is going to go all the way to catch the main characters to the Mexico-US border? And that this policeman is going to be able to use its radio from the border to Mexico City! Only the producers of this movie. It is worth mentioning that unlike Frida and other movies about Mexico at least in these one Mexicans talk Spanish.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I have to say when it comes to Book to Movie Adaptations the BBC rarely lets me down. Now regarding this mini-series. I love the Starling Novel, it's by far the best murder/mystery I've ever read. The Mini-series, it defiantly made my day when I saw it. The primary story was kept near perfectly intact. The characters match the ones to the novel very well, the personalities and mannerisms were spot on for Red and Jez. I thought Duncan was done very well as was Kate, Eric came off as too much of a simplistic character, he had a little more depth in the book, but they also altered his sub-story so that may have had to deal with it. Of course there are changes, but most are cosmetic, but some I found disappointment in, the sub-story with Eric murder charge was changed and that changed the whole dynamic between Red and Eric for the movie, and they cut out the Triathalon training Jez was doing. Some of the other events in the book are changed to be viewer friendly. Over all if you liked the book, you will like this, if you like the mini-series, then you'll love the book. I must say, this is the most accurate Book to Movie adaptation I've seen.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I watched this movie with no idea what it was about beforehand. I was intrigued for the first whole hour. It was shaping up to be a great thriller. A very talented cast and good dialogue.Then it all fell apart for me at the sight of the first vampire. I couldn't believe my eyes.A great thriller was flushed down the toilet. The rest of the movie from that point was totally awful.

I gave it 4 stars for the brilliant beginning alone. I think that's a little generous, but I was entertained for a while. I'm not a fan of vampire or zombie movies at all.If you are, then you may disagree with my opinion.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Christopher Nolan's first feature film wowed critics who saw it when it first came out. Shot on a micro budget of $6,000 this is a student film with real class. The film is shot in black and white, and features people who you assume are friends of Nolan's appearing in the movie. This is not to say they are bad actors because they are quite good. You could see Jeremy Theobald and Alex Haw appearing in other projects but unfortunately they haven't since this was made 6 years ago.

Nolan's thriller, much like Memento, does not play chronologically, it shifts the scenes around much like Pulp Fiction. The writing is fantastic. It is a great twisting thriller but because the temporal order of the film is shifted around it makes it even more interesting. I thought the last ten minutes in particular when everything starts to become clear were excellent.

For a film of such a small budget and with no recognizable names at all, this is so good. It is superior to most that Hollywood studios offer and Nolan after three films (this, the superior Memento and the not quite as good but still excellent Insomnia) has cemented himself as the most exciting new talent of recent times. I can't wait for Batman.

This film is short and sweet and certainly a great watch. It is very professional and the twists are fantastic and completely surprising. I also thought that the score from David Julyan was also excellent, very atmospheric and had a chilly quality to it. He has gone on to compose Nolan's other films. 

Overall I would recommend this, I intend to get all of Nolan's films. This is a low budget gem. *****


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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Burt Reynolds plays Gator McKlusky, a likable ex-convict just released from prison who helps the feds nab a corrupt small town sheriff. Laid-back Reynolds was often accused by critics of merely phoning these 'good ol' boy' performances in; true, he's on auto-pilot throughout. But in his day, Reynolds knew just how to make a low-key effort work well for himself. Ingratiating and handsome, Reynolds comes as close to winking at the audience as he can without breaking up; he seems to know these backwoods as well as any movie star, while director Joesph Sargent provides an easy pace and a sweaty ambiance which brings the South alive. Unfortunately, the story isn't much, and supporting actors Ned Beatty and Bo Hopkins overact (as usual). Diane Ladd is fine in a small part, and real-life daughter Laura Dern can be glimpsed in the background. Reynolds returned to this character for 1976's "Gator". *1/2 from ****
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
When I first heard of this movie, I was mildly interested. The plot seemed like an opportunity for hilarity and Bam Margera as an actor and director seemed like something that might be good. When I found out the movie starred Ryan Dunn, I was even further interested (I was a fan of Homewrecker when it was on... Yeah, I'm that lame). However, I didn't have much faith in it being to good. When I sat down to watch it, I was afraid I was wasting my time.

But even just five minutes it it became apparent that I'd been wrong.

I thought that the comedy of this film was delightfully idiotic, and definitely not suited for all kinds of people. The acting was rather good, much better than my expectations. I thought that it was rather easy to relate to Ryan's character, which gave the movie a center that was believable. This is key in a movie as outrageous as this (and is probably why I was not a fan of Borat).

The movie is not suitable at all for younger people, DUH, and will definitely create more than it's fair share of awkward turtles if watched with parents. But it's a good one for you and your buddies on a movie night.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
A few years ago, while I was renting some movies, I came across Subspecies 4, ended up watching it and actually kind of liking it, we need a good vampire gore flick that doesn't hold back. But when I went back to the video store, they said they didn't have any other Subspecies videos, unfortunately, the same went for any other video store I checked out. I gave up, until someone on youtube actually posted all the Subspecies films and I got to watch them all last night and I'm hooked. I am now a fan of the Full Moon Subspecies series. I think because this was the type of horror film I have been looking for, I've been looking for a good cheesy scare for a long time and Subspecies filled that spot. Radu is one of the coolest vampires on screen and almost gives Nosferatu a run for his fangs! 

Radu is an evil vampire who is after his blood stone, his birth rite, the stone contains some blood that is absolutely incredible and gives him strength. Three American girls who are studying Romanian history and culture bump into a man, Stephan, who offers to help. They stay at Radu's castle where we find out that Stephan is Radu's brother; Radu seduces and turns two of the girls, but Stephan falls for one of the girls, Michelle, and will do anything to protect her.

Subspecies is a fun series, despite the cheesy effects, it makes it in some ways more likable. Plus Radu was a perfect villain as Stephan was the perfect angel like romantic vampire. The story is chilling and I think this was a fun vampire movie. This was also the first in the series, the best part is, the sequels are just as fun. I would recommend this for a scary movie night, watch it in the dark, Radu is sure to send shivers down your spine, or even your neck... OK, cheesy joke, couldn't resist.

7/10

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

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

This movie clearly has an agenda, which could be summed up like this: Never, never cross the border (either physical or metaphorical). Let's shun everything that's on the other side with a wall or a fence or something else, let's pretend all "gringos" are evil, satanic, or drug dealers. All that is outside one's country's border (and specially US borders) is dangerous, malevolent and people there will hate you, or envy you or try to steal you or something else. The "based on true events" is only a perverse tag that can be pinned on anything to give it some aura of credibility or, in this case, just to help pushing the film's ideology down some naïve throats out there. The perversity of the film lies in the fact that it reduces countries, people and all else into very black and white stereotyped categories: Mexicans into disgusting people, Mexican police into a bunch of corrupt cops, republicans into the right-wing morons, democrats into almost hippie humanists and so forth. Is there anything good about the film? I hardly think so, but may be you think differently.
Write a negative movie review.

Bathebo, you big dope.

This is the WORST piece of crap I've seen in a long time. I have just stumbled onto it on late night TV and it is painful to watch. Really painful. How does something like this get made?? Horrible, horrible, horrible! OOOOOO ..... The toilet is flushing by itself again! Scary toilet! Scary toilet! Scary toilet! 1992 doesn't seem like that long ago to me, but watching this makes it seem like 1952. I mean its horrible. Please don't waste your time on the drivel!

Scary old black man telling them not to build the pool in the yard. Scary! Scary! How does this stuff get MADE???
This is an excellent tub-thumper from the war years.

John Mills leads a fine cast of regular British B-movie stalwarts in a solo submarine attack upon a fictitious enemy battleship.

Filmed in black and white, it's well paced and also well placed considering that a war was going on at the time. If anything, it shows how seriously the authorities took positive propaganda.

The mission-side of the movie takes place in genuine submarines. Things are cramped and claustrophobic. The actors look suitably grimy and sweaty without being too offensive to the heroic palate. Other commentators have already drawn attention to the authentic little details like keeping the vessel trim and forgetting to read instruments, as well as the engine-room activities.

This probably is the first movie in which debris (and a dead German) is blown from the torpedo tube to fool an enemy destroyer. And it's the ONLY time I have seen part of the vessel exposed in a pretence of sinking - a high risk gamble if ever there was one.

I'm a little sceptical as to whether or not a submarine could punch its way through a wire-rope net. Submerged speed was barely twice that of human walking speed, and the net would have had a great deal of 'give'. Also, the engineer was at the same work-station and operating the same levers both on the surface and submerged. This, too, seems implausible as either diesel or electric engines were used and they were in different sections of the ship - or so I'm told.

There was a wee bit too much shore-side drama for my tastes. But then, this was a propaganda effort, and clearly contained a subtle message for civilians to mind their behaviour as it could adversely affect service morale and therefor the war effort.

These niggles aside, it's a pretty entertaining little adventure. Nowadays movies of such vintage tend to be screened in the afternoon, whilst far more modern and inferior movies enjoy prime-time. But then; it's no longer politically-correct to mention the war in the presence of our European friends (Too many of them have guilty consciences), or our own left-wing fascists (non of whom have ever fought for the freedoms they now take for granted).

As a submarine movie it is eminently collectible. Better than 'The Enemy Below', I think, though less demonstrative. Not so authentic as 'Das Boot' by any means, but not so gross either.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Co-scripted by William H. Macy from, arguably, Donald E. Westlake's best and hardest to find novel, "A Travesty". *Very* faithful to the story, the movie stars Macy as a hapless man who gets in way too far over his head after attempting to cover up an accidental death. Costars Adam Arkin and James Cromwell in good supporting roles. The strength of the movie is in the intricate twist-after-twist storyline and in the acting, particularly by Macy who routinely and delightfully breaks through the 4th wall here and gets away with it every time. A good storyline with much dark humor, this one engaged me enough that I've watched it three times in the week since it came out. Prepare to shelve your critical faculties and emit a loud, bipartisan "wheeeeee!".

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: A fine young cast is wasted in this empty, mawkish, manipulative film that tries to be a combination of both a cute comedy and an insightful drama. The plot moves so slowly that the 90 minutes seems endless as characters do nothing but mope and emote. The dialogue is filled with stilted cliches and fortune-cookie attempts at pseudo-philosophy.

Apparently aiming at being a moving and profound look at life and love, the film ends up being merely pretentious. The only real weight is the burden that the talented cast is forced to carry as best they can. But, never fear -- they are held up by the puppet strings of the contrived plot.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
A dark, yet humorous tale involving a cop who has a first hand experience with vampires and decides he must quit his job to pursue these evil beings.Most of the film contained questionable acting,plot, props, and filming. The fight scenes were as hokey as a middle schooler's rendition of a WWII battle. The lines delivered were spoken as if the actors had no motivation for being there. The props were bad because they did not even look like they could function in the slightest amount. the majority of the film appeared to be shot in someones basement (in some scenes you could see the rafters overhead in a scene that was not supposed to look like that of a basement). The plot had no motivation to move forward or go backwards, it just appeared to stand still at times with no reason for some characters actions. I felt at times the sounds effects were out of place for this horror type genre and more of a cartoon series. It is similar to the movie Blade, in that he is an African American vampire hunter. However, that is where all similarities end, and the movie looks closer to a Saturday Night Live spoof.

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

negative
There is only one word that describes this film: BAD!! I have no idea why this movie was even made, or how they got Dennis Hopper to star in this film. Stuart Gordon is a better director than this and Hopper is a much better actor. The film is plain stupid. I did like the "square pigs" idea and there was an interesting love scene involving a cyborg, other than that, avoid this film at all costs.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This film is good in it's genre and that genre is naturally action with a little/average budget. Looks like Van Damme delivers greatly better performances when he has a good director guiding him. There is your basic bar brawl, alley scene and mostly a lot of gun fighting. Some basic drama, but nothing too deep. Isaac Florentine directs an OK action flick if you ignore the weak plot and the holes in it. But the person who steals the show is: 

Scott Adkins. How come this guy isn't a massive Arnold Schwarzenegger caliber action star that I don't know. Director Isaac Florentine has made a movie with Scott Adkins before called Special Forces (2003) which has some unbelievable martial arts talent that will satisfy the most demanding kungfu enthusiastic. Another amazing Scott Adkins feature is Undisputed 2. Check this guy out and make a noise, this guy needs to get super action star status and he needs to get it now!

What else can I say about the movie? It's Van Damme stepping up a notch from some of his most recent work. No Oscars here for sure, but you already knew that. But never the less it has a nice little town feel and I could find worse ways to spend my time. So I'm giving this a solid 7 out of 10 in it's genre.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
More entertaining than all the gay orgies in "300" combined. More heartbreaking than a Shakespearian tragedy. More poetic than even the most melodramatic poems about lost love and blah blah blah. And on top of all that, the greatest trash ever made.

A black comedy testing the limits of the human senses, John Waters's cult movie "Pink Flamingos" is a story about the conflict between two families that ends in humiliation, death and of course the eating of dog feces (yeah by the way that is not actually the humiliating part). No no, this is not about the impossible love, there are no Romeos or Juliets on these 90 or so minutes. This movie is about the battle for prestige if you could call it that. The battle for the title - Filthiest person alive.

On one side we have Divine (played by the cross-dressing Waters regular... umm... Divine) a caring daughter, good mother, cannibal, murderer, pervert and current owner of said title. She loves her son Crackers a bit way too much. Crackers himself sports a sexual attraction to both chickens and young ladies sometimes mixing them up in threesomes. Family friend and loyal accomplice Cotton gets her satisfaction from watching Crackers during some of his... acts involving the mentioned earlier objects of attraction. Last but not least Divine's mother and grandmother to Crackers, Edie. A 400 hundred pound woman, sleeping, eating and basically living in a baby cradle. She is addicted to eggs and loves the egg-man (the man who brings the eggs...lol).

The four of them live peacefully in a caravan outside the city until the moment when they become a target for the Marbles. Exhibitionists, manipulators, cheaters, very evil people actually. Their main source of income comes from the kidnapping and impregnating of young women. For the impregnating part they use their trusted and loyal cross-dressing butler to provide the semen. After that they sale the birthed child to the highest bidder.

It was the Marbles's envy towards Divine and her title that will lead to an inevitable confrontation between the two families. An Epic battle of filth, perversion and violence.

"Pink Flamingos" is an unsurpassed masterpiece in the trash-movie genre. Loaded with oddities and strange acts, John Waters's movie is loathed and hated by traditionalists, critics and the average movie-going audience. But for the few that remain unscratched by these generalizations the Flamingos is an unforgettable experience. Funny and sick, violent and poetic. It truly is an exercise in poor taste
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I agree with several of you that this film was rather boring and dull. I found myself disliking the main character and the following actors/actresses that came in the scenes. The camera work was non pleasing itself. Random shots and shaky film scenes made me quite annoyed and I turned the film off. I will make up my time by watching the 1999 adaption and hope that it fits agreeable along with Sense and Sensibility; Emma; Becoming Jane; and Pride and Prejudice. I've only a few others to watch besides these films but I believe they were done in great taste. The music was kind of out of place with the film also, reminding me of another show I had seen this year. It was called Hex and a show from BBC. I came across it one night on the web. I rather liked the first season but the second season was dry and pulling things out of thin air that should of stayed with the clouds. I found the main male character who was Henry in this film out of place. Perhaps I just do not like his way of speaking or his stature. Well I would not recommend this film to anyone unless they were going to have it muted and they wanted to look at the fashion of the era, or the way homes were kept at the time. Again I will watch the 1999 version and hope it is a better and does Jane Austen some justice to her writing.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

Spoiler warning!!!

This is probably my least favourite Cary Grant film. I spent most of the time thinking: ignore him, leave him etc. Is he trying to kill her? Should we assume that after the end, when he persuades her to return home with him, that he will kill her after all? I see from checking in a couple of books that this is a reading that some viewers/critics have taken. Finishing early is after all a more reasonable way to film a book, than to change the ending - and this is a more unreasonable change of ending than, for example, in Altman's The Long Goodbye. Unlike Hitchcock's earlier example of making the murderer not the murderer because a star has been cast (when Gosford Park refers to The Lodger, Ivor Novello's murderous habits are not mentioned) the book's ending is not definitely ruled out.

In Robin Wood's Hitchcock's Films Revisited, he writes: "As one mentally 'swiches' from ending to ending , the significance of every scene changes, the apparent solidity of the narrative dissolves, the illusion of the fiction's 'reality' disintegrates, the film becomes a 'modernist' text in which the process of narrative is foregrounded." I enjoy playing intellectual interpretation games as much as anyone else, but unless the film stands on a straightforward reading, then it fails. This one fails. Even after considering the fatal glasses of milk that recur in a few Hitchcock films.

An annoying quibble. The year is 1941. Nothing in the film says that it is set in the past. Beaky (Nigel Bruce) keeps his money in a Paris Bank, and goes there to do financial business? Does he not know that there is a war on? Indeed, were there still any flights from Croydon airport? Is he on good terms with the Nazis? How come it is never suggested that the Germans shot him as a spy or something.

A curiosity. When Johnnie and Lina have dinner with Isobel, the mystery writer, and her brother, the pathologist, there is a fifth person present, who is never explained nor introduced - a woman in a tuxedo. The credits say that she is Nondas Metcalf playing Phyllis Swinghurst. Is this not an example of how lesbians were coded in '40s films? Are we to take her as Isobel's lover? The books that discuss overt and hidden gays/lesbians in Hitchcock (e.g. Robin Wood again) do not include Phyllis Swinghurst.
Write a negative movie review.

If you came here, it's because you've already seen this film and were curious what others had to say about it.

I feel for you, I *really* do. And I profusely apologize as a Canadian (because that's what we do) that this film ever had to cross your eyes, if only for a moment. I hear there is no cure for the retinal bleeding reported out of every dozen cases.

I, like everyone else, rented this movie believing it to be some stupid B-movie ripoff of Blade. I thought, "sure I could use a good laugh at a stupid movie." I'll give the creators of this film ONE positive comment about their 'creation': Thanks for removing the REC XX/XX/XX from the bottom right-hand corner of the screen. I can see how that would have been a distraction from seeing this movie.

And for the record, I *saw* the movie, but did not watch it. The dialogue was incoherent and most of the scenes took place in my grandmother's trailer, I swear to God.

You know what? I'm not writing anymore about this. It's just too painful.
Like all good art, this movie could mean different things to different people. To me it means that failing to open your hart to the others could rob you of happiness and leave you with an empty live. The convenience of the selfishness is like the junk food: it feels good, but eventually could make you sick.

Almost everything I see in the US is a commercial mass production of action garbage, shallow dramas, and stupid comedies, and this sensitive, deep and poetic movie really touched me. Thank you, Nuri Bilge Ceylan (and all the other in the cast)!

Ivan Yanachkov
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive