cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Stay FAR AWAY from this film. The fact that you're reading reviews tells me you may have already been tainted by the awfulness it carrys. This is a truely horrid movie... so let's get down to the problems. Writing and Direction: It wouldnt surprise me if these were handled by a group of overactive gradeschoolers that watched 'scream' and 'I know what you did last summer' a few too many times. GIANT GAPING plot holes abound; while I can't congratulate them for this movie, its nice knowing they're finally potty trained. Actors(or lack thereof): Only the finest for this film... the finest extras ever to grace a screen, now starring in their speaking role debut! As a disclaimer, I have to note that I am capable of watching and enjoying just about anything. I recognize a good movie when I see it, but I can still giggle and smirk during Bubble Boy (yes folks, its true); so when I say to avoid something, you KNOW I'm not kidding.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Oliver Stone hits the bull's eye with this film, aided chiefly by Bogosian's electrifying screen presence and biting, brilliant screenplay. Every moment crackles with a steadily-growing tension, climaxing in a truly, memorable movie-going experience. If there was ever an indication of a writer and a director's ability to meld two highly volatile temperaments into a seamless union of creativity, then this is it! The result is a powerhouse achievement, made more timely now perhaps because of our culture's disturbing fascination with celebrity, and it's distorted interpretations of fame.

An ultimate indictment of our society's increasing morbidity, and self-sickening hunger for the next big thrill.

A film not easily forgotten. I highly recommend it to anyone interested in the darker side of human nature.

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

positive
It could not have come from a different country nor from a different time. This movie simply oozes psychedelia influenced late 60s Italian cinema. So, pseudo serious and sexually free. Sumptuous settings and dreamy music make this a visual and aural delight. Plus we get the lovely Dagmar Lassander, surely at her very best looking. The kinky goings on make for a wild ride and if the romps amidst the Mimosa towards the end seem overlong it is but another rather charming trait of the time. You were probably expected to split those few minutes between the screen and your girlfriend and it does of course herald a twist in the proceedings. It might have been better if Philippe Leroy didn't look quite so odd with his fraying red hair and twisted facial expression. He does well though and has many silent moments where Dagmar is cavorting and he has to show a mixture of love and hate. Not an ordinary narrative film by any means but for those who like that something different, this is certainly that.

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

positive
Determine the sentiment:

This is the only Christopher Guest movie that rivals Spinal Tap and Princess Bride for sheer entertainment value, but somehow never gets near the recognition. The plot surrounds the contestants--dogs--and their owners as they venture into the world of competitive dog...OK, it's about a dog show. The owners truly are characters, as one would have to be to be so attached to their dogs. That's really all there is to it, but that makes it funny enough.

You'd never be able to convince me that a mock-u-mentary about dog shows would be funny prior to catching the hilarious scene where Levy and O'hara visit Larry Miller's house on TV...but that's really all it takes to convert any doubters. Spinal Tap was non-stop hilarity, joke after joke whereas Best in Show was had a few more lulls (and by that I mean say 3 minute at MOST where something riotously funny doesn't happen), but the big laughs are even bigger.

The casting in this one is great and even the typically out of place in, uh movies in general Parker Posey does a fine job. In fact, her tirade directed at Ed Begley Jr. and a pet store owner over a lost dog toy is probably the funniest running gag of the film.

What's amazing about this movie to me is how the writers somehow managed to weave a plot, simple as it was, around these great jokes so that it actually felt like it had direction. I guess there's a freedom in having such a minimal plot. Everyone's role is pretty well crafted here and the characters are rarely over-the-top. The realism of how pathetic they seem to the outsider is what makes it funnier than Mighty Wind or the uneven Guffman. I actually encounter wierdos like this now and then. If you like Guest's stuff at all, you should definitely own this one.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

This film is one of the best of 1986 with creepy, yet intriguing performances from Crispin Glover and Dennis Hopper! The Reagan years were pretty bleak for a lot of people, not just teenagers, but this flick really captured the desperation and despair. Well-directed with great script (apparently based on a true story), I don't really see any weaknesses in this. The opening shot was brilliant.

Keanu Reeves was decent for a change and Miss Skye was right on the money. Hopper had three other great performances that same year (Blue Velvet, Texas Chainsaw II, and Hoosiers). I imagine this has a cult following and I wonder how this picture would fare if it was re-released. Super stuff!
What's an example of a movie review?

I just saw a terrible film called The Sleeping Dictionary. One reviewer on Four Word Film Review (www.fwfr.com) got it right right when he wrote, "From A to Zzzzzzzzz." The story is about an English colonialist jerk that comes to Malaysia to "civilize the savages" so to speak and ends up falling in love with his sleeping dictionary. A sleeping dictionary is a native Malaysian prostitute fluent in English that services Englishmen colonialists and teaches them her native language in return for ... well the movie never really makes that clear, but I can only assume he gives her money or something. Needless to say, the movie focuses a lot more on the "sleeping" part than on the "dictionary" part of the job description. Things get complicated for our young hero when the forbidden love affair gets compounded by her culture, his soap opera domestic situation, and his own boundless stupidity in every major decision he makes throughout the film.

So yes, the movie has some major flaws, but on the other hand, it delivered exactly the two things I rented it for in the first place: a beautifully photographed exotic location, and an even more beautifully photographed and exotic woman that plays the sleeping dictionary, Jessica Alba. My friend told me that this crappy movie was her at her most beautiful and damn was he right. She's not a great actress, and doesn't quite pass for Malaysian, and its pretty obvious that they use a body double for the nudity, but who cares? Jessica Alba has that rare face and figure that's more than just sexy, but also beautiful in the way that a Vivaldi violin concerto or a Rembrandt painting is.

(P.S. Sorry to all you feminists out there who discourage objectifying women, the "male gaze," etc. etc., but I hope you can understand that I mean no disrespect.)
Write a negative movie review.

In the last few years of Ron Miller's (son-in-law of Walt Disney cum Producer) reign he churned out live-action crap on a stick often starring the very boring Dean Jones, whose entire career was based on that kind of light, empty-headed fare. Other horrible films from that same period include Pete's Dragon, the Last Flight of Noah's Ark, Unidentified Flying Oddball and the dreaded Condorman. I'll not mention Tron because I thought it ambitious and Miller was only the executive Producer on it, so he had little to do with the actual production. However he was in full force when this god-awful piece of human junk was expelled from the bowels of creativity. Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo. Second sequel to much- loved Love Bug tale finds Herbie in love with another car who has a brain and heart too. There's a race, some lame bad guys, a diamond and Barney Fife. Shot in France, the film actually is nicely photographed and the countryside is lovely. But one gets the idea the film was made so all involved could have a three month vacation in France. The rest of film is a wreck. Prat falls, bumbling thieves, wicked German racing competitors and a pretty bouncing feminist all fall under the category of stock supply. The biggest insult of the film: trying to further develop Herbie's lover personality via shakes, beeps, flashing lights and movements indicative of a horny seventeen year old, Disney's writers do an injustice to our cute little VW. Then again I would think it'd be tough for anyone to top Helen Hayes driving Herbie around a skyscraper ledge in the second outing.
I like Kevin Bacon and Cathy Moriarty, and I love Mary Stuart Masterson, but the movie wasn't good at all. There wasn't a likable character in the picture, and the plot was nearly non-existent.

Ms. Masterson is a great actress, but she just didn't pull off the "tough girl" character. (She had similar problems with her character in THE SECOND DAY OF Christmas.) Perhaps she should avoid these characters, especially those with an obnoxious female child to play off of.

Evan Rachel Wood was unimpressive. Her character was a brat, plain and simple, and no young actress could have given Harriet any positive feelings.

In the interest of full disclosure, I couldn't even finish watching this picture. Forty-five minutes of my time is enough to waste.

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

negative
I was reticent to see this flick before reading the external reviews and user comments posted here. Why? Firstly because Mick Malloy's humour can (in my humble opinion) be pretty crass and over the top, evidenced by his ill fated shemozzle of a television show some years back. And secondly because good Aussie comedy films are sadly as rare as the Tassie Tiger. 

Sensibly Mick has restrained his natural comedic exuberance in this surprisingly watchable movie. Who would have thought that a bowls club would provide the setting for one of the funniest Australian films in years. The cast is excellent with familiar local old timers all putting in believable performances. 

Interesting to see John Clarke playing the villain in this piece. It's a one dimensional part but JC still adds a touch of class, as always. Good to see Judith Lucy also getting a Guernsey or should I saw bowls uniform on the big screen. She's a real talent, pity a number of her retorts were expletives. Her own material is a lot wittier. Interesting character though. Bowls reporter on a local rag. How low on the journalist food chain can one get!!

Crackerjack may not be the funniest film I've seen this year but it's certainly an enjoyable diversion, well worth a look. Lots of other people obviously agree with me as it's headed to be the biggest grossing Australian film this year. Good to see someone finally make a quirky, gentle comedy without trying to sledgehammer the laughs like so many Australian 'comedies' before it. 

Finally a bit of trivia. If you're wondering which Aussie Rules team Mick supports check out the flag on his workstation. Also look out for his old partner in crime, Tony Martin doing the announcing in the final bowls scene. 

 



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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Okay, this wasn't the greatest horror movie I've ever seen in my life. Despite the fact that it's lower budget, it's a pretty decent movie, though. The monsters are unique and believable. Heck, they're even kind of scary in the scenes where they show them briefly wreaking havoc on this poor family. Although, when you finally do get to see the monsters completely, you really think "WTF!? those itty bitty things are after them?!" The only part that really disturbed me is when *sniff* they killed the kitty! Not the kitty, noooooo, why? Seriously though, if you are looking for hardcore violence and gore, this is not the movie for you. Go rent The Hills Have Eyes or something along those lines. If you have small children, I wouldn't recommend watching this with them though; probably would give them nightmares about trolls in their room.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

At the beginning it was almost a shock to see Norma Shearer without her makeup. Then she glamorizes herself and becomes the life of the party.

Anyway, she divorces her husband, makes herself over and gets on with her life; or so she thinks. Somewhat keeps you guessing if they'll get back together.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

SOME MAJOR SPOILERS, YOU'VE BEEN WARNED

I saw this movie yesterday at Venice's film festival, and I must admit that, being a fan, it was REALLY IMPRESSIVE. Excellent graphic, excellent music, excellent dubbing, excellent action sequences and so on... BUT there's a but. ALL the film was thought EXCLUSIVELY for the gamers that have loved it, and that can therefore enjoy every single reference, character, inside joke (you should see a joke with winning music that's particularly comic) etc. A poor man not inside the world of FF will obviously see the magnificence of technical part, but CANNOT grasp the inner satisfaction of seeing, e.g., Barret appearing and shooting Bahamut TOTALLY OUT OF NOWHERE. He'll ask himself, "WHO'S THIS GUY?", and I cannot blame him. He cannot even understand what a gamer feels when in the OPENING SEQUENCE there's game's opening music, Nanaki running in the canyon with his two cubs, howling at Midgar's ruins, and then "498 years ago...". Almost all characters have made an appearance or quote (including Reeve, Tseng and Elena), and Reno & Rude were really goofy and comic to see, but the final impression the movie left to me was "hardcore gamer's final dream, but far less for a MOVIE fan...".
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
If you love drive-in cheeze from the early '70s you will just love this one.How could you go wrong with a low budget film about bloodshed in a lunatic asylum? You can't! Crazy folks and sharp objects are always an entertaining combination.

The film looks like it was shot inside someone's house for about $320.65. For me that just ads to the fun of watching this type of stuff.The gore is a bit mild compared to others of this ilk,but there is enough to keep us bloodthirsty sickos (like myself)happy.Some horror films drag in parts and leave you waiting for something to happen.That's not the case here.The characters are entertaining enough to make every frame quite enjoyable.There is never a dull moment from start to finish.The mind melting climax at the end that is just unbelievable. I liked it so much that right after the end credits I watched it a second time.It's an absolute must see for any self respecting drive-in horror nut.

9.5/10 on the Drive-in-Freak-O-Meter...required viewing

Yea I love you..I DO love you...now take your Thorazine and put your clothes back on...please....8)
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
I caught this flick on the trail end of a tape I had used to capture a movie I truly wanted to wanted to see again. When I saw Raquel Welch's name in the opening credits, I decided to watch it. It was actually mildly entertaining, and took me back "in the wayback machine" to the farcical movies that Hollywood churned out during the sixties, much in the same genre as the current Austin Powers stuff. Oh the acting was not superb, nor was the plot, but it was worth watching. There was some delightful scenery, although Ms. Welch provided the most pleasant of such. Tape it if you get the chance and watch it when you have absolutely nothing else to do. It is not a snoozer, but it won't have you rolling in the aisles wanting more, either.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

I came across this movie on DVD purely by chance through a Blockbuster rental. Voyage to the Planets is an excellent BBC 2hour documentary/drama about a future "grand tour" of the solar system. Taking pains to adhere to current knowledge about the planets and space flight, and plausible extropolations from existing technology, this movie tells the story of astronauts on a journey to Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, and Pluto.

The special effects are excellent for a TV show. I found the actors believable as astronauts. The situations presented are for the most part plausible, and you learn a lot about the science of the planets and spaceflight! Only two minor complaints: I found some of the situations and dialogue somewhat maudlin at times. Furthermore I am unsure that a single crew and ship would be sent on a single mission to see all those destinations at once time. More than likely, visits to Venus, Mars, Jupiter, etc. would/will be separate missions.

They didn't try to skimp on this show with production values. The scenes of Venus and Mars were actually filmed in the northern deserts of Chile--the driest area on earth and a dead-ringer for the Martian landscape. Weightlessness sequences were filmed in a diving Russian transport jet. The producers could have fudged on either of these using studios and CGI, but chose the real thing instead.

I would like to especially mention the marvelous music that was composed for this movie. Don Davis's thrilling theme is the first thing that grabs you when the movie starts, as the magnificent shot of the Pegasus passes the screen and David Suchet intones "it is the destiny of man to explore the stars...".

Watching this on a small television screen is one regret I have. What a thrill to see this in a movie theatre, or even better an IMAX presentation!
Every James Bond movie has its own set of rules. Just like every Indiana Jones movie has ITS own set of rules. And the fact that screenwriters don't break these rules maintains the integrity of the characters. With a completely unnecessary plot twist, the integrity of both Ocean films plummets somewhere between Airplane 2 and a Roadrunner cartoon.

Imagine what would happen, while teetering on the rope bridge outside of the Temple of Doom, if Indy told Shorty and Willie not to worry because throughout the entire first two movies he's secretly had super powers and can fly them both to safety.

Entertaining? Sure, for a Roadrunner cartoon. But Spielberg would never have done that because it would have destroyed the integrity of the film. More importantly, it would have ANGERED the audience. They'd already sat on the edge of their seats through 3 hours worth of Indiana Jones movies and they were counting on Indiana to get them off that bridge in a believable way. If he were to fly off? People would have walked out of the theaters the same way people did during Ocean's 12.

SPOILERS

1. Julia Roberts'character, Tess, infiltrates a museum by disguising herself as...Julia Roberts?!? A clever twist? By breaking the fourth wall three hours after we've been introduced to these characters? Is this the Naked Gun 33 and 1/3? It's a textbook example of how a cheap laugh can ruin an entire film. But wait...just in case you haven't walked out yet...

2. The suspense builds throughout the last hour of the movie -- how will they pull off the heist -- there are only 10...8...5...2 DAYS LEFT! And then in the last 12 minutes of the film, the ONLY entertaining part of this movie, we see that the heist was made days earlier and took Matt Damon all of 30 seconds to pull off. The past 10 days? A complete waste of your time.

BACK TO INDIANA JONES ON THE ROPE BRIDGE..."Just relax, Willie! I stole the REAL stones back about a month ago! Besides, I convinced them you were Kate Capshaw!"

If you haven't already seen it, cut your losses and go see the Polar Express. I don't want to ruin the ending for you, but there really is a Santa Claus. Most importantly, you won't feel cheated leaving the theater.

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

negative
Excellent Hitchcock thriller with Robert Cummings proving once again that he could really act up a storm.

This time he is a defense plant worker caught up in a horrible plot when his best friend is killed at the plant.

Priscilla Lane is the girl who suddenly becomes interested in Cummings as the plot thickens and he is pursued from California to N.Y.

There is a diabolical plot by a group of wealthy 5th columnists to destroy from from within. Hitchcock was known to play up the upper echelons of society involved in mayhem in his long career as a director.

Ironically, the film implodes at the very end. While we see what happens to the guy who killed Cummings' friend, we don't see what happens to the rest of the gang, again, many of whom represent the upper crust of society.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a negative movie review.

I disagree with Dante portraying the Democrat-supporting zombies as creatures with an average IQ of 23. I do believe their behaviour should reflect a lower IQ than that, something in the order of a Pelosi IQ... A single-digit figure, please.

The MOH series is quite uneven, and this is the very worst episode. Dante, yet another mindless Hollywood liberal (or an apolitical nerd who sucks up to the Leftist establishment in order to re-kindle his pitiful career?), must have finally realized that his directorial pursuits had been stuck in a low gear for nearly two decades now, hence came up with this cringe-inducing, unsubtle, left-wing "satire" of the Bush administration, Republicans, and capitalism. Perhaps he felt he hadn't been overtly political before. He wouldn't exactly be the first no-talent to use asinine political propaganda to further his career, when all else fails. The maker of turds such as "Piranha", "The Howling", and "Matinee", Dante has been as useful a contributor to the horror genre as Adolf Hitler had been to world peace.

TH uses lowest-common-denominator humour, cheap and predictable gags which even the bluest of all blue-collar union members wouldn't have trouble understanding. Or have you ever seen a clever, subtle, intelligent liberal satire? Populist manure has the basest of all messages, hence the language and manner in which this message is communicated has to be as simple and basic as Sean Penn's name. And what better people to send this message to the popcorn-munching sheep than a couple of cocaine-sniffing Tinseltown losers who've all fallen so low that they're forced to write for TV...

I don't want political propaganda, either Left or Right, in any type of movie. But placing it in horror - of all genres - is a testament to the endless stupidity that reigns so supreme among Hollywood's anti-intelligentsia. So vapid was Dante that he even failed to notice the hilarious suggestion that zombies would vote Democrat... (That's what you get for finishing a movie school: not a source of wisdom or useful knowledge by any stretch of the imagination.)
If you have ever wanted to know more about cab drivers, then this is an excellent movie to watch, for informational purposes only. I can just hear it now, "Wait, just wait a second! Why don't we follow a cab driver through his entire day! Cabbies are funny, and so are the people they meet, and they only talk to each other for just a couple of minutes, so the other actors should be cheap! Harry, you take care of production, Joan, you've got materials, Brian, you go round up some actors and we'll all meet back here tomorrow to start filming!"

The first 90% of the movie could not have been any worse had that very thing happened. At least with no planning whatsoever, there is always the element of surprise to be found. Some of Jim Carrey's movies have stuff added as they go along and they always do well at the box offices. The problem here is that the first 90% is pretty well scripted out, and it pretty much sucks. Paul Dillon plays the cab driver in Chicago who is working all day. We pretty much see what he sees. People get in and out of his car and he drives all around town. He talks to those people for a few seconds and then we get some more people. 

I'll admit, there were a couple of funny bits here and there. A religious family tries to talk the cab driver into going to church with them, he takes a pregnant lady and her husband to the hospital, breaks up a rich businessman from his girlfriend, a poor girlfriend from her boyfriend and takes a rape victim home. I guess the moral of the movie is that a Cab Driver is more than a Cab Driver and has a larger sphere of influence over the lives of his passengers than you might originally think. For some people, he's just a means of getting from here to there, but for others, his very ordinary words help change the direction of their lives.

The last passenger of the day is used to try make sense of the rest of the movie, and to a small extent it succeeds. It had a bit of that deathbed repentance feel to it where the good majority of the movie sucks and then at the very end, it tries to make it all better in just one or two changes. I wasn't too impressed with the movie as a whole, but there were a few bits and pieces worth watching again. As far as the actors go, Paul Dillon is it. John Cusack, Gillian Anderson and Julianne Moore are all in this, for about 30 seconds each, but don't watch this for any of them or you will most certainly be disappointed. I will give the other people invovled some credit that it's not your ordinary movie they have produced here, but it wasn't a very good one either. There just wasn't enough material to keep you going for an hour and a half. It was a decent effort, but it failed none the same.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

Not even original in the plot. Ho hum. There were a couple of angles that could have been quite interesting, but the film follows the path of 90% of Hollywood movies. I don't really "get" Samuel Jackson's acting most of the time in his other films, but he was rather good in this film. He rarely yelled and went much further in his character rather than reverting to an "in your face anger." I liked Eva Mendes - as usual - and even though she is great eye candy, she proves herself to be much more than that as an actress. Luis Guzman was actually really good also, except that I disliked the change of his character towards Samuel Jackson at the end of the film. How can one's character center around a dislike for a former cop and then turn into lollipop land within a split second? Is there no original thought left in Hollywood?
Age cannot tarnish the beauty of this East-west love story for me. Ignoring the famous and lovely title song and its lyrics, what we have is a dramatized biography of two remarkable people caught in a moment of counter-currents involving social conformity, bigotry, war, doubt, and the need for immense courage. With Hong Kong as the backdrop, this movie tells the story of a Eurasian doctor and a U.S. journalist who meet and fall in love during the Korean War. As Mark Elliott, William Holden is intelligent, breezy and a bit weak; Jennifer Jones is perhaps well-nigh-perfect as Dr. Han Suyin, by turns doubt-torn and ecstatic, eager and hesitant. Others in the large cast include Torin Thatcher, Isobel Elsom, Murray Matheson, Virginia Gregg, Richard Loo, Soo Yong, Philip Ahn, Jorja Curtright and Donna Martell; many of Hollywood's best oriental actors played smaller uncredited parts also. The script by John Patrick followed Han's exquisite novel closely; the direction by Henry King was solid as always. The thrust of the storyline is how unwilling Han was to fall in love with Elliott, with her busy and demanding schedule as a doctor and her doubts about their future; and how unafraid he was, despite the intolerance and interference they faced as their affair became known. The film is unarguably physically busy, interesting and often beautiful also. The hill to which the lovers go to be apart, the lovely bay where they swim are set against an already busy and crowded business city, large social events, and teeming streets, hospital corridors, and traffic-filled arteries. With cinematography by Leon Shamroy, Ben Nye's makeup and Helen Turpin's hairstyles, the great work by set decorators, sound and lighting, art department and all concerned, this has to be one of the most memorable productions set in a major non-U.S. city of all time, and one of the most difficult to capture on film. Yet what one remembers most here is the lovers, thankfully not extremely young, facing the odds against them and assessing exactly what they are--then going ahead as if love mattered and those conditions which are set up as barriers to love do not., The climax of the affair is Mark's going back to war; thereafter Han receives his letters, even after she knows he is has been killed; they seem messages from a better wold. A world where hope is all that matters, courage is the price of admittance to that world, and it is always summer on a high and windy hill set apart and above a zone where beauty and individual desires can be victimized, made subject to ill-fortune or brushed aside by militant forces of evil. Truly, love is a many-splendored thing, Dr. Han says; and this movie stands as one of that doctrine's shining proofs, lucent as a pearl, timeless as a Chinese proverb and lovely as polished jade set against a rough background.

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

positive
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

This film stars Peter Lorre as an exceptionally nice guy who immigrates to America. Unfortunately, shortly after his arrival, he's in a horrible fire and his face is horribly burned. Because he looks so awful, no one wants to hire him and out of sheer desperation, he resorts to a life of crime in order to earn the money needed to buy a mask to hide his ugliness. Where exactly the film goes from there, you'll just need to see for yourself.

I scored this movie an 8 because, for the money spent to make it, it's a heck of a good film with a lot of good twists in the plot to keep it interesting. The film could have degenerated into a simple horror or crime film, but it goes far beyond this an offers some genuine surprises. In addition, the excellent acting by Lorre shows that he was capable of more than just supporting roles. This is an excellent film and delivers more than most "A-pictures" of the day.
Write a negative movie review.

Pacino, and Maconadump really hit the mark with this stinker. I swear, I am an avid movie goer and fan. I have been a fan of most of the people in this abortion at one time or another. Until now. The story-crap The acting- crap(Rene Ruso-Major League was good) The plot-crap The subplot-garbage The teenage attempts to relate to sports betting-junk

I have vowed to watch Romy and Michelle's High School reunion 2 times a day for the next seven days as my punishment for not turning this colostomy bag of a movie off after 10 minutes. I was out of town for a seminar, and this pile of mung cost me $9.99, and 2 hours. I have been cheated. This director should be in jail for fraud.

Get with me if you have other review questions. I am always right.
Rent this, I own the DVD, got it for $9.99. A steal being so under-rated. Sure, there are better movies. Movies with fewer or no holes in the plot or action. BUt I don't have that problem with this movie. For me if a movie stays true to itself, honest and exploitive of its flaws (and virtues, obviously!) in the name of entertainment, then it has fulfilled its purpose. I got me to care, because its makers cared. The entire movie is preposterous from beginning to end, but its makers took the whole undertaking seriously, And I did not feel manipulated into taking the movie seriously. And that is so true, because I want to take every movie seriously yet many, oh so many, let me down. For all of its preposterousness, this movie is almost perfect, and completely entertaining!What a funny screenplay! It also has become eerily relevant in light of the events on 9/11. In no way do I seek to minimize the loss. But this movie incorporates the tradegy of the WTC collapse before it happened in ways that we will never see had the movie been made after those events.

"...it's either gone for good, or here to stay." "wouldn't you agree?"

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

positive
I've been a fan of Jim Henson and his characters since the very beginning. The most beguiling thing about them was the love and innocence and camaraderie shown. Kermit was a role model of deep thinking and problem solving. A spiritual character, yet sweetly and believably so. All the other characters were slightly eccentric but it demonstrated how different kinds of beings can co-exist in a caring manner together, respecting each other's difference.

Following movies have somewhat kept the same vibe. Yet this "It's a Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie" would have Jim Henson spinning in his grave. These characters have been completely re-written to be horny, nasty, selfish, and cheesy.

The cast goes on to portray God as an uncaring corporate head, with a mean streak. Angels as spineless, non-spiritual corporate staff, and the movie was so bad I had to stop watching. I had bought it for my great-nephew but fortunately I preview anything I give a child.

This movie deserved the trash bin instead and has no socially redeeming content or charm.

Shame, shame on the people who re-wrote the characters and departed from Jim Henson's original heart-centered, socially conscious version. It does a terrible disservice to a great hearted man who is no longer around to defend his creations.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This is marvelous movie, about a soul of Ale. This is a journey to Ale's heart. I found it fascinating. The director did a great job. He makes the scenes talk. Especially on the silent scenes. The window of Ale is a great one. An the scenes when he lies in bed are one of the best directed scenes I have seen. 

Apart from directing. It has been a quite time I did not watch a movie about a soul. As a philosopher I can say that, this film proves that the age does not matter about your soul. So as Ale's soul. 

As living in Turkey I do not care about the other side of NY. This is a universal scene you can see everywhere in the world. As to my opinion more universal than every other thing. 

Do not miss this film. Otherwise you will miss a great thing about a soul. If you have one. 

Baris.Sentuna
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Determine the sentiment:

This is a story about a journey made by a man who once had a dream and guts. Donald Crowhurst was an English businessman and amateur sailor who competed in the Sunday Times Golden Globe Race, a single-handed, round-the-world yacht race.

I was very intrigued by the story after listening to a radio interview from the producer John Smithson, who is also the producer of "Touching the Void", one of the first documentaries that made a commercial success in 2003. I had gone to the cinema with great hope and not much previous knowledge on the historic event, and I'm relieved that it didn't let me down. For 92 minutes I was led through a haunting story and came out with much to think about.

Without any reenactment, this film made great use of the limited audio and video archive footage they found and turned it into a compelling story which allowed the audience to understand Crowhurst from a personal level. The story unveiled itself as people who had direct links to the events including his wife and his son, and the eventual winner, also the only one who made it back out of the 9 competitors, Robin Knox-Johnston gave their own accounts of what happened almost 40 years ago.

Crowhurst's logs(journals) that he kept during the 243 days at sea are so haunting that it made it much easier for me to come to understand what being in total isolation can do to a man. While Crowhurst's body was never found, the other competitor Nigel Tetley whose yacht sank just weeks before claiming the prize for fastest passage committed suicide three years later after unsuccessful attempts at properly completing a circumnavigation.

Everything could take its toll, especially the sea.

The director Louise Osmond was also at the Q&A session after the showing together with producer John Smithson. I had no idea that it's a female director and that just came as a very nice surprise. The film is getting a limited release in the UK (a couple of days in certain cinemas). Catch it in cinema while you can, unless you have a state of the art sound system that can recreate the sound of the bashing Southern Ocean.. then I'm sure they'll soon have it on DVDs too.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
This movie would had worked much better if this was the first Critters movie, this is a low-budget movie with only two (2) Critters shown on-screen. Why this looks like a fail is because this is the last Critters movie and it's so low-budget that it seems the director made the whole movie with his own pocket money. However, I did like this movie, I compare it mostly with the third movie (which were bad). Critters 4 have a more serious tone in it, the first half of the movie (even without seeing one Critter yet) you have a scary feeling watching it, too bad they didn't "milk" out the Critters, I mean even if they only had two (2) puppets they could still have used them on-screen a lot more. The Critters also have different deaths in this movie which made this a little special, especially at the end with the frozen Critter. Ug has a promotion in this part and is different in this movie which took me by surprise. Lastly I liked this one because it also has some kind of conclusion to the series, so at least we won't see a Critters 5 anymore. Oh, one last thing, I missed one scene in this movie, we never see a Critter shoot a spike from its back, maybe these puppets didn't have that feature, but I was very disappointed not seeing that (in Critters 3 we see a lot of spike shooting, which was the only good thing I liked about that movie).

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

positive
Write a negative movie review.

This could have been a good movie if more things were explained. Way too many plot holes to find this enjoyable. The ending in particular is off left field. SPOILER ALERT: How did the kidnapper get back to Dundee so fast and Dundee shows up at the house in a matter of two minutes? Way out of wack here. How did Anna get hold of the money? No explanation at all. If the Pete the cop knew Lancaster was in danger, why didn't he have a cop at the door in the Hospital. This and many more questions remain. Too bad because the premise was there, just bad writing and execution.

Good cast is wasted here. DeCarlo goes from bad to good to bad? Lancaster's character lacks development and Dureya is just blah as the "bad guy".

This could re-made with a cohesive story line and better writing. Of course it would be much more violent with lots of gratuitous sex and everything. The editing would be jerky as well I guess, so let's leave well enough alone.
`

5 Years ago if you were to watch an Australian film you would expect to see crocodile hunters, stories of war, drag queens, kangaroos and koalas, and Australians in general being represented as nitwits living off the land, saying words like cobber' and generally being the classic underdog.

Luckily Australian film has evolved over the last couple years and is churning out modern day classics' such as Blackrock, Moulin Rouge, Chopper, Yolngu Boy and Sample People.

In this evolution of film we also find Two Hands.

Set in Sydney's Kings Cross, Two Hands is a black comedy about crime and survival in the rough end of town. Pando, played by Bryan Brown, is a Sydney Mob boss. He's the king of organised crime wearing thongs, carrying a stubby and helping his son with his origami. He's vicious, but real. As are his mob', holding gun's to someone's head in one scene and then playing boardgames in the next. They are well respected and if they ask you for a favour, you don't say no.

Enter Jimmy, played by Heath Ledger. Jimmy is your average Aussie guy in his early twenties. He's a good guy who wants to make a name for himself without getting on anyone's bad side, so when Pando asks Jimmy to deliver $10,000, Jimmy accepts.

Things start to get exciting when 2 teenagers manage to steal the money while Jimmy is at the beach. So now Jimmy is $10,000 in dept to a major mob boss. From here we start to see all the interconnecting stories with Jimmy and his attempt at a bank robbery to recover the money, Jimmy and Alex (the love interest, played by Rose Byrne), Pando trying to find Jimmy and, of course, the two teenagers and their new found prosperity. The concept is deepened by the narrator, Jimmy's dead brother, Michael, who was killed by Pando and his gang years earlier.

In the end all the storylines connected really well with a surprise twist to shock and stun the audience. I thoroughly enjoyed it.



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

positive
This one and the one prior "Toulon's Revenge" and the next one seem to be completely different from the first two movies where the puppets were not so nice. It is basically choose your series, the first two go together and paint the puppets as killers, while the next three are a series of them being the good guys. This one plays out to much like some cheesy television series episode to be as good as part three was and I never really had the urge to try and watch part five of the series. Basically, a kid gets the puppets while some strange dark lord or something sends his evil puppets out to kill, this dark lord looks like some sort of enemy from one of those live action Japanese shows like Ultraman. The movie is over before you know it though so it has to get credit for not inflicting you with a very painful to watch movie. Just to many plot holes and things in it for it to be considered an okay movie. You do get to see the guy who played Toulon in the last movie though then you have a very anti-climatic battle and wham the movie is over before it really begins.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Write a negative movie review.

After starting watching the re-runs of old Columbo movies, I thought they would all get about the same vote from me (6). But apparently I'm now starting to see differences in the movies. It happened in some of just previous episodes, that showed some pretty genius directing, and it shows in this one, but in the negative way.

The movie was so boring, that I sometimes found myself occupied peaking in the paper instead of watching (never happened during a Columbo movie before!), and sometimes it was so embarrassing that I had to look away. The directing seems too pretentious. The scenes with the "oh-so-mature" neighbour-girl are a misplace. And generally the lines and plot is weaker than the average episode. Then scene where they debated whether or not to sack the trumpeter (who falsely was accused for the murder) is pure horror, really stupid.

Some applause should be given to the "prelude" however. In this episode, a lot of focus is given on how the murderer tries to secure his alibi and hide the evidence etc. I really liked that. But alas, no focus on how Columbo reveals all this. And the "proof" that in the end leaves Columbo victorious is the silliest ever.

Rating: lies between 4 and 5
Write a negative movie review.

Gordon Scott with his well coiffed hair, hourglass figure and weird pidgin English has to be the worst of all the Tarzans. As for the other actors in this mess, they're on a par with any 4th grade elementary school drama class. I've seen Used Car Dealers in TV commercials who can act better. They make Clayton Moore look like Laurence Olivier! And where does Jane (the dull Eve Brent) get her lipstick and eyebrow pencils in the jungle? I realize these were made for kids but Wow! The plot line seemed OK but the director should have required more from his actors. I realize even the Weissmuller films have a few flaws but this one seemed so "low budget".
Genre: Cartoon short with no dialogue, African girl and lion.

Main characters: Inki, the lion and the minah bird. 

What happens: A lion wants to eat an African girl called Inki. There is also a rather confusing Minah bird. Is he on Inki's, or the lion's side..?

Message: Erm

My thoughts: I agree with Lee Eisenberg, this is rather mean on poor African people!! :-( I like how the main character, Inki (who is an African girl) is quite a nice main character, but they still portray her rudely and make a younger audience not like her very much just because she's HUNTING!! GRRR CHARLES M. JONES!! I don't like the lion very much and I think the minah bird is ALL RIGHT (I suppose). Personally I prefer Charles M. Jones's Looney Tunes cartoons in the future.

If you want to watch this anyway, then I recommend the website YouTube. Just type in "Inki" on the space in the main page and you're there. 

I wish Charles M. Jones had been nicer to Inki in this short. So there. 

Recommended to: People who are interested in old cartoons and/or people who are just messing around on You Tube.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: This movie is about a man who likes to blow himself up on gas containers.

He also loves his mommy. So, to keep the money coming in, he takes his act to Broadway.

SEE! CODY POWERS JARRETT BLOW HIMSELF UP ON HIS BIGGEST GAS CONTAINER YET! TONIGHT! 7.30PM! 

However, one day, his mommy dies and Jarrett goes berserk. He kidnaps the audience in the theatre and makes them all stand on top of a huge gas cylinder.

Losing control further, he makes them all scream "MADE IT MA, TOP OF THE CYLINDER!" in unison.

The noise is so deafening that it bursts Jarrets eardrums, causing him to topple from the cylinder into a vat of acid.

This Warner Bros. movie is not all it's cracked up to be.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Determine the sentiment:

don't buy this film for comedy value like I did, I didnt find it one bit funny, but so f****** miserable and lame it's unbelievable. I gave it to a friend for christmas which was pretty funny (on my side) I recently heard that he watched it and told me what an a**ehole I am!

There is nothing more frustrating than watching an over-lit, over dramatic, poorly scored scene in which the camera is sat there on a tripod and doesn't move... the film work is truely pathetic, and I can only say DONT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

Hadn't really heard too much about this movie so I went and saw it. I realized that this movie only appeals to someone who has not lived in the real world. And even those people would think this movie moved too slowly.

When the movie opens up, you see Nicole Kidman going to a nudist camp. Whoa. Shock. That scene, the dialouge, were all great. And then the movie went downhill.

While I respect the vision the filmmaker must have, this movie sucked. It was too slow, too predictable, and not moving enough. Robert Downey Jr. is great, as usual, but this movie is not good enough to sit through. It tries to be shocking and abnormal but makes poor use of the talents of all the actors.

Don't waste your money, even the sex scenes were boring.