cindermond/bento huggingface dataset:
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Ugh. Yes, it's exactly like the McMartin mess, or the horrific arrests in Wenatchee, Washington. In the movie, the mother keeps aggressively questioning her little boy, over and over and over, until he finally tells her what she obviously wants to hear. The court investigators and "therapists" repeat the pattern. The questioning itself is sexually creepy, a relentlessy repeated assault in its own way.

The moviemakers throw in a doctor talking about physical evidence of abuse, maybe to justify the film's point of view: that two- to four-year-olds never make "things like this" up. Well, they will if every adult they know is asking them to. The way this piece endorses such discredited interrogation techniques makes watching it an exercise in frustration for anyone who knows what it takes to get a successful prosecution in real life. 

(They also add a special arrest incident towards the end to "prove" their case -- no parallel to this fictional incident ever occurred in real life. Can't say more here without turning this into a spoiler, but you'll know it when you see it.)

Yes, children are abused, sometimes by paid care providers. But to watch a movie which affirms the ludicrous, hysterical accusations against so many totally innocent people, to watch re-creations of the trials that ruined the lives of countless children as well as the lives of the accused -- I didn't think I'd last until the end. It's just too sad, and made more so by the writing team's seeming endorsement of the abusive, paranoid, obsessional questioning techniques that started -- what can we call it? The bonfire of the sanities? 

No one I know has ever been accused of child abuse, thank heaven, but my 12-times-over-great grandmother was accused of witchcraft and killed for it. Mobs filled with what they think is holy anger are just as dangerous now as three hundred years ago. Sensational drivel like this -- "These accusations of Satanic abuse are cropping up all over the country, there must be something there!" "So tell the jury that!" -- just eggs them on. 

And whoever thought it was a good idea to have kids under ten, some of them under five, play these roles? It's traumatic to watch them delivering their lines; how much more traumatic was it to act these parts? The moviemakers' commitment to fight child abuse apparently doesn't apply to themselves. And what were the child-actors' parents THINKING? "Melinda" (uncredited, at least in the version on the A&E Network in 2005, but I think it was Cassy Friel) and "Teddy" (Brian Bonsall) were terrific. Professionals or not, though, they were too young to be exposed to this material, much less to be paid to act it out. Despite ruthlessly exploiting these real-life children, "Do You Know The Muffin Man" got an Emmy nomination for directing -- which just goes to show how crazed things were, back in 1989.
Uzumaki (that's Japanese for "spiral" or "vortex") is one of the most absurd films I've ever watched. A town becomes obsessed and then all-consumed by the vortex pattern in some very grotesque ways. Fingertips are cut off, people commit suicide in washing machines... just wild and crazy Japanese horror. Possibly as psychologically damaging as "The Ring". Generally not as scary as "The Eye", but the imagery in this is more sickening than most of the things in "The Eye". And not as gory as "The Untold Story"... but that isn't to say there isn't a fair amount of blood and dismemberment. Seriously, if you enjoy horror films and especially Asian horror - you must add this film to your list. A few parts are a little odd with the sound effects (the story is adapted from a manga comic and it shows), but it really fits. Unlike some films that try too hard to capture the original source ("House of the Dead") this one does it perfectly. The most original film you will see... not just this year, but probably ever. Recommended!

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

positive
Aside from a few good moments of fairly raw violence, this painful film is most notable for making 68 minutes seem like two hours.

It starts with an interminably long intro where the Leeds family is introduced, including two insufferable tykes and their adult brother and sister, completely clichéd Pa and Ma, and incredibly annoying Grandpa (played by Charles "Chic" Sales). While sitting down to dinner the family is disturbed by the sounds of gunfire, and rushes to the window in time to see two men gunned down by mobsters in the street. The mobsters flee through the family's house, leaving them as witnesses to the crime.

The rest of the movie consists of Walter Huston as the crusading DA occasionally interrupting long anti-crime speeches to make half hearted attempts at trying to protect the family from the mob. It all winds up in a predictable manner.

Good points about the movie include a couple of decent shootouts and a truly nasty beating, Nat Pendleton as one of the mobsters, and the gorgeous Sue Blane in a small role as the Leeds daughter. 

If you want to watch Huston play his early trademark crusading lawman, try 1932's "Beast of the City." Avoid this one if at all possible.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
I have loved the book "A Little Princess" for most of my life, and was very excited that there was a movie. But I was appalled at this adaptation. Not only is the acting wooden, and the plot a convoluted mish mash of various incidents in the book, but the theme is all wrong. The real theme of the story should be that a girl can be a princess only when she behaves like one, as Sara does when she gives 5 of her 6 buns to a beggar child, even when she herself is very hungry. The theme of the movie seems to be that all girls are princesses, which cheapens Sara's actions considerably, and seems more like it should be written on a Hallmark card than applied to this story.

There are many other things wrong with this movie- too many to list, but here are just a few of the larger ones: This story should be set in Britian in the mid 1800s, not America during the first world war. Miss Minchen is harsh to Sara from the start, making her actions when Sara is left penniless much less startling than they would be if she was syrupy sweet at the beginning, as she is supposed to be. Nowhere is it mentioned that Becky is black. Sara's father does *not* come back, he is dead. It is his closest friend, and collaborator in the diamond mines who finds Sara, and restores her to her proper place. In fact, the diamond mines are not even mentioned at all, though they are the source of Sara's wealth.

All through everything that Sara has faced, she always acts like a Princess, giving what she can, and forgiving those who hurt her. She would never have called Lavinia a "snotty two faced bully". Such a thing is completely out of character for her, and undermines the entire philosophy that she is to be well behaved no matter what.

This is by far the worst adaptation of a book to the screen that I have ever seen (with the notable exceptions of "Ella Enchanted", and "Anne of Green Gables the Continuing Story")The plot of the book is wonderful, and skillfully written, so I do not understand why the director felt that it needed to be changed to make it interesting. I would suggest that anyone wishing to know this story should watch the 1987 version, which is far superior. Or better still, read the book. It will be more worth your time than the hour and a half wasted on this version on the movie.

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

negative
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: i watched it because my friend said we could try it, when my father asked if we'd watch it. i didn't want to because it was such an old film, how could that be good ? i finally did watch with that friend and my father. my friend and i loved the film. the songs are great, the actors were cool and we were crazy about it. i guess this shows even though it's from dad's time that doesn't mean it can't be a good film. i bought the film not so long after seeing it on TV, i put it on a lot and sang along with the songs. i even watched it with my classmates on my birthday party. it's a nice, good, and sometimes funny film.

if you don't try, you can't say it's bad. even if you think no, i'm not going to watch a film from dad's time. try the first part of the film you can always stop watching if you don't like it. i really recommend it, it's great!!
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Famed filmmaker Werner Herzog's "Fata Morgana" is breathtakingly unorthodox. Although characters appear in the film from time to time, there is no actual story. The film is also not an educational or historical documentary. It's a film without an accompanying screenplay.

The film consists of curious background music and a somewhat illogical narrative VO, the combination of which overlays a long string of images from mostly, though not exclusively, the Sahara Desert. Some of the images are wonderfully odd, and out of the ordinary. The camera captures ghostly images, or mirages, optical illusions that tantalize and mesmerize.

This general cinematic trend is punctuated by occasional observational asides on serendipitous topics. For example, in one sequence a man wearing goggles gives us a mini-tutorial on lizards. And in what for me was the most captivating and bizarre sequence, a small inset room contains a man with dark goggles who sings in a voice that is totally distorted by the microphone he's using, accompanied by an old lady who plays a punchy tune on an old piano. Neither the man nor the old lady seems to enjoy what they're doing. How baroque.

"Fata Morgana" does have an underlying concept, one that unites the wide assortment of strange images and eclectic sounds. But that concept is so subtle, so opaque that you'll never figure it out without help. From this subtle theme the film does indeed make sense. Without that point of reference, however, the film can seem tedious and unending, a pointless parade of random earthy images and esoteric narrative gibberish.

Unapologetically redundant, thematically baffling, and cinematically heretical, "Fata Morgana" will likely either make you swoon with delight, or cause you to throw up. You'll either latch on to the film's Zen-like qualities or be tempted to smash the DVD into a thousand pieces. One thing that most viewers will agree on: "Fata Morgana" is ... different.

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

positive
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

I really should have learned more about this movie before renting it. It was one of those movies where you keep watching it figuring it's got to get better. Then, when it ends, you feel stupid for having wasted precious time in your life that you can never get back. Ice-T did his bad guy thing and, well, that was the highlight of the evening. The pictures of the shuttle looks like it was done with a little toy inside of a box and the spacewalking scenes were funny because you could see the strings attached to the space suits. The script was lacking and the car chase scene with the guy bleeding and going unconscious was incredible because he drove better than I could have on one of my best days. All in all, I have seen worse but this sure isn't one I'd recommend or want to remember.
This pointless film was a complete disappointment. None of the characters is likeable in the least, so you watch what befalls each without really caring. What was worst was renting this movie at a gay owned establishment only to find that this story of male hustlers was filled with homophobic young men engaged in plenty of scenes of straight sex and not one single scene of gay sex.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
This movie was really funny even though it wasn't meant to be! The acting was stupid and so were the voices. Pretty much all it was was some guy walking around a corn maze for an hour and a half. They threw in this stupid super natural thing that made it even dumber. It wasn't even like a normal movie, this weird creepy music was playing almost the whole way through the movie. What is it with corn maze horror films? Children of the corn was really scary I thought and I thought this would be something like it, but really it was just stupid. The main character guy just walked around aimlessly yelling for these two little girls. And then at the end he like kills someone or something. It's worth seeing if you're with your friends because it's really funny how bad it is, but if you're looking for a horror movie then don't waste your time
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Similar story line, done many times before, and this was no improvement.

15 minutes into this, and you should pretty much be able to turn it off - the ending was deja vu all over again.

The only morals I could see out of this are: - stupidity + criminals do not equal success - if he screwed you before, he's gonna do it again
Saw this film when it was an entry in Santa Fe Film Festival. Heavy film! Depiction of a completely dysfunctional family taken to another level of the extreme, might have left me depressed to the extreme, had it not been for very funny sight gags and dialogue along the way which lightened the film's overall tone. The relatively "uplifting" ending gave hope for those affected by the initial tragedy. Still, I did not walk out of the theatre ready to go to a fun party. The film stayed with me for several days.

Brought back memories of "Ordinary People", but with humor mixed in with the tragedy. I thought the acting was excellent, especially by Sigourney Weaver and Emile Hirsh. How each character dealt with the tragedy was at times sad, self-defeating, but also at times hilarious. Clever dialogue, and situations.

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

positive
A friend of mine once rented this, thinking since Peter Fonda starred in it, it couldn't be bad. WRONG! It's bad as anything can be. There is so much to laugh at and it's not the jokes. For instance, in one scene Hawken walks into the forest and when he comes out he is suddenly wearing a completely different outfit! Where was "the director's" brain when he shot that scene?!? Probably the same place Fonda's was when he agreed to do this flick. It's truly a shame one has to see such a fine actor go dumb in this poor excuse for a film.

Nobody's performance in this movie can be called acting. Jack Elam is brought in just to bring up the star count here, but all he does is looking startled in a very dark and awfully shot scene in some kind of bar. Not to mention the "Indians", the girl was so godawful I wanted to shoot her just to end her misery and mine as well. If I could give this a 0, I would. Shame that mark doesn't exist here. This truly reminds of a bad joke or an amateur footage made just for fun. This should serve as a proof of how bad B-movies can get.

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

negative
What's an example of a movie review?

This HAS to be my guilty pleasure. I am a HUGE fan of 80's movies that were designed to entertain and they didn't care if they offended anyone. This move has no meat, not substance, no deep thought provoking scenes. Just plain old college kids having fun and if a few breasts have to be shown, then so be it! This movie is for when you just want to relax and NOT think. Viva la nudity!
This thing works on all levels -- it's intense as a thriller, full of Lars von Trier homages, but also very much its own film -- and it does have a message: happiness comes from within, best personified in the wounded soldier who practically (and, believe it or not, humorously) disintegrates limb by limb throughout the film, all the while apologizing to others for imposing on them. You laugh at him, but you envy him as well. The central character is a well-meaning but clumsy writer who spends the whole film trying to help those he befriends on a train from Stockholm to Berlin just after World War II. He ties the parallel stories together, and really screws people up in the process. To say things go wrong is an understatement -- and structurally, the characters are all in perfect opposition to each other. It's like every one of them has an opposite -- just so tight, like watching anti-matter collide. You will not believe the sick stuff you end up laughing at. To say more would qualify as a spoiler -- all I can say is it is a shame this film has not been released in the US, not even on DVD. Some moron probably told them Americans wouldn't get it -- which is crap, because we not only "get" but produce things like South Park... If this film gets marketed in the US, it should be sold as a mainstream black comedy, because that's what it is. Over-the-top, sick and twisted, but fuuuuunnnnnyyyyy!

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

positive
This film is full of charming situations and healthy young people easy on the eyes, whether they are wearing clothes or not. The strong superstructure of its plot is upheld by the art of Shakespeare. As Joseph Papp discovered back in the 1950s in Central Park, Shakespeare's plots can be adapted to the manners and customs of the present. And, so the classic tales of cross-dressing and other mischief found in such lighthearted comedies such as Twelfth Night and A Midsummer Night's Eve and As You Like It are used to good effect in this film. All the young actors and actresses do a good job of advancing the plot with their blocking and dialog and costumes. And the idea of a soccer game to bring things to a climax reminds me of Bend It Like Beckham, another charming coming of age movie.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

This movie was the second movie I saw on the cinema as a child. It scared the living crap out of me. So much so that I asked my father if we could leave halfway through.

Nowadays, the only people leaving halfway through are the ones who have a good taste in movies.

I, however, still have fond memories of this flawed masterpiece of awfulness. Doug McClure and Peter Cushing in the same movie! Great! Monsters made of polypropylene substitute. Scary stuff. A rubber monster is, when you think about it, is even scarier than a real monster.

The astonishing thing about this movie is how good the score is. Truly rousing stuff.

There's also plenty of prehistoric tit on show, too. Nice.
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: "twin peaks" and "blue velvet" have always been two of my favourite pieces of film-making, and even though past films by lynch have been slightly disappointing for me they have always been worth watching a number of times. to be pretentious, lynch can be like a good wine - he must be savoured and mulled over. but in the end you must make up your own mind about what you have seen, for lynch never gives you the full answers.

many people will walk out of "mulholland drive" possibly wanting to throttle themselves over the mind-bending visual jigsaw puzzle that has just unfolded before them. but there is a twisted logic to this film, you just have to look for the clues. betty (naomi watts) arrives in hollywood, doe-eyed and in search of stardom. she then finds an amnesiac in her bathroom who has escaped from an attempted murder on mulholland drive. together they try to uncover the secrets behind the amnesiac's life. this all leads to a club called silencio, where a blue box will reveal all. and that is when the film throws everything out the window. people we thought we knew are entirely different people altogether... is it a dream? a reminiscence about life's previous escapades? you will either love this film or hate it. david lynch always draws such extreme reactions from his viewers. but as his universe itself is always about extremes, it is fitting that his films provoke such reactions.

It is best to look at this film thematically, rather than as a straight-forward narrative. and appreciate the fact that lynch is a film-maker who will still let you draw your own conclusions. he has had many imitators as of late, particularly in "vanilla sky", where a mind-bending film decides to give you all the answers in the last rushed five minutes, and you will probably forget about that film as soon as you walk out of the cinema. mulholland drive will haunt you.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Lets get one thing out of the way. I am a HUGE Bruce Campbell fan, I have the Evil Dead series, have the action figures, and have seen Bubba Ho-Tep. I am a fan of cheesy, laughable horror flicks and know how to appreciate the whole "it's so bad it's good" deal. 

I wish I could say the same about this movie. I watched this movie with high expectations, I wanted it to be good, campy, something from the BC we have all come to know and love. It started out promising enough, but after the first 20 minutes I resided to watching the rest of this sorry excuse of a movie as if I had just been shot with tranquilizer darts. 

The idea itself isn't a bad one; two men, don't get along, both killed by the same psycho woman, half of one man's brain is transplanted into the other's head, they argue, disagree and the comedy ensues. 

What killed me is how extremely unorganized and boring it was! It had potential, even as a camp flick to be so much better than it was. The plot was boring, even Bruce's zany physical slap stick couldn't make it work. 

Word's cannot even properly express the ridiculous robot that Bruce's wife's brain ends up getting put into. Easily the worst looking robot I have ever seen anywhere (even for a B movie.) The whole idea is dumb. 

What the hell was going through Bruce's mind when he made this steaming pile is beyond me. Why Ted Raimi didn't go running to his big brother asking him to slap some sense into Bruce and not to mention some lessons about making an enjoyable movie on a budget is beyond me.

Shame on you Bruce!!!

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

negative
Determine the sentiment:

This film requires a lot of patience. Because it focuses on mood and character development, the plot is very simple and many of the scenes take place on the same set - in Frances Austen's (the Sandy Dennis character) apartment. But the film builds to a disturbing climax.

The characters create an atmosphere rife with sexual tension and psychological trickery. It's very interesting that Robert Altman directed this, considering the style and structure of his other films. Still, the trademark Altman audio style is evident here and there. I think what really makes this film work is the brilliant performance by Sandy Dennis. It's definitely one of her darker characters, but she plays it so perfectly and convincingly that it's scary. Michael Burns does a good job as the "mute" young man. Regular Altman player Michael Murphy has a small part. The solemn, moody set fits the content of the story very well. In short, this movie is a powerful study of loneliness, sexual repression, and desperation. Be patient, soak up the atmosphere, and pay attention to the wonderfully written script.

I praise Robert Altman. This is one of his many films that deals with unconventional, fascinating subject matter. This film is disturbing, but it's sincere and it's sure to elicit a strong emotional response from the viewer. If you want to see an unusual film - some might even say bizarre - this is worth the time.

Unfortunately, it's very difficult to find in video stores. You may have to buy it off the internet.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: GoldenEye is a masterpiece. The storyline is amazingly depicted, the characters beautifully animated and the weapons are tyte. The storyline is so interesting, even when you complete every single mission, to get more levels you have to beat them on a higher difficulty. And the multiplayer mode is so tyte. You pick the weapons you want to play with, then play. Me and the three of my friends, along with my brother, always play Goldeneye. If you don't have this game, I suggest you buy it.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

Rated TV-14 for Sexual Content and Language.

I remembered hearing about this show back in 1998 when it used to play on the channel Teletoon.I didn't watch it then but now, it plays on the channel, Razer.I have seen about four episodes of this show and I must say, it is fairly intelligent and funny.

The show stars Jason Alexander of Seinfeld fame and also Tim Curry of Rocky Horror Picture Show and It fame.The show is about a duck who is a police officer.He basically does his job as a policeman, while coping with personal problems.This show is fairly funny at times and fans of animated-comedy will like this.
Pot-seeking pre-teen Joshua Miller (as Tim) throws his sister's doll into the river while Daniel Roebuck (as Samson) howls and smokes a cigarette, after killing Danyi Deats (as Jamie). The doll washes away, but the naked young woman stays by the "River's Edge", for any passerby to see. Viewing the dead body are a group of twenty-something teenagers, mostly classmates of the naked corpse. Stoners Keanu Reeves (as Matt) and Crispin Glover (as Layne) are found most camera-worthy. The friends wonder what to do about their guilty, beer-guzzling killer friend.

Veteran-in-the-cast Dennis Hopper (as Feck) keeps the youngsters' heads fed. Mr. Hopper once killed a woman. He lives with one of those life-sized sex dolls, with a mouth apparently ready for action. Ione Skye Leitch (as Clarissa) is a more living doll, and she is waiting for Reeves to kiss her. Their copulation is notably cross-cut with a flashback to the opening strangulation. An actual teenager, in her first feature role, Ms. Leitch is the daughter of sixties-singer Donovan. Make other quirky connections on your own.

You can read a lot into the movie, or not, depending on your mood. Some of the characters' backgrounds may be a little too subtle. Most obviously, the killer teen was teased; note his weight, attitude, and "toilet"-connected nickname. Some of the characters' relationships and motivations are too vaguely defined, but the cast certainly keeps the material interesting; and, director Tim Hunter, photographer Frederick Elmes, and writer Neal Jimenez are obviously skilled.

******* River's Edge (8/27/86) Tim Hunter ~ Keanu Reeves, Crispin Glover, Dennis Hopper, Joshua Miller

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

positive
It's rare for a movie to both encompass the process of problem solving and a fantastically far-reaching moral quandary AND be a fairly accurate historical movie, but Fat Man and Little Boy pulls off this trick.

It's the story of the Manhattan Project -- the World War II effort to build the atom bomb, told as the conflict between the two men who made it happen, Gen. Leslie Groves and Robert Oppenheimer.

The historical figures are a great study in opposites: military vs. civilian, practical vs. idealistic, emotional vs. scientific, brute force vs. consensus-based problem solving, immediacy vs. long-term vision. A fictional character, played by John Cusack, is added as a sort of synthesis of the two historical figures, to show the humanity that oddly escapes the real people (and of course the obligatory love interest, played by Laura Dern). One looking for a straight documentary might criticize the lapses into melodrama (and occasional looseness with the facts, but that's Hollywood for ya), but the purpose of fiction is to synthesize and galvanize events into more universal truths, so I think this can be forgiven.

One of the great visuals in the movie is when Oppenheimer witnesses the first atomic explosion: it's done entirely through his reaction, and considering the awesome visuals inherent in an atomic explosion, it's a brave and entirely effective way of describing in a single moment the ambivalent effect on humans of unleashing such power (the sort of thing lost in the typical Hollywood shoot 'em up version of history.) The use of music is particularly excellent in the last third of the movie.

Fairly accessible and highly recommended as both a historical movie and drama of the highest order.

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

positive
Hi guys, this is my first review and I would had to have picked the worst movie to review. As I only watched 5 minutes of it but trust me you could see this movie was going nowhere. The acting was deplorable, the camera work and lighting looked as though it was shot and run by a pack of 10 year old's. No offence to 10 year olds.I just couldn't take anymore I got off my couch, took the The House of Adam DVD out of the DVD player and threw it in the garbage. Maybe if you are a Colin Farrell fan this movie may interest you, because the character in the movie, Anthony, is a Colin Farrell look a like. But that is as far as it goes, he certainly will never have col's acting abilities. I gave this movie a rating of 1 (awful) only because there were no minuses in the drop down list cheers.

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

negative
I just finished up this unofficial adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft's "The Lurking Fear" that was shot in Louisiana. Outside of a few changes (names, setting), this follows the short story point by point for the first 70 minutes but then tries to inject its own "twist" ending that you could see coming from a mile away. Either way, it is a much better adaptation than Full Moon's THE LURKING FEAR. Too bad it is a terrible film. Director David McCormick shoots the thing with all the flair of an industrial short. I swear I counted maybe two camera movements. The creature design is cheap (we're talking store bought masks here) but shot in a dark manner (intentional or not) where they are somewhat creepy. The most impressive thing in the picture is the abandoned mansion but McCormick fails to exploit that as well. File this one under good adaptation, poor execution.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
"They both believed that a hidden sentiment has unified them. This certitude is beautiful,but the incertitude is more beautiful. They believed that they had never been met.Nothing has happened between them.But those roads,those stairs,those corridors for all that time they could have been met." Although it did not mean to be,it was a swan song.Two young people,who are neighbors and have never been met,are found in the same places,the same times,doing most of the times the same things.They finally meet in the dramatic and very brilliant end that brings them together.Meanwhile the woman has met an old man.Their relation is brotherhood-like.He told her his life.It was like the young one's but with better prospectives.The young man can do whatever the old man has not lived.He can be happy with the woman. The ending is exceptional.There is a ship wreck.The only survivors are the heros of the "Three colors".The man and the woman finally meet.The scene lasts a few seconds.The woman there looks like the photo she had taken for an ad in the beginning of the film;sad in a red fond."But every start is only the continue.The book of the life is opened in the middle."
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Write a positive movie review.

WHAT AN AWESOME FILM!!!!!!!! I came out of the theatre feeling stunned. The film that I had just seen was one of the best films I have seen in my life. I had my eyes glued to the screen. It's very symbolic, visually lush, beautifully shot, and gorgeously told. It's basically about two people who move into a flat and live next door to each other with there partners, who are assumed to be having an affair with each others partners. Assuming this, our two heroes act out what they think their partners are getting upto. There is an obvious repression of feelings for each other, with the use of vouryistic camera work, body language, and symbollic stairways. It's a visual feast, and hard not to like. Some of the story gets slightly confusing but that's nothing. The ending is one of the most beautiful (and anti-hollywood) endings I have ever seen in my life, and visually amazing. The films haunting score adds to the mood. I highly recommend this film to anyone with an open mind, and respect. What a superb film.
This is a movie that really makes you think about your life, our culture, family structures and situational actions. I will not give the plot in this post, I think others have beat me to it already. I hope that despite reading opinions on this site, you will take the chance and see this movie for yourself. I went to see this movie with my husband and a friend and I must say, after the movie was over there was total silence in the theater. After a few minutes I looked behind me and everyone in the theater was staring at the screen, lost in thought. This will make you delve deep into your psychological abyss to ponder several things:

How much does society influence my life and the lives of my generation?

How long does someone have to pay for mistakes that they have made?

If there is a second chance given, is it ever realized?

Is it better to live in a box or to not live at all? 

My questions are not intended to show my approval or disapproval of Leland's actions. I do not want my opinion of them to in any way dictate what you will take away from this film so I am not giving it. See it for yourself. I am still lost in thought, attempting to answer my many questions from the film. I enjoyed it greatly and hope that you will too. This film is not trying to answer questions, condone any action or promote any punishment. This movie is trying to make us all evaluate our lives and take off the rose colored glasses that most of us view the world through.

Great movie. 9 out of 10 stars
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I saw this film without knowing much about it at all. The split screen device was immediately irritating, and things didn't improve for me after the title sequence had finished. The plot, characters and dialogue were all extremely cliched - poor guy from abusive family gets thrown out of home, wants to get out of his 'lot', reinvents himself, changes his voice, dresses in others' clothes, is adopted by a gay man who he proceeds to disgard on his way up to becoming part of an international set of drug taking British aristocrats.

The estate of Patricia Highsmith (talented mr ripley) should be suing the makers of this film. The triple screen to me, together with the over 120 min duration, emphasises the almost non existent editing. Can't decide which image works and is the most powerful, why not show three and hope you get it right with one of them. This gimmick removed any connection or interest I had with any of the characters. Important dialogue was repeated 3 times across each screen, as if to say 'this is an important / moving / deep moment, ok!'.

Don't waste your time.


OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
And with those words one of the great movie publicity campaigns came to a conclusion. 'Garbo Talks' and she spoke those words in her first sound film, an adaption of the Eugene O'Neil play Anna Christie. 

Unlike with some other players and some other studios, MGM took great care in finding the proper vehicle for Greta Garbo. Many players who were fine in the universal medium of silent film would lose their careers because of talkies. Their heavy native accents would get in the way, some didn't know any English. 

It was no accident that Anna Christie was chosen for Garbo. First of all it being authored by one of America's leading playwrights, it was the kind of literary property that would have appealed to her. Secondly since the title role was someone who was Swedish, the accent could be explained. Finally a lot of the kinks from early talkies had been worked out, even though Anna Christie still made use of title cards.

Like most of O'Neil's work it's short on action, but long and deep on characterization. The story takes place on the New York waterfront where Garbo as Anna has come to live with her father George Marion. Marion ran away to sea years ago when Anna was a baby and Marion abandoned his wife. Anna has had to do what she could to survive in the adult world and that includes prostitution.

Marion of course is glad to see her, he even kicks out Marie Dressler, the old waterfront crone he's been living with for years to make room for his flesh and blood. Of course both Marion and Garbo have their problems adjusting to each other, not made easy when they give shelter to a sailor played by Charles Bickford who takes a fancy to Garbo.

Marion is repeating his role from the original Broadway production. The role of Anna on stage was done by Pauline Lord. Anna Christie ran for 177 performances in the 1921-22 season on Broadway. It's one of O'Neil's best known works and one that's revived frequently. 

Of course Garbo's performance with perfect diction even with a Swedish accent was acclaimed and her future in sound films was assured. Greta Garbo received an Oscar nomination for Best Actress and the film also got nominations for Clarence Brown as Best Director and William Daniels for Cinematography. Daniels should especially get a lot of kudos for the way he photographed the waterfront scenes. And Brown created the mood around the waterfront where the film is set.

Eugene O'Neil's work is timeless so Anna Christie even with a lot of the trappings of early sound films does not date the way many films of that era do. Garbo also shows she mastered the subtlety needed to work in the sound medium. Anna Christie is a classic, all the way around.

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

positive
Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Hick Trek is clearly a film that is envious of even an El Mariachi-level budget ($7,000). Still, the creators are able to pull off decent effects at times (often due to great editing) such as the beamings, the situations aboard the cat ship, and Slim T. Jerk's unique way of communicating with his ship without use of a traditional communication device.

The acting does have its rough spots but the portrayal of "Horns" McBoy is excellent and Fluffy is certainly not too hard on the eyes.

I do wish that the film had been longer than its approximate hour - and that should be seen as a compliment. This movie is a success due to the sincerity and hard work of those involved.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
What's an example of a movie review?

For those who expect documentaries to be objective creatures, let me give you a little lesson in American film-making.

Documentaries rely heavily on casting. You pick and choose characters you think will enhance the drama and entertainment value of your film.

After you have shot a ton of footage, you splice it together to make a film with ups and downs, turning points, climaxes, etc. If you have trouble with existing footage, you either shoot some more that makes sense, find some stock footage, or be clever with your narration.

The allegation that the filmmakers used footage of locales not part of the movie (favelas next to beautiful beaches) does not detract from the value of the film as a dramatic piece and the particular image is one that resonates enough to justify its not-quite-truthful inclusion. At any rate, you use the footage you can. So they didn't happen to have police violence footage for that particular neighborhood. Does this mean not include it and just talk about it or maybe put in some cartoon animation so the audience isn't "duped"? Um, no.

As for the hopeful ending, why not? Yes, Americans made it. Yes, Americans are optimistic bastards. But why end on a down note? Just because it's set in a foreign country and foreign films by and large end on a down note? Let foreigners portray the dismal outlook of life.

Let us Americans think there may be a happy ending looming in the future. There just may be one.
I'll admit that this isn't a great film. It practically screams "low-budget" yet oddly I still found myself liking the film because although it lacked quality it abounded with energy. It was like the Little Engine That Could and a movie merged into one! 

The film takes place at a radio network and concerns some of their low-level employees--two page boys (one very pushy and brash and the other one a wuss) as well as a new receptionist. All three have visions of radio stardom but must for now content themselves with their lowly jobs.

Into this story appears a murder that seems somewhat out of the blue. I didn't know that this was a murder mystery film and was taken a bit by surprise. However, like most B-mysteries, the cops are lamebrains and it's up to our pushy hero (Moran) to try to save the day. Throughout all this, I had a hard time deciding if Moran was obnoxious or endearing. I'm still not sure!! 

There is a moment in the film that is high on the 'cringe factor' and that is when the two pages try out for the roles of radio comedians. They show up in black-face and do a 3rd or 4th rate imitation of Amos n' Andy. Apart from being very insensitive, it also wasn't funny. Fortunately the producer of the show they were trying out for seemed to feel the same way.

Overall. it's easy to skip this film and I wouldn't blame you if you do. However, the weird and frenetic pace of the film actually seemed to make up for the artistic deficiencies of the film and I am glad I saw it. A good film? No. But one that is still worth a peek for fans of old Bs.

By the way, perhaps I just don't have very good taste, but I thought BOTH female singing divas really had poor voices despite how everyone in the film is captivated by their warblings. Listen for yourself and let me know what you think. I just couldn't believe either was allowed to sing on film--even if it was just for lowly Monogram Studios.

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

negative
Write a negative movie review.

I could not believe how terrible and boring this Hollywood remake was.It's so dreadful. It easily lands a place in my top 10 worst films of 1998.About the only thing it had going for it was Bruce Willis,who should stick to action films,as a completely emotionless killer who'd kill his own mother for the right price.But I'd rather listen to Robbie Coltraine talk American for a week than listen to Richard Gere's nauseating Irish accent again.But this film is also implausible,unconvincing,uneven,unexciting,unimpressive and lands Sidney Poiter in a rubbish role to make a possible career comeback.One for filmroll-footie purposes entirely.
An insult to both poker and cinema, this movie manages to make the most dynamic, brilliant, and fascinating figure in poker history into an utter bore. Still a fun film to make jokes about, from the lame gangster movie clichés of the first half to the incomprehensible nonsense of that second hour. Hilariously, Stu Ungar wins all three of his World Series titles without playing a single hand on screen. His infamous dealer abuse? 1 scene. His coke habit? 1 scene. His incredible memory? 0 scenes. They couldn't even get any real poker players. What did they cover? A lot of high angle shots from inside a house in the suburbs. Oh, and a montage of Stu waking up every day and shopping for meat which doesn't come anywhere close to making sense. Why do I care so much about this little Sopranos summer camp trying to cash in on the poker craze? Because I think there's still a great film to be made about Stu Ungar waiting for someone willing to do it right.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

negative
Wow, this is anti-Christian bias big-time! This is based on a Stephen King novel and he written this kind of bias before and then Hollywood exaggerates it even more. In this film, we see a Protestant minister and a Catholic priest BOTH act like fools and be profane at the same time. Of course, the Devil has taken over the town so maybe his influence is into these guys, too, but they are typical Hollywood portrayals. They never show a minister who talks and acts like Billy Graham, or your local minister or priest. And - another "given" - they make the Satan character the most interesting of the film. 

Max Von Sydow plays the Devil and makes him a likable guy. Ironically, Von Sydow has played a number of these roles after portraying Jesus in the 1964 film, "The Greatest Story Ever Told." You wonder why actors are so screwed up? They don't know if they are God, Satan or anyone in between.

Ed Harris, who played a lot of unlikeable roles up until the last few years, is appropriately cast in this story. He and the rest of the mean-spirited characters in this film do NOT make it fun to watch.

From what I've heard, King's book is even darker and more sick than this hate-filled movie but better constructed. Frankly, who cares. King and Hollywood deserve each other.

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

negative
Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

I love dogs, and the most interesting character in this movie is a Golden Retriever. He is smarter, better looking and more interesting than any of the human characters. Like many other contributors I have not read the book but I doubt that having done so would change my opinion of the movie. It is predictable from the first five minutes on. No surprises. Mad scientists create a monster that gets loose and a teen age boy and his wonder dog collaborate to destroy it. All in all the movie is a dog. But as I said, I love dogs and will therefore give this movie a 7/10 rating. Watch it if it comes on TV, rent it if you are bored and nothing else catches your eye, but don't buy it unless it is on special.
Cooley High is considered one of my best all time movies. It certainly reminds me of days of my youth growing up in the cities of Cleveland and Chicago during the early, mid, and late 1960's. What ever happened to Brenda and Pooter? Some one need's to track those two down. Brenda for her beauty and Pooter for his innocent wit. They both deserve to be recognized even 31 years after this film was debuted. I think a lot of the fans of this movie would like to find out what happened to them as well as others who acted in this fun filled movie. I certainly think this movie should be entered into some type of MOVIE HALL OF FAME. All of the cast of this movie was great. My opinion is of " Cooley High " is turn back the hands of time, those were the fun years.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

positive
Andrew Gurland's "Cheats" is his fictionalized "true story" about four high school friends who maneuver to cheat on tests. The quartet are: supercilious school-hating Trevor Fehrman (as Handsome Davis), his likewise good-looking pal Matthew Lawrence (as Victor), their chubby school-hating chum Elden Henson (as Sammy), and crooked geekster Martin Starr (as Applebee). The adults include high-strung North Point principal Mary Tyler Moore (as Mrs. Stark) and pornography-loving father Griffin Dunne (as Mr. Davis). The high jinks begin with Mr. Fehrman and Mr. Lawrence supposedly urinating on a teacher's grade book. Put this one at the bottom of the pile; and, be thankful it doesn't go on anyone's permanent record.

*** Cheats (2002) Andrew Gurland ~ Trevor Fehrman, Matthew Lawrence, Elden Henson

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

negative